This is like the SS in 1920s germany, right?

The right would immediately use that to disenfranchise blacks, queers, and women. "You need a degree from an accredited college to vote, and coincidentally women only schools don't count, nor do historically black ones"

We can't just kill all the conservatives but if you could somehow prevent them from accessing power, we'd be better off.

Fine needs to be much bigger. All the decision makers that approved it need to be removed and barred from working in the industry

That's one of the boxes we could use, but I think it hasn't worked. There's 2 more, and I don't have a lot of faith in the jury box in this system.

Technically correct, the best kind of correct

That's such a non sequitur I don't even know what you're trying to communicate

Sometimes I wonder about if the US had stayed a colony longer. Slavery probably would have ended sooner. Probably have a better government structure.

If calculators routinely gave the wrong answer this would be more compelling.

Nitpick: It's probably not the devs so much as the capitalist owners and management collaborators. I'd guess most of the people making the games would be happy to have someone play their game at all. It's not like they typically get a cut of the profits (again: capitalism)

People are emotional creatures.

Someone was joking in another thread, but maybe we should seriously consider just taking socialism and calling it, like, americanism.

I'm pretty sure you could really make a dent in the housing crisis, transit problems, food insecurity, any other real life problem of your choosing, with that kind of money. The fact that they blew it on "the metaverse" should be a crime

He probably read Snow Crash (or maybe an AI summary, because he is a soulless husk) and thought it was super cool. It's a dystopia. The book is not aspirational.

Who would vote for musk? I thought conservatives hated him because he said mean things about trump. Most everyone else hates him for a variety of reasons (is a billionaire, is a nazi, whatever the fuck doge was). Does he still have fans? That vote? In the US?

It's another manifestation of separate rules for the rich and everyone else.

I've been happy with Bandcamp, though they got sold so they're no longer independent.

But the model is you can stream for free however many times the artist has it set to, and then you're expected to buy it. Once you buy it, its yours DRM-free forever.

So if you buy an album or two a month, it costs similar to a subscription but you build up a library. After a while, you might find there are months you don't buy anything, but just listen to what you already bought.

How am I ignoring that conversation is two way? I specifically mentioned it's a bad job when one person engages and the other half-asses it with one word responses.

I don't see what small talk being off-putting has to do with anything. I don't know if I even consider talking about your interests small talk, but okay. How else do you expect it to work?

And agian, what are government moderators?

Oh, sorry. I meant the moderators of lemmy.world. If you say anything too spicy, your comment gets removed

I meant more generally, so democrats can win elections and then win votes. It's something they should have been doing for the past decade. Look at how the democratic party is treating Zohran for an example of how not to do it.

In my imagination there are increasingly desperate actions they could do to stop the bill from proceeding. Pull the fire alarm. Start a fire. Cover all the chairs with honey. I don't know. I feel like if it looked like a portal to hell was about to open I would break a lot of norms and rules to stop it

You said that most laws require intent.

I said that strict liability exists. This was admittedly, a nitpick.

You did an on sequitur about how the US has a police problem, and said "These aren’t normal laws in other countries fyi.". I took that to imply the concept of strict liability doesn't exist in other laws, but maybe you meant something else. Maybe you meant it's not common?

I then pointed out that the concept originated in Britain. You said "If it originated there, why doesn’t Canada have it lmfao.", which is factually incorrect as far as I can tell. Canada has a concept of strict liability.

You then said,

Not for sex offenders like pissing in public, of course it exists in other areas of law, but those aren’t applicable to all other areas.

Ignoring what feels like a moving goal post, maybe this reveals where we diverged. Maybe you thought I was saying all laws are strict liability? I wasn't.

The most famous example of strict liability is statutory rape. This is off topic from guys pissing in a parking lot (though I wouldn't be surprised if ICE goons do other crimes). https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/statutory-rape.html

As most statutory rape laws appear as "strict liability" offenses, this limits the amount of legal defenses available to someone accused.

The link I provided was a wikipedia article is clearly not an exhaustive answer of all things on the topic. If you do click through to the criminal article, it does mention a case. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_(criminal)

Anyway, this is a pointless, unpleasant, argument.