Well the cops might be taking pics of a dead body the next day. So then they could say “yeah we probably should’ve responded to that one last night, but we just couldn’t risk that it might’ve been one of the 0.01% of these calls where it turns out it’s an internet swatting thing.”
So you’re encouraging people to commit violence based solely on some shit they’ve seen on the internet?
What makes you any different than any other nutjob that does some crazy shit because “they did their own research” on the internet?
You aren’t going to have an impact on the violence that’s happening on the other side of the world by doing violence in your own country. Get some perspective. You’re saying that people should bring an end to violence by using violence. How does that make any damn sense?
Buy 'em out, boys!
Dude’s gotta feed the monkey. You could donate some money to him on patreon then he wouldn’t need to have an amazon affiliate link.
What do estimate the percentage of these calls are some internet loser swatting someone rather than it being a legitimate report of domestic violence? You may be underestimating the number of actual domestic violence situations where the police need to intervene be a few orders of magnitude.
Someone calls an emergency number and says “My husband has a knife and he’s threatening to kill me!”
Should the operator say “nothing we can do until you provide provide me with some evidence, ma’am” ?
Seen it before… watched it again anyway. Praise Vectron!
Yeah I used to be like that, just not something I’d think of. Now I just automatically swap it out when I finish a tube of toothpaste.
Some of the ad revenue goes to pay the people that made the content tho.
But I have over 10,000 bookmarks!
Problem I have is I got my lastname@gmail.com as my email address. Many times when people with my same last name they’ll type firstname<space>lastname@gmail.com for their email address. And guess who gets signed up?
At first I unsubscribed, replied back to emails that were meant for someone else, etc. But the number of things to unsubscribe from unmanageable and it gets to be too much of a chore.
What they didn’t say was Jamie and Adam were shitting themselves in the workshop on a regularly basis.
You know Canada is always lobbying Congress for trade deals, right? Every country does these kinds of things with every country they have relations with. The term we usually use for it is “diplomacy”.
In real life, Qaddafi got rid of landlords in Libya. It resulted in a lot of housing problems.
Some people don’t have wealthy parents that can buy them a place to live outright. There is a need to have housing available that doesn’t require someone to have wealthy parents or get out a large loan. The ability to rent a place is important.
The real problem is the high cost to own a place to live which results in people having to rent when they’d rather own a home.
Sure it seems draconian, but how else are we going to get the kids to stop vaping and start smoking cigarettes like we did when we were in high school?
Won’t someone please think of Phillip Morris’ profit margins?
But yeah if you think that we were blameless on 9/11 disregards the history of US foreign politicy.
This is where “But yeah if you think those countries weren’t entirely blameless disregards these country’s support of terrorism”
I won’t though, because unlike you I don’t think there’s any valid rationalization for deliberately targeting civilians. That would just be me lowering myself to the level you lowered yourself to by rationalizing the targeting of civilians.
But you don’t really have any kind of argument against killing civilians because you’ve already suggested that it’s acceptable to do so.
Many many times more. An eye for an eye leaves the world blind.
Why don’t you apply this to 9/11 and October 7? What al Qaeda and Hamas did are an “eye for an eye” mentality aren’t they? Why not just do the sensible thing and denounce these “eye for an eye” actions as inexcusable?
And what’s the point of bringing up that some of them may have done compulsory service at some point in their life under a story about Hamas killing six hostages?
There is a context to this, and there is a narrative being promoted that justifies Hamas taking hostages (which is a war crime) and justifies the killing of these unarmed hastages (which is also war crime) because they were at one time IDF (aeven if that were the case, it would also be a war crime to summary execution prisoners of war).
It’s all about building a permission structure to make the war crimes of Hamas acceptable by attempting to classify the hostages as IDF.
Twitter did have an office in Brazil (with legal representation) but after refusing to implement court ordered bans, the court fined them. Elon Musk threw a temper tantrum and shut down the Brazil office and eliminated his legal representation in Brazil.
Note that Musk will implement bans when requested by authoritarians, just for some reason he draws the line when it’s a court order in a democratic country.
Anyway the situation where Twitter doesn’t have legal representation is a situation Elon Musk created. Basically “I fired my lawyers so there’s nothing you can do against me now! Checkmate!” So Brazil says “fine, I guess we’re banning Twitter then…”
So Space Karen thinks the the law doesn’t apply to him and it’s going to cost him a lot of money. Again.
To be more fair, Brazil is a sovereign country, Starlink is not.
You’re not offering any alternatives.