[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Password (For file deletion.)


File: 1559435267262.png (905.05 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, Mayor,_Let's_get_galloping….png) ImgOps Google

Welcome to /townhall/! This is an anonymous-only board for debates, dialectics, and discussions of a serious nature.

As the topics discussed on this board may deal with sensitive or controversial subject matter, we expect a higher standard of conduct than elsewhere on the site, and will enforce the board's rules with a greater degree of strictness. Inability or unwillingness to follow the rules will result in a /townhall/-only ban.


1) All posts in a given thread must contribute constructively to the conversation, whether agreeing or disagreeing. Off-topic, contentless, inflammatory, or hostile posts will be deleted and result in a ban.

1a) Derails that occur as a natural result of discussion progressing from the original subject will generally not be interfered with; however, if these hinder discussion of the original topic, making a new thread is preferred.

1b) Part of contributing constructively is understanding and addressing the reasoning behind an opposing view. While this can be a tedious task and will generally not be officially enforced, please make an effort to at the very least avoid "talking past" someone when presented with a counterargument. Simply doubling down on your initial point does not advance a discussion.

1c) Be as willing to "lose" as you are to "win", and above all else, be willing to learn and understand. You will not get the most out of this board if your only goal is to persuade, and you will not even be effective at that unless you understand what you are arguing against.

2) Ad hominems and other uncivil behavior will not be tolerated. You may have a significant personal stake in some subjects discussed here, and it is normal to be frustrated when someone cannot relate; however, lashing out is not an effective way to engender sympathy for your position, and will not advance the conversation in a constructive way. Even if you find someone's argument morally abhorrent, there are constructive ways to express this.

2a) Attempting to deliberately provoke an uncivil reaction is prohibited, even if it is done within the letter of the law.

2b) Snark and other forms of mockery are strongly discouraged and may result in warnings or bans.

2c) "Strawmanning" an "opponent" deliberately will be regarded as uncivil conduct and will be dealt with accordingly. This will not apply to genuine misunderstandings.

3) While we do not claim to be arbiters of absolute moral or empirical truth and aim to moderate this board in a fair and even-handed, politically agnostic manner, the following extreme positions are considered "off-limits" regardless of how they are put forward, including attempts to "hint" or dogwhistle:

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1656107606313.jpg (84.47 KB, 586x600, 293:300, medium.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Fluttershy knows best.

Question: should the recent overturn of Roe v. Wade be looked at in isolation -- a technical Supreme court issue of no great concern to non-experts -- or does it signal deeper meaning about human rights, state political directions, or concerns over American demographics (Elon Musk: “Population collapse is potentially the greatest risk to the future of civilization.”)?

Do you think other supreme court rulings based on the 14th Amendment (&etc.) will also be found to have been mistaken in the near future?
45 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>That was one of the ideas, yes. I'm just not sure there are any practical set of rights that don't conflict.
Say we have only a single right such as the right to life, and we're given a situation like the trolly problem with one innocent person on each track. That's a conflict. Only one person's right to life can be preserved.

So even with the simplest possible system of rights, there will be conflict, and rights will be violated given certain circumstances.

My personal approach to solving this issue is to, instead of saying that all rights are "absolute" and must be preserved come hell or high water, simply create a priority system where some "rights" take priority over others, or have relative values that can be weighed.

For example, a simple system with two "rights": 1 - Life, 2 - Liberty. In that order.

So, I have the Liberty to swing a sword around all I want, except when it conflicts with someone else's Life, which takes higher priority under this system. And so a violation of that system of priorities would be a violation of rights, and therefore morally wrong.

This way, conflicts can be resolved by simply weighing priorities, and when multiple options are seemingly equally valuable (which without omniscience, is sure to happen), it can be decided by coin flip, deeper deliberation, etc.

Obviously there's a LOT more minutiae to a system like that, but that's the gist of my approach.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


>Say we have only a single right such as the right to life, and we're given a situation like the trolly problem with one innocent person on each track. That's a conflict. Only one person's right to life can be preserved.
Which should demonstrate the notion of a "right to life" as inherently flawed. As a right that does not exist, as a simple matter of objective logic. One that cannot exist, as it would  be in direct conflict with itself.

Nobody has a right to life. However, they do have a right to their life.
The distinction here is subtle, but important; The right is not to living. The right is to the ownership of your own existence.


>Which should demonstrate the notion of a "right to life" as inherently flawed.
I don't think so.

