Would it matter? If they died living well according to Jesus’s teachings they’d be rewarded in heaven. Their mortal death would be inconsequential.

That said, they could probably survive as many homeless do through donations and begging.

“Person we hired to say things says the thing” more at 11.

Really irresponsible reporting, to be honest.

I was interested in it but at the end of the day Dorsey got Twitter into its initially mediocre state, and he’s endorsed RFK Jr. as well as Musk’s purchase of Twitter. So should I really expect it to be any better? I’ll keep an eye on it but my expectations aren’t terribly high.

The problem with those panels, in my opinion, isn’t the defense of free speech itself, it’s ending the conversation with a defense of free speech. This shifts the discussion away from how awful those other ideas are and instead distracts people with a debate over free speech itself.

If you truly want to support a free marketplace of ideas you have to be an active participant, you can’t expect others to pick up the bullhorn for good in your place.

The goal isn’t to create successful states, it’s to create politically safe states. Doesn’t matter if the state crumbles as long as that crumble is red.

This principle exists to shield the people from their government. It is not intended to be (and has never been) a protection for someone’s social status or reputation.

The real question is how much would I accept in payment to use Twitter. It’s probably not a lot, but it surely is not negative.

I don’t think it’s that simple. Heinous allegations can make that business relationship untenable. YouTube has an image to protect as well as other partnerships to maintain. There are people (not just wealthy executives) whose livelihood relies on those things,.

If a person’s reputation, fair or not, creates a risk to those things, why should YouTube be forced to assume that risk on their behalf?

Not just US interests, but European and Ukrainian interests as well. There was a multi-national effort to remove Shokin. You think Joe Biden orchestrated all of that to get his son a cushy board membership? It’s laughable.

“If you work for part of the day you still get the day off” is certainly an…interesting perspective.

If the company you’re representing would prefer you didn’t, then sure.

Let’s use another example, if someone was a big supporter of fascism and was wearing a hat or mask that said, “save fascists”, would you prefer the store couldn’t prevent them from wearing that?

How bad would the phrase have to get to change your mind?

The statement itself shouldn’t be political in its sentiment, but obviously the organization exists and it has its own policy positions, events, advocacy, and I can go to their website to donate. I think it’s fairly obvious which one Whole Foods would be concerned with.

I believe the legal repercussions are part of that “can ruin your life”, not just the addiction and/or health concerns.

Though that still makes it an entirely artificial consequence that does not need to and should not exist.

Is that legal? I know you’re not allowed to fundraise off your crimes, does that also apply to civil cases?

Putting on the all too familiar Jets copium hat, they pulled out a W under catastrophic circumstances yesterday against a very good division rival. The Bills defense is going to give most QBs trouble especially when the O-Line isn’t holding up well, so I don’t think you can make too harsh of a judgement on Zach’s performance (even though it wasn’t too bad as is).

Now he’s got a week to prepare with the starting unit and they can game plan around him, so let’s see if he’s learned anything from Coach Rodgers.

The one thing in his favor is that he was already a pocket passing QB and it’s his front foot when throwing, so the losses you usually think of when it comes to an achilles injury aren’t as significant. But he is 40 years old, so any significant injury at that age is going to be a possible career ender.

Something tells me the secessionists wouldn’t agree with that. Are they going to let their urban centers secede from their states if they voted to do so?

The government’s role in content moderation on private platforms should be purely advisory. Platforms should be able to ask for their advice, and the government should be able to provide the platforms with information. Anything that drifts into coercion or threats should not be allowed.

I’m concerned by the “significantly encouraged” language, which, like the ruling they criticized as being vague, seems quite vague. Though perhaps the full ruling gives more specifics.

Is there something in particular about this book that you think is off? It’s standard procedure for US Presidents to have books written about them, and far more mundane people than Biden have gotten the same treatment.