MrCharles

Came her to say this. Literally riding on the hot air from a big fire.

I'm supposed to pay them so that they can make more money off me? Uh... No. No, I'm good.

AI isn’t the only game in town, as this is also a traditional OS update with the usual quality of life improvements. There’s finally native support for RAR and 7-zip file formats, so you can get rid of those third-party archiving apps.

LMAO It just hit me that Windows STILL did not have native ways to do this. We've been using .rar for 30 years and for this whole time, Microsoft never released their own utility for opening them until now. Wow.

EDIT: Mb. I meant to say the .rar files. I have corrected my comment. It's still ridiculous, though.

I have built my own PC in the past. That may be the best option again, though I was hoping to avoid it. It's quite a lot of work. Given my priorities though, it may be the best option.

Hold up. The above comment called for literal violence, and I'm the one who gets this level of hate? I truly do not understand.

I agree that my perception is subjective, but since I don't have any other that I can experience, I rely on my own first and foremost when mine conflicts with someone else's. That seems logical to me.

EDIT: Hold up x2. "Causing them true anguish?" "Denying them of their identity?" WTF? How is that what I am doing? I think we're losing perspective on what true anguish actually looks like here.

Did I mention liberals? I don't recall mentioning liberals.

I make no attempts to justify their actions. People who do hurt others deserve to be punished, no matter their beliefs or motivations. However, you were extremely dehumanizing in your comment. Don't do that. They are still humans. They are still worthy of sympathy, as all humans are.

Oh... Oh that is beautiful. Just chef's kiss

You do realize that these "authoritarians/nazis/fascism/tyrants" use the exact same language when talking about you, right?

Thought is not a crime; ideas are not crimes; political leanings are not a crime; being a racist, nazi, facist, communist, socialist, bigot, homophobe, transphobe or whatever else is not a crime. The moment it becomes one, we start punishing people for what they believe which is IMO and the opinions of many others objectively wrong. You don't do that. Even if you lose, you don't become a barbarian. You fight the ones that act. You fight the ones that actually hurt people. Actions, not thoughts, are what is punishable in a civilized society, so take it easy, Big Brother.

You use "these people" and "they" a lot. You do know that the people you are talking about are individuals, right? Human beings like you? Hurt in maybe a thousand more ways than you. Embracing some terrible hatred to cover whatever brokenness they have. If someone is actually convinced that fascism is the way forward, you're actually ok with enacting violence on them? If you really would be ok with hurting them for their beliefs, then you, my friend, are the one who will bring tyranny; just a tyranny of a different sort. A tyranny of your ideas, your definitions, and your "tolerance." No better than "them."

lol No, I'll take it another direction (mostly).

The definition you gave is already broad enough that I do not have to appeal to the "or similar grounds." I, personally, find it dishonest to call another by their preferred pronouns (I perceive that they are not the sex they wish me to refer to them as, therefore to deny my perception would be to lie. Their preferences or gender do not change that.) Under your definition, that would likely be called hate speech; but I am not trying to hate anyone. I don't think they should be treated differently from others, nor am I trying to make them feel unloved or hated in any way; rather, I am simply trying to be honest about what I see.

Here's another example: Say I conduct a study that compares the IQ of different ethnicities within a country. If I get results that slant one direction or another, publishing such a study might be deemed hate speech.

Here's another from the post we are talking about: On the second panel, you see the hateful man holding a book with a cross on it and saying that LGBT people in the background are affronts to God. Later, he is seen become an obvious totalitarian authority of some sort. A Christian might find such a comparison offensive. They may truly believe that homosexuality is wrong because that is what their religion teaches. Would preaching that topic become hate speech? Would preaching that RELIGION be considered hate speech?

A good rule of thumb I found is this: When advocating for any increase in power, especially in government, imagine that power in the hands of your worst enemy. Would you still want it to be used? I wouldn't.

Hmm... Can't tell if you're agreeing or sarcastically and incorrectly pointing out a logical fallacy. If you agree, cool. If not:

The Slippery Slope fallacy is only a fallacy if one posits that the future events MUST happen as a result, not that they are likely to. If I take a step further down a literal slippery slope, I am more likely to fall but not guaranteed. If you start using hardcore drugs, you are likely to get addicted and lose a lot of money but again, not guaranteed.

That this would set a dangerous precedent is not a slippery slope argument in the slightest. Courts frequently have to bear in mind the legal precedent of their actions because once you do something, its easier the next time. That is fact, not conjecture. It is easier to ratchet down on a freedom that is already jeopardized. No conjecture involved there. No slippery slopes involved. If we allow some speech to be censored, it becomes easier to censor other types of speech.