Getting addicted to drugs isn’t exactly an insurmountable barrier

Damn Texas. Sometimes you do manage to do something right.

They can be arrested or just refused entry if they are known to be connected to extremist groups. They should be screened as any other person traveling to Denmark.

If we let them, especially external actors, influence our domestic policy, then they win. Look at what happened to the USA after 9/11. The terrorists won and it’s proof that terrorism works. Not only do the people capitulate to the terrorists, but bad domestic actors use it as a means to push some other (anti freedom) agenda.

The alternative is just laying down and letting medeival assholes decide domestic policies of the secular world. Don’t let terrorism win.

The burners are not causing problems. They’re exposing a sickness that these individual people have in their minds. A healthy person doesn’t try to hurt someone just because they’re offended.

These sick people who would hurt someone for burning a book are the same sort that would throw acid on a woman for some bullshit medieval family honor, for example.

Better to incite them and get them arrested and perhaps even deported before they’re allowed to hurt anyone. It shows you won’t tolerate it in your society.

Hell, it may even encourage more moderate Muslims to move to that country if they know that the society doesn’t tolerate the actions of the small, insane minority. The Muslims that believe in liberal ideals like freedom of expression are exactly the type of immigrants that make a society stronger and we should encourage them.

All this law will do is allow that unhinged mental illness to rest, in secret, before coming out in some other toxic way.

I’m not saying that the book burners are being entirely altruistic here. I wouldn’t be surprised if they honestly hated all Muslims. But it is their right to express it without hurting anyone. This feels more like a “broken clock is right twice a day” sort of situation.

How about we strive for a society where people can burn their own property without having to worry about violence?

The islamists that react violently are only proving the point of the people burning the books. Tbh if you try to hurt someone for just burning SOMETHING THEY OWN, maybe you don’t deserve to live in a first world country.

In this case, couldn’t an artist simply not disclose that they used AI for things like script writing or character creation? It would be on the public to figure it out, wouldn’t it? It’s not necessary to prove that you didn’t use AI in creating the works, is it?

You keep putting yourself into the position where you GO somewhere. Sure, don’t go to Israel if you’re a Nazi.

Don’t go to Alabama at all.

Don’t go to Portland as a supporter of fascism if you don’t want to be labeled as a fascist.

Don’t go to a 1st world country if you want to cut off people’s heads for burning books. Don’t go to places if you don’t support the principles they’ve carved out there. It’s not that hard.

As for the the human rights thing, I already admitted that I jumped the gun with my reply to that. I didn’t read your comment closely enough. No need to be patronizing. I don’t want to strip people of human rights under any circumstances.

But your idea about separating us from them reminds me of the paradox of tolerance that is often cited around left leaning Fediverse communities. What do you think about this?

You’re still speaking about opening a door and setting a precedent. I’m saying that if someone really is motivated to strip rights from people, they don’t need a precedent. They will do it if they have the power to do it. Whoever they may be, hypothetically. That shouldn’t stop us from taking action when we can against groups whose sole ideology is hatred of others.

Anybody in the future can set a new precedent. Why should that limit us from challenging the problems of today?

Your second point is the exact point that I addressed. There is no “paving the way”. They will do it if they want to, regardless of what we do now.

As for your first point, that’s a fair statement. Human rights are Human rights. However, im talking more about civil rights. Civil rights are taken away all the time. You lose your right in the USA to vote, to own firearms if convicted of a felony.

You lose your right to live in a certain places if convicted of sex crimes.

If you are a Nazi, you definitely still deserve the human rights. But you shouldn’t have a say in how anything is decided. You shouldn’t have the right to vote, because you will always vote to attack minorities for no reason. You shouldn’t have the right to own a gun.

I know it’s just an anecdote, but I’ve know quite a few Muslim women that prefer to wear it. I’ve also met many who don’t like to wear them. Is it really fair to ban it for the ones that actually choose to wear it?

Women choosing to dress conservatively isn’t exactly something foreign to Italians. Let’s not forget that nuns also wear very similar clothing and cover their hair. That’s not so different from a hijab.

Wow, that’s pretty crazy to think that so many people can’t/won’t get a bank account. Are these people undocumented immigrants with no identification? Is this the same part of the population that is targeted by the ID laws for voting?

How are those people getting money? Is it really possible in the USA to just be paid with an envelope of cash? Or is it under the table work? Or if they are poor, is there any kind of benefit/welfare from the government? Don’t they need a bank account to receive those funds?

I’m just asking because in my country, I was able to open a bank account for free. I’ve had it for a year and I’ve never even deposited any money into it. But I have a debit card for that account. It seems impossible to me to have no access to a bank account. Even if you’re homeless, you’re still able to use your town hall as a contact address for official things.

I always chose to let my brother cut. Then, even if they were perfect halves, I still laughed like a maniac and acted like one piece was clearly better.

I think there’s a big reason why treating them the same way they treat others is fine.

The people that Nazis target are not only usually innocent, but they often don’t even have a choice in the reason for their bullying. You don’t choose to be non-white, be gay, be trans, etc.

Nazis choose to be pieces of shit that hurt innocent people.

The argument that people bring up for not treating them badly is that we don’t want to set a precedent in case the Nazis eventually get in control and decide being on the left is worthy of being deprived your rights.

But I think we all know that they wouldn’t need a precedent to deprive you of your rights if they took control and didn’t like you. They would simply do it if they had the power.

That’s a real concern if you’re at all worried about spoilers. It’s so easy just to have shit spoiled even if you try to avoid it. Passively hearing about it from school/workmates, social media, or even radio. The stupid radio spoiled the ending of Breaking Bad for me and I never got over it, I guess.

I think it’s just the beginning. They’ll split seasons eventually into 3 or more parts. Or if you wait till all seasons are released, they’ll paywall earlier parts. They know people won’t wait that long, especially with how easy it is to have things spoiled by social media or among friends/co-workers.

The streaming companies are starting to get wise to that. They’ve started splitting seasons and releasing them separately so that you have to be subbed for 2 months.

Is this actually an unpopular opinion? For sure horrible like all things in war, but I understand that the alternative was an invasion with a hell of a lot more casualties.

Should the USA have invaded Japan instead?

How do you reckon it would work when it comes to age? Is the vote limited just to people of military age? Does this mean that whether or not to declare war effectively falls in the hands of ~18 - 30 year olds?

Or is it open to everyone and even some old warhawk could be drafted? Are handicapped people not allowed to vote? Women that don’t meet combat standards?

There is always the option to draft them into some sort of non-combat role. But if you knew you were only going for a non-combat role, it could be a lot easier to vote “yes”.

I’ve been a fan of Star Wars since I was a kid. But Disney’s management of this IP has totally ruined it for me. I still haven’t seen The Rise of Skywalker after the trash that was The Last Jedi. They also seem to be focusing on pumping out as much content as possible, which has diluted any feelings of longing I had to see more.

They also need to branch out a bit more. The best of new star wars imo (Rogue one, Mando, and Andor) are so awesome because they focus any other aspect of the immense galaxy instead of focusing on the same 1 family from sand planet.