I think it only demonstrates that "rights" can't be absolute (always protected no matter what), not that the idea of a right to life is flawed. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

People definitely have the right to life, but in some rare cases that can come into conflict with other people's right to life, and someone's right just won't be protected in that case.

It doesn't mean that the right can't exist, just that it will inevitably be violated at some point.

In the priority system I described, that's an acceptable outcome, because it's not about being absolute, it's about being adaptable.


File: 1654462497188.jpeg (81.37 KB, 1140x570, 2:1, 280127119_363355942495661….jpeg) ImgOps Google

If Christian nationalism is something to be scared of, they’re lying to you. And they’re lying to you on purpose, because that is exactly the temperature change that is happening in America today, and they can’t control it. They can’t control it, and that’s what terrifies them the most.

You see… if we’re going to label it Christian nationalism, this movement will actually be the movement that stops the school shootings.

This will be the movement that stops the crime in our streets.

This will be the movement that stops the sexual immorality, and teaches children and brings them up in traditional families and loving homes.

This will be the movement that protects kids innocence and nurtures them into responsible adults that grow up to be successful moms and dads wanting to pursue a family of their own.

This will be the movement that that finally does something about our debt, because it’s something that all of us should be ashamed of. It should have never happened.

This will be the movement that cares about broken and lost communities. Communities that are always forgotten about. Christians should never forget about those people and we don’t. So while the media is going to lie about you and label “Christian nationalism,” and they’re probably going to going to call it “domestic terrorism.” I’m going to tell you right now, they’re the liars. And if anybody’s a domestic terrorist, it’s the radical left. They are the domestic terrorists.

We can even say the Democrats are the domestic terrorists because they funded them, and they burned down our city streets and rioted in 2020. So if we’re going to put labels on people, we should put labels where they appropriately belong, not on Christians, and not on people who love their country and want to take care of it.
11 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


What exactly is the point of going to a My Little Pony website to spout Nazi propaganda? Is this supposed to be humor? Or is this meant to scare people? Can't this thread be locked already?


Pretty sure the American south is a glaring counterpoint to your stupid theocratic claims. Not even that I'm against 100% of the ideas, but it's an idea that's already failed.


Just like the lgbt community :^)


File: 1650070703590.png (441.31 KB, 1400x951, 1400:951, Moony Money.png) ImgOps Google

For discussing the other thread, in /pony/, concerning Elon Musk
57 posts and 9 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Oh hey, a great video about it all!


File: 1655382708042.png (222.77 KB, 711x513, 79:57, 45.png) ImgOps Google

Wish I had a billion dollars.

I'd basically disappear from most social media platforms.


File: 1656371794212.jpg (39.47 KB, 880x495, 16:9, Toga.jpg.jpeg.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Whats the point of auto generated names anon when people use avatars?

 No.11166[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

File: 1653742247781.png (287.74 KB, 800x450, 16:9, medium.png) ImgOps Google

I'm reading a book about Oculus, which is an interesting subject in itself.  Anyway Oculus was sold to Facebook, and following Facebook finding out that Oculus founder Palmer Lucky supported Donald Trump, the Facebook CEO required that Lucky cease support for Donald Trump or resign.  Sadly, it was further found that Lucky ceased to be useful to Oculus even after following this dictate.

So I suppose I can ask a more general question:

Do people who are corporations have a right to choose associations based on the association's political opinions?  That is, should corporations be allowed to fire or refuse to hire people based on who they vote for or which politicians they like?

Alternately, do people who are not corporations have such a right?  For example, some people don't eat at Chic-Fil-A because they (he? she?) support(s) Republican causes.  Is that OK?

(Also, is anyone else struggling with language now that corporations are people?  Like, I tried to google how corporations identify their gender but found...nothing, really.)
107 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


What do you want to do me as punishment for what you perceive as my inferior mental state compared to you? Serious question. Ugh.


Just going to leave this and then leave the chat here for good:




Titles of this nature are usually about 80% exaggerated clickbait. Welcome to the modern information age, where exaggeration and clickbait reign supreme ;-;. Reading the article actually tells you more nuance, albeit with a very clear bias from the author.

I already told you what i want you to do. It's right there in my tiny post.

1) seek professional help to manage your potential anxiety/delusions to prevent you from doing something dangerous.

2) tell me what you think my political ideals are, since you seem to think i have a side, i'd like you to tell me what you think my side is, what my political ideals are, because i'm genuinely curious as to what this twisted image you have of me is.

