todd_bonzalez

I think the issue here isn't that it happened long ago that they've had a chance to change.

The issue is that they have not changed...

Journalism

Not just the rich gays. Gays that think they're gonna be rich in the future.

Not really a gay thing specifically. Lots of temporarily embarrassed millionaires out there...

Buckle up buttercup, it's 46 days until election day. If you don't wanna hear about it, log the hell off. Or at a minimum, unsub from the "Political Weirdos" community if you don't want to see tons of posts like this...

My support for Palestinians isn't automatic support for everything they support. I don't give a shit if the majority support Hamas in some way, even if I strongly disagree with that support.

But that disagreement doesn't mean I'm going to stand back and watch these people get wiped out in a coordinated act of genocide. I can disagree with a culture's values without being complacent as members of that culture are mass-murdered.

There are a fringe minority here who want to see the roles reversed and a genocide committed against the Israeli people, but those people are psychopaths, and they are outnumbered. Most of us just want to see a stop to mass civilian casualties, and you can't both-sides that issue right now because, even including the Oct. 7 attack a year ago, Palestinians are suffering orders of magnitude more than Israelis right now.

Also, You're a J.D. Vance Supporter...

Being anti-Arab is just being racist, so good, glad you're the only overt racist I've seen so far.

The guy I was responding to wasn't earnestly saying that the guy should be charged. He was making a bad faith argument that any law enforcement interaction that doesn't include an arrest is unlawful. He's making it seem like the police have no authority to speak to you without a warrant. I was informing him of what is actually happening, not saying he shouldn't be arrested.

If we had the money

If you had that kind of money, you could just build extensive ground-based fiber and radio networks that invalidate Starlink.

there's no legal repercussions to going up there and deorbiting the satellites right?

Lmao, what would ever make you think deliberately destroying communication infrastructure would be legal?

Maybe install a defense platform to shoot down any more from spacex, oneweb or whoever else tries putting them up.

If you're talking about shooting satellites out of orbit from the ground, you don't understand how orbital spaceflight works. If you're talking about putting weapons in space, that's a violation of the Outer Space Treaty.

Also, blowing up satellites just creates clusters of space junk we can't get rid of, so it's a non-starter.

The scale at which we build radio telescopes on the ground simply isn't possible in space.

Our wetware neutral networks probably aren't supposed to engage with synthetic content like this either. In a few years we're gonna learn that overexposure to AI generated content creates some sort of neurological problem in people, like a real-world "nerve attenuation syndrome" (Johnny Mnemonic).

It's called being let go with a warning. It's letting you know your threats are being taken seriously, and that consequences are coming if you don't stop.

And what has he done since? Gone back online and said that killing Kamala Harris is constitutionally protected because of the Second Amendment... (It is not)

I hope they arrest him, because making terroristic threats is, in fact, a crime.

Yes, I am absolutely okay with this. Violent threats and calls for murder are not protected speech, and there should be legal consequences for them. Free speech is not absolute.