And people say abortion is bad.

Not accoridng to them. They rightfully consider themselves Euroasian, and a growing number of Europeans see them that way too.

Indeed. I chalk it up to the power of narratives and emotions. These are emotional decisions by managers who don’t know what they’re doing but salivate at the opportunity to limit someone’s access to something for not paying them or for using something differently than how they’d like to after paying. You know, stupid s**t like kernel level anti cheat and denuvo.

Thanks, good to know

Out of curiosity, is this something that can be circumvented by playing in a Windows VM?

Tell me you have no expertise in political science without telling me you have no expertise in political science

I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that they mistook him for someone else.

Nevermind

But aren’t you doing exactly that?

Please tell me more about this brother laser thingy and why it is a good alternative

Yes, US companies have a lot of IP conflicts with China and we do tend to hear about them through media. But that paints a skewed picture of what’s actually happening.

If you were to research it more carefully, you would find out that the vast majority of these claims (>90%) are not pursued by US companies. As a deliberate, strategic decision. They don’t want to.

Ask yourself why.

Don’t believe me? Google is your friend.

You would be correct if that is how the copyright and trademark system actually worked.

But they don’t. They favour the big guy, not the little guy. Crazy, I know. Wait until you find out how modern taxation systems work.

This is insane - Pokemon cannot trademark having mounts in games. Screw Niantic, the Pokemon company and especially Nintendo which basically controls the first two. Screw them

Do not support these companies.

Sincerely, A life long Pokemon fan

deleted by creator

External self-determination cares little about national laws. That’s kinda the whole point. The real question is what type of conditions need to be met before a right to external self-determination arises and is recognized by other countries. In general, most countries don’t recognize a right to unilateral seccession under any condition. At the same time, it is also agreed that if a state were to make the practice of internal self-determination virtually impossible or meaningless, then a right to external self-determination should arise. In which case any “no backsies” rule under US national law (even the constitution) may be seen as a breach of fundamental rights.

With independence, it usually comes down to who has the bigger stick (in both material and ideational terms). The are definitely scenarios in which US states can make a valid legal case for independence but the conditions for that still haven’t been met as most international lawyers will agree that Americans in all states are afforded the right to internally self-determine. For now. Things are changing quickly.

So was Hitler. Thing is, natural law and positive law can diverge significantly, meaning ctitizens will sometimes have to organize against the products of positive law to preserve their decency and freedom.

Great read, thank you for sharing.

You need to drink your meds, grandpa.

At least prove a point.

Oh, I think you’re doing just fine on that front. (And let’s not pretend like “proof” or “evidence” have any relevance when making claims that not only have no basis in reality, like “conservatives don’t talk about crypto”, but obviously seek to supplant it).

But again, you’d be much more effective if you dress up facts rather than fiction. You also need to build up to the absurd, not start with it. You can’t just convince people that reality is actually the opposite of what is perceived. You first need to shake up trust in consensus based reality and basic scientific knowledge, and only then start to gradually inteoduce the spectacle in a piecemeal fashion.