3) Work on your reading comprehension

I never said anything about punishment, or perceiving you as mentally inferior. There's a difference between being a bit dull and dumb, and being unhinged and psychologically unwell. I perceive you as being delusional, not dumb. I believe you refuse to engage with your higher brain functions because you've built yourself an ideology house, and you refuse to leave it, rationalizing anything you see into place like a hammer forces a nail. Many people do this, to be honest, it's the nature of the house you've built, one that i believe may lead you to violence, that worries me.


File: 1654039501586.png (8.34 KB, 315x277, 315:277, Screenshot from 2022-05-31….png) ImgOps Google

I've been going through some books on rampage violence in America.  It's a subject on people's minds on social media, and is generally one of the top 5 or so common debate topics in the USA.

Different ideas about the shape of the curve in the graph [image] account for much disagreement.  You first have to ask what sources may be admitting in filling out the graph, potentially including feelings as a source.

Another element of the debate is over natural rights.  I personally don't see a lot of room for rigor in theories of natural law and natural rights.  But in theory, all the particulars to a God-given right to private arms are self-evident and only tyrants have anything to add.

You are free to share your opinions.  I think I'm in a discovery phase on this issue.
19 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


I mean, well, the fact that crime rates for all kinds of terrible criminal things are abnormally high in the U.S. compared to normal countries kinds of speaks for itself.

I'm not really an average American per se, but I can tell you in my own case that I rather hate the constant fear of being a victim that I must live with day by day, knowing that law enforcement in this corrupt place wouldn't actually help me if I was needing help.


Are they? I'm not convinced that's true, having seen various crime statistics myself.
Perhaps there's data I've not seen. Or perhaps it's down to definitions of "normal" countries.

I don't disagree that our law enforcement is quite useless and corrupted, but that seems to me to be the case across the world. With many places far worse than us, due to their lack of a codified rights in their nations' foundings.


Personally, i think gun deaths, tragic as they are, are not the *point* of gun ownership or gun rights. The *point*, in my eyes, is that an armed populace is the backbone of a legitimate democracy. If the state has more military might than it's people, then democracy is a pathetic suggestion, a play the state puts on to make fun of it's subjects while letting internal state politics pick who does what.

As far as mass shootings go, problem to me seems that police don't respond to these things like they should, choosing time and time again to hide like craven cowards while innocent people get gunned down. Hell, i could see why would-be mass shooters would feel empowered based on basically every level of response from law enforcement. From feds who "knew about" the shooter before he shot, yet did nothing, to pathetic cowardly excuses for police officers waiting outside a school while the children inside get gunned down. Maybe if law enforcement and feds did their fucking job instead of bullying poor black people and harassing their political opponents, maybe it wouldn't be such an issue. I'm not necessarily against arming teachers as a broad concept. I think if i teacher feels safer with a firearm to protect their students and themselves, they should be allowed to do so, but maybe police officers should be an earlier line of defense than school teachers, yes?


File: 1653566576996.jpg (63.55 KB, 1200x675, 16:9, 1200px-Cheerilee_is_sweet_….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

In the Western world, there's often an obligation for kids to take up a fulltime education in schools. Some kids have the option to do homeschooling, but even then you are obligated to follow a set curriculum.
While you are allowed to take up a part time employment during your teenage years, there will be restrictions in how much hours you can be employed.

With all the criticism on education and the concerns of the state encroaching on the freedom of the individuals, do you think we should do away with this system?
Should people be free to choose whether to enroll their kids into schools and be free to allow home schooling or self education in the curriculum of their desire if they wish?
Should we perhaps look into options of apprenticeships in the actual workforce rather than a forced curriculum or even open up fulltime employment opportunity for kids of all ages if they so desire?

If a standard education would become optional, should we relieve our society of the value of a preset education? As such should standards for education become a privilege rather than a fundamental right? (id est, kind of like college right now, it will be more of a private school situation with heavier costs if you wish to pursue it, but with the basics picked up from homeschooling and apprenticeships you're encouraged enough to be productive)
4 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


Your post seems to address a lot of ideas.  I don't know a lot, but in many places parents may home-school, although the students are still required to get tests to see if they are learning.  I think your example contrasts in giving parents the right to educate their children in a specialty and neglect other subjects.

