Stupidly enough, one of the arguments used to deny this claim here
"if we don't sell it, others will so it doesn't help"
...so there's no point in reducing these sales
Was just used to justify the opposite when ruling about piracy
"if they we can't offer pirated content, then everyone will"
...so they also banned a bunch of other stuff and can add to the list later
But you see, it's different because... Reasons.
It's all politically motivated judges who try to appear above the fray, but they're not. It's an inherently political position as a judge and we'd be better off seeing things how they are.
My moment was looking back to how the federal government passed a law to strip highway funding if states didn't raise their drinking age to 21. The same logic was used to force states to expand the ACA in each state, where other federal medical funding would be cut if states didn't take advantage of the ACA in their state. Ooopsies, as we know now, Republican judges struck that down and we have a half-baked medical solution. It's still better than before though, albeit hobbled.
Litigation has failed.
Like trump they will run out the clock.
I hear gasoline is flammable.
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.