They don't have the morally high ground. They chose to help a fascist get to power.
Kamala Harris, the Democratic Presidential Nominee, lost. Because of her poor campaign tactics, she allowed a fascist to get into power. Are you equally upset with her for not doing what it takes to stop fascism?
If not, why was the "right answer" for this election to support Israel when we know that she lost following that tactic, and not supporting Palestine?
Could have said something specific then, rather than "literally anything acute". As it is, I don't know why you'd assume your magical elf that's known to cause cancer could also be so benign as to only give people a cold.
All I can really say is, if you don't want your personal image to be commodified, you probably shouldn't commodify it. The fact that Alex Jones has used his company that's deeply tied to his personal image to attack and lie about the families of the victims of Sandy Hook make his case particularly unsympathetic, and so now that he owes an absurd amount of money to those families I think he should be forced to give up his social media accounts if it helps give those families what they're owed.
It also doesn't help that he still thinks there are "unanswered questions" about what happened at Sandy Hook and doesn't feel any remorse for lying and spreading misinformation about the families for years.
Take his real assets and sell them.
This is exactly what the lawyers trying to take the account think they're doing. There's some real value in having access to his social media followers, especially if that access can be tied to the purchase of the larger operation.
But I think they’re not ‘his’ assets, they’re the choices of those subscribers. To ‘buy’ them seems like defrauding the people who chose to listen to him.
And those subscribers can easily unfollow him as soon as they don't like what they're hearing. It's not like once you follow someone on twitter you're forced to see updates from them for the rest of your life. But since they're following TheRealAlexJones probably to get updates about his business at InfoWars, it makes sense that the social media account that he uses to promote the business being sold needs to be considered as part of the business.
For something like t-shirt likenesses, I suppose I think the line is the person’s consent
So if he had a warehouse full of tshirts with his name or face on them and decides after filing bankruptcy that he doesn't want to sell them anymore, should he just get to keep it? Should it all be destroyed?
If he took a cattle brand and burned his name into everything on set, does that mean he shouldn't have to sell it any more?
In the extreme case: a person is legally entitled to sell nude images of themselves, but surely a court would never order it, even if that person had been previously selling nude images.
If someone was already selling porn before, do you think if they continued to that they shouldn't have to give any of that money they earned to the people they owe money to? This case isn't anywhere near that extreme because he's not the only person in the world named 'Alex Jones', so how much of his 'likeness' is being sold is debatable to begin with. And also, we aren't talking about future permission to use his likeness, we're talking about a social media account used to promote his business.
You can either mitigate the inevitable damage
At some point we need to admit that harm reduction still means harm. At the very least, we shouldn't berate people for looking for alternatives when the options presented would both cause unnecessary damage.
“Driven” suggest more than half of total pregnancies,
Less than 20% of a total is “significant”?
The amount the percentage represents is irrelevant. A billion people could be involved, but if the total is 7 billion, it’s not going to be a significant part of the total trend.
In the terms of your analogy, this is about 3 people out of 20 pedaling a (weirdly long) bike and steered by all of them (somehow). Would you say that group of 3 are driving? Or would you concede it’s the two groups of 6 that are mostly driving the bike?
Your "words wholly" includes more than whatever you think it does.
My point has always been about this study
Has it? I think you're far less clear and careful with your words than you think you are. You've been arguing from the start that less than half of something isn't and can't be significant. We aren't even discussing the text in this study that you can read in the screenshot:
More than half the drop of America's total fertility rate is explained by women under the age of 19 now having next to no children.
What you're saying now about “the traditional driver of USA birth rates” isn't reflected in your other comments.
I think the most effective protest would be one that directly acts against what they're protesting against, like putting traffic cones on self driving cars or the Tyre Extinguishers deflating tires.
But that kind of protest doesn't really apply to sending billions of dollars worth of weapons overseas unless you want to do something very illegal or violent. So whatever the people protesting think will help seems good enough to me.
Am I supposed to be seeing a fact check during the debate? Because it seems more like "I want to move on to another subject" and "well anyways" the first few times the moderator speaks.
I have been in locker room conversations enough to know what goes on in both boys and girls sides, because I am a privacy advocate (I write guides) and people find it easy to trust me, and know their secrets will never leak out. Taboo topics are a massive part of it. Being a fuckboy/hoe is often discussed. Dark humour and alcohol is often there. There are plenty things that go on, that never come out. And both sides do it.
Taboo topics are always spicy and welcome when the public morality filter/mask is worn off in a private setting. Humans are evolved animals and the primal instinct desires sometimes want us to get dirty, messy and perverted. Practically nobody is an exception to this.
Again, do you want it to be normal that some people get objectified? Do you think it's good that sometimes you go on a rant about some perceived negative quality other people have? You could try actually talking to the people you're gossiping about, give them some kind of feedback if their behavior is anti-social. But instead, you're here defending group chats where people share (fake) nude photos of their (underage) classmates.
You also haven't shown any real evidence that feminism is behind any of the problems you see in the world. Don't you believe in the pareto principle? Do you think it might be possible that all the negative, vitriolic things you see (that you assign to all of women and feminism) comes from a small minority of people? And that, just maybe, those people don't even have to be part of the feminist movement at all?
And I really don't care about your favorite youtubers, I just think you shouldn't listen so much to just one source. Especially when all they do is react to the latest social media outrage. But specifically for Fresh and Fit: that video you linked came out at the beginning of June, and the demonetization happened in mid August.
Since when has youtube had text/image posts? How do you even get to them? Are they a mobile only feature?
The NCBI study actually supports my claim - the outdoor areas show NO particulate matter - thats what’s actually harmful to your health.
Among the different types of outdoor areas, the highest median outdoor SHS levels (nicotine: 4.23 µg/m3, PM2.5: 43.64 µg/m3) were found in the semi-closed outdoor areas of venues where indoor smoking was banned.
You can't expect me to take you seriously if you're just going to lie about what the page says. I'll admit it might not be the best page to prove my point, but it does still show particulate matter exists in noticeable amounts outside. Also, why are you trying to say that nicotine has no harmful effects?
You're just making stuff up.
Stop putting words in my mouth. I wasn’t giving examples of things that should be allowed or banned.
Living in a tolerant society means that we need to be willing to deal with these little inconveniences in our lives. One of my neighbours has kids who love to play on a go-kart and wake me up at 6am on a Saturday morning
As long as it’s not a direct risk to health (e.g. smoking indoors) and not extremely obnoxious (playing extremely loud music and refusing to turn it down) people should be able to do what they want to.
There are plenty of studies which show that a lack of sleep leads to significant health issues.
You gave an example of something that should be allowed (kids being loud), described that same thing as something that shouldn't be allowed (people being loud), and then justified why it shouldn't be allowed (sleep is important).
The open secret link is just showing individuals that have donated more than $200, and the morningstar link doesn't mention the green party at all.