The problems with child labor, I suppose, are really problems of labor in general: workplace safety, the only available work not helping you learn or develop, and exploitation given power hierarchies.  I guess the conventional view is adults may appropriately make choices that involve these areas, children mostly may not.  You could argue children sent out to the coal mine weren't subject to any greater or lesser harm than adults, so why the age-related views?  But I don't know.  I studied some child psychology, but it's a difficult science because you can only get scientific validity for tiny pieces.  And the questions are often in a form like yours - "what is harmful to a child's well-being?"   Well, that depends on what you consider a healthy child and healthy adult.  If a healthy adult is a coal miner or coder with maximum experience, start early.  If it's something more flexible, another approach.

If you want my opinion, it's that deleting K-12 would be a mistake.  Sure some gifted children with attentive parents would do fine, perhaps even better.  Will students with uneducated parents or overworked parents do better?  When the quality or availability of public education goes down, do things get better historically?


Typically most children who are home schooled have the privilege of such choice as the opportunity usually falls upon if they and their families have freedom for a set of circumstances ie; having the free time and knowledge ability/application. As such, a home school curriculum would generally follow a template based upon an already established general school system, with the freedom to make inclusions or omissions as they see fit.
Privilege in the sense of opportunity not everyone has.
The general education system is far from perfect and could use reform imo, albeit I would go as far to say standard education should be a right as the system is set up and streamlined to be accessible to all. We are privileged to have readily accessible schools in the west, and for the sake of equality it is our right to be able to attend.
Apprenticeships and labor should be exempt from an obligation, as like higher education, its presence is there to bolster and support those that wish to actually pursue such.
>If a standard education would become optional, should we relieve our society of the value of a preset education?
Having standard education become optional would essentially broaden the gap between it being a right as the bar would be set higher, diminishing the right as standard and higher education are separate.


I feel like people should be broadly free to pursue their own educational goals without interference from either any level of government or any other powerful institution standing in the way.

At the same time, desperate inequality means that some kind of radical wealth redistribution so that the lower fifty percent or so of the population isn't reduced to ignorant slavery at the hands of the absolute richest and strongest. Ideally, a universal basic income would allow for self-lead efforts at learning. And specific organizations with state backing can and should work to actually facilitate education. I think. With choice being key.


File: 1651618165794.jpg (23.5 KB, 800x600, 4:3, Full-Moon-Image.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

This is not ideological, political, social, religious, philosophical, or anything of the sort, but it's a serious topic so this is the place to bring it up probably.

Recent news came out about the head of NASA, Bill Nelson, asking the U.S. government for an investment of $26 billion for the fiscal year 2023.

What are the goals? Main thing appears to be the NASA Artemis III mission, which aims for a scheduled 2025 moon landing. Other important advances are coming.

Is this a good idea? I'm personally not sure if establishing a permanent human presence on the Moon is a good investment of time, money, and resources? What else should be happening? Thoughts?

< https://www.clickorlando.com/news/space-news/2022/05/03/watch-live-at-10-am-bill-nelson-testifies-about-26-billion-nasa-budget/ >
12 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


That's the transit costs in relation to how much they brought back.
They didn't bring much to begin with, and besides that, they weren't in a dedicated cargo hauler.
Real prices will be significantly lesser


Especially if there aren't humans aboard.


Research and development from NASA in recent years has been in expanding horizons and furthering understanding of the solar system.
The Mars rover yielded a multitude of excavation finds, but nothing really broadening horizons.
The initial Moon landing was an achievement fueled by research but also the race.
The technological advancement since then is tremendous, so it makes sense to want to revisit a landing. Competition is a substantial driving force.
I think investment in such a project would yield more opportunity for future expansion beyond mining and excavation.
If NASA doesn't set up Moon base, somebody else will.


...i watched a documentary today, while exercising, and i got very engrossed in it. it was called, American Factory, on the Netflix.

i do not watch much netflix, but i had this strongly recommended, so i watched it.

...it is about an American factory that shut down, and was replaced by a Chinese owned and operated factory, but in the United States

it showed the cultural differences between America and China... and much more. i felt the translations were a bit unfair, but i do not think the ... interpretations of the cultures were far off point.

as an asian american... Chinese/Taiwanese American, to be precise, i felt very torn between two worlds i can recognize.

i wonder... have you seen this documentary? maybe you can watch this trailer to get a sense.

and maybe, we can discuss!

i'd like to think this is not a very political discussion or anything, and its not a debate.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
46 posts and 20 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1653456704045.jpg (297.23 KB, 1289x1060, 1289:1060, Screenshot_20210118-113102….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Reading through this thread I just want to comment that I find a lot of arguments about collectivism vs individualism kinda pointless and rooted in a flawed reductionist framing wherein the two concepts are treated as mutually exclusive and that cultures are treated as exclusively one or exclusively the other when in reality most cultures fall somewhere in between the two and analyzing and comparing cultures is more productive when one ask questikns like how each culture is collectivist or individualist or when it's more one than the other.

