Specifically where it relates to violent crime.

Essentially it is supposed to make statements like the following a rule violation:

“If someone murdered [fictional person] they would totally get acquitted because any jury would just nullify the charges.”

While the following sentence would not be a violation of TOS:

“The murderer of UHC CEO Brian Thompson should get acquitted via Jury Nullification because [reasons] and this is super dope.”

The first example could be read as a call to violence, while the 2nd is not calling for a crime.

As I understand it “All future jurors in money laundring cases should nullify, because tax evasion is… like… super cool” would also be legal, because money laundring is not a violent crime.

Unfortunately, the only hardware component you can actually download is RAM. And increased hardware prices are going to be the primary cost factor.

The toolset they use to run their containerlike system wrapping the games is called “pressure vessel”.

Membership fee? For shaving?

What is the upside of allowing the government to kill citizens?

Another reason to use Logitech mice: ease of repair. Apart from skates covering the screws on the underside, Logitech does not use glue to keep it’s mice together. And due to their popularity, replacement parts (including the battery btw) are widely available even for older models.

Yes. But the state still has to prove that what you did was a) a Nazi thing and b) that you either knew or should have known it was so.

So if you show the Hitler salute, you’ll be arrested and fined. If you give a speech in which you suggest that immigrants need to learn “the liberating power of work” (referencing the Motto of Auschwitz “Arbeit macht Frei” “Work makes Free”) that is totally fine.

The first randomized, controlled clinical study to attempt to study this “reversal” protocol’s effectiveness came to an abrupt stop in 2019, after three participants landed in the hospital hemorrhaging blood.

The general horrificness of this aside. How do you recruit participants for a study like this? “Do you want to be pregnant but don’t mind having an abortion? Would you like an abortion but don’t mind if you actually get it reversed?”

“We totally would have saved the climate if you had only paid us enough.” Bitch, please.

The trillions the oil industry has earned over the years were not enough?
You had enough money, you had the knowledge of the problem and what you could do to fix it and you had enough time to change your strategy from lieing and denying.

The only thing you didn’t have was the will to give up a single cent to help clean up the damage you have done.

Imagine what could have been done with half of the 52 trillion the oil and gas industry earned in the last 50 years (that’s without coal, even). Imagine how far we could have developed renewable energy sources. What we could have achieved with carbon capture. What could be done today if the fossil industries propaganda hadn’t turned climate change into a question of political opinions.

Fuck that guy. He and his ilk created this mess and they got fat of it. He doesn’t get to shift blame.

Being a democracy has nothing to do with committing war crimes.

Don’t actually tear down church buildings though.

Many of them are beautiful and even if the morals of the Organisation(s) that built them are, to put it mildly, “outdated”, it is still a huge part of our cultural history.

Use the spaces to open “sexual health centers” (like Planned Parenthood on steroids), libraries, and in like 1 or 2 per continent you could create memorial centers to keep alive the memories of the suffering created by organized, doctrinal religion.

Moving past a phase of our cultural development has to include remembering that phase. The church buildings turned to useful purpose will be powerful monuments.

Specifically for Ukraine there is also the fact that, when your country is under attack, nationalists are the first ones to sign up to fight the invaders. It’s like their whole thing. And the intersection in the Venn diagram of Nazis and nationalists is usually almost a circle.

Actually, no.

The science is quite precise, if largely theoretical. Neither the article nor the study it is based on are doomerism. If you’d read it you would have found the following paragraph:

Their results showed that we’re not necessarily headed for certain climate doom. We might follow quite a regular and predictable trajectory, the endpoint of which is a climate stabilization at a higher average temperature point than what we have now.

Basically they are saying “this new method (which is a very macroscale perspective) does not predict a stabilization at preindustrial climate given the amount of change the system already has experienced. Also if we really want to we can probably kick earth into a runaway greenhouse system”.

They do not claim that we are already at that point nor that we will inevitably cross it. Only that it is possible for us to do it.

Yes. And that’s worse.

It’s a trilogy of children’s books, where the first two get a movie each and the last book is split into 2.