HenchmanNumber3

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 23 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Depending on your situation, being married could actually mean you pay more in taxes.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

Hence the desire for a single player offline version of the game...

Not everyone believes that devs are the authority on what makes a game fun, which is why mods are so common on PC games.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago

but that's part of it, just like irl.

Some people might not want annoying aspects of IRL in their fantasy escapism games involving roleplay...

[–] [email protected] 34 points 5 months ago (12 children)

That's the part I always hated. It was hostile towards people who liked the lore but didn't want to group up with some guy named LaserButt4000 who didn't want to go to the same dungeon as you, but was happy to get your rare loot in a bad roll of the dice.

Private servers with scaling for dungeon soloing were a godsend. WoW is actually awesome as a single player game. It's unfortunate the devs never realized that.

[–] [email protected] 39 points 6 months ago (4 children)

This is a misleading perspective. Why would you need to codify "settled law?" SCOTUS had ruled that it was a constitutional right already so you wouldn't need a separate law.

You're also ignoring Casey. It wasn't just Roe.

They also don't typically say they're "pro-abortion."

The infographic states "facts" that weren't relevant at the time.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago

Malice and arrogant ignorance can have the same functional result and at least malice would involve them being honest with themselves. Arrogant ignorance is worse because they're judging and harassing you with their ignorance but think they're saving your soul.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago

A democratic republic is a representative democracy.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 6 months ago

Some of the universities mentioned in the article are public institutions. SCOTUS held in Healy v James that the 1st Amendment applies to public universities. So some of the actions could be considered 1st Amendment violations.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago
  1. Protest X
  2. X doesn't like you protesting them
  3. You protest where X can't see or hear you
  4. ...?
  5. ~~Profit!~~ Effective protest!
[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Sure, or they could even protest separately at home where no one can see or hear them. That'll be effective too!

[–] [email protected] 11 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Except these restrictions prevent speech, not harm.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 6 months ago (2 children)

That's a false dilemma. There's a middle ground between allowing only approved speech and allowing any speech whatsoever. And we already make that distinction. Fascists don't believe in free speech and threaten the rights of others through threats of violence, which isn't protected speech. Likewise fraud, libel, slander, blackmail, false advertising, and CSAM aren't protected and are considered harmful.

view more: ‹ prev next ›