Would certainly be a whole hell of a lot better (and frankly more honest) than stand-offish arguments about whether or not one should even exist or arguments over who's was worse. It's especially absurd given that there really isn't such a thing as a truly homogeneous culture.


Personally, I'm an absolutist about individualism.
So it'd probably not pan out any different for me.


Not gonna lie, every time I post here I worry that some day this place is going to show up on the evening news.


File: 1652057904580.png (78.57 KB, 615x615, 1:1, 6403268.png) ImgOps Google

"3D video games are running enough math to compute and draw an entire three-dimensional world with tens of millions of triangles and complex interacting physics, and they're doing it SIXTY TIMES EVERY SECOND (at least! More than twice that if you're using a 144Hz monitor). That is, they're doing it once every ~16.67 miliseconds. (6.95ms at 144 frames per second). Consider that fact, next time you open some boring 2D software on your computer and it takes a couple seconds to load a dozen flat buttons and images, and then you click on a menu and it inexplicably hitches for a few hundred milliseconds."

More at: https://AstralCodexTen.substack.com/p/why-do-people-prefer-my-old-blogs/comment/6403268
4 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


This person may know nothing at all about computers. I don't know anything about computers but I know enough to disregard anything that they say on the topic.

Visual rendering happens almost entirely on the GPU, as stated above. Less stated is that 3D rendering is almost entirely the same calculation. Rendering is fairly unique in that it involves thousands of fairly trivial calculations that don't impact each other so they can be run on thousands of minimal processors simultaneously. Traffic management is minimal and solved in hardware. Some of your most expensive operations you can do are read-writes that are not generally necessary in how a GPU operates. And the 3D rendering possible has strict rules to simplify the linear algebra involved and make it as convenient for a computer as possible. It's why rendering "polygons" are always triangles and never squares. I recommend skimming the Red Book even if you only play games. It's a fascinating read and easy to find free.

By comparison opening a menu is an enormous operation that is limited to a single logical thread. It isn't hanging up because rendering a rectangle on the screen is that hard. It's hanging up because rendering that rectangle is the last step in an enormous data operation and I feel like anybody who even knows what programming is would be aware of that. Word processors and other data programs don't hang up because the letter 'a' is soooo hard to render.

Also there's the priorities. If a primitive just vomits all over itself and the rendering goes tits up for a single frame, or if a frame gets pushed out half finished or missing completely then nobody will care. It matters for 16 milliseconds. In other applications, especially online where packet security is important and data may arrive corrupted or missing portions and so there may be expectations to recover damaged or missing data through a communications delay that can be noticed by humans. Again the lag isn't in rendering a rectangle with letters on it. The lag is in the work you don't see solving other, generally more urgent problems that are designed so you don't notice anything went wrong but a brief second of unexpected waiting.


File: 1652810111504.png (209.53 KB, 676x943, 676:943, input-lag-latency.png) ImgOps Google

>By comparison opening a menu is an enormous operation that is limited to a single logical thread. It isn't hanging up because rendering a rectangle on the screen is that hard. It's hanging up because rendering that rectangle is the last step in an enormous data operation and I feel like anybody who even knows what programming is would be aware of that.
25 years ago, CPUs were 10 times slower just by clock speed alone, but they were still pretty snappy at 2D GUI rendering.  My home machine running Linux on 8-year-old bare metal with a lightweight desktop environment is pretty snappy.  I think Windows is slow due to bloat, useless eye candy, built-in spyware, and no real attempt to keep latency under control.

Somewhat related: https://danluu.com/input-lag/


That's interesting.  That's a kind of slow.

In your original post, I was thinking more of cases where you select Edit in Microsoft Office and it takes 7 seconds to draw the menu, or something.


File: 1651703159203.jpg (100.6 KB, 800x640, 5:4, Supreme_Court_Front_Dusk.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Hypothetical:  A law is passed in 1900.
In 1910, the court rules the law unconstitutional.
After 1910, people violate this currently