Yes. Actually go further, anyone who doesn't argue there is no innocent US president is disingenuous or a total idiot.
Abraham Lincoln's long term solution to race relations was genocide by relocation. He wanted another trail of tears to whiten the US, there was just a pesky war in the way. Freeing the slaves was a punishment for white people, not a benefit for black people. There is no "good" US president
A fungal infection most common amongst teenagers forced to wear sweaty unwashed clothes over and over again for gym and sports because the school system is somehow set up too stupidly to effectively deal with mildewy clothing in 2025
It can happen to anyone. It's just super common amongst teens because enforcing and facilitating hygiene for young men is the lowest priority in our society for some reason
Not op, but I'd think it's not that impressive. That's the case for all things, not just drinks or this is not a free pass to pound 15 Red bulls you animal
Except you can and projecting your beliefs onto others is the literal definition of society. You can't not project your beliefs onto others
We are not bystanders. All societies are negotiated both within them between members and between members and observers outside. The idea that anyone should forgo their opinion on another culture is naive and asinine. You're asking for all social exchange to stop in order to preserve an arbitrary set of rules in amber. The system you want to uphold as precious is both not real, and not valuable enough to justify the cost
Oh also, free speech is an inalienable right. In fact I'd go so far as to say learning it's inalienable is how you learned the word inalienable. Free speech is a human right. Anyone anywhere who is limiting it is commiting a crime against humanity. The opinion of the people in charge doesn't change that. That's literally how inalienable rights work. So, no fucking clue what you were on about there
Also also, if you were Canadian, what trouble could you possibly get in being critical of Thailand? You're either an insane coward or a liar for that one
Not being invested enough to engage isn't pathetic, it's the normal response. It's not pathetic to not be chronically online my dude
I don't doubt op has a stalker, but not commenting everywhere isn't what makes them pathetic. It's all the times when the stalker is engaging that are pathetic, not the times when they aren't
Should or shouldn't doesn't matter. The majority wants an account that doesn't require external verification.
Ignore the fact that that's not truly possible. People will go to whatever platform makes them feel it's true the best.
Being capable of effectively convincing people your platform will provide this is a baseline requirement to even start having this discussion. The anonymous Internet isn't something most people want
We have these in Lansing MI too! Part of the Satanic Panic back in the 80s involved kids playing D&D down in parts of the steam tunnels under MSU, which, I'm told, is much harder to do now ~~unfortunately~~ very fortunately since children don't know how to look out for a superheated steam leak and it was only a matter of time before a child got fucking bisected
Ftfy
He's certainly not fucking innocent
Yeah... Because China is big into encryption
but that wasn't his last reply
"free" when you find it on the side of the road, but expensive to actually maintain without having it die on you.
The download is free, but pay for it or it's going to die.
If you were in Thailand or China and you posted what you did, you're even more of a moron than I thought.
I reject your false framing. You're conflating society and the government in your question.
To answer the question I'm pretending you meant to ask: No, The government should not have the requisite monopoly of violence necessary to enforce speech laws. It is a human right. Any sanction should be exclusively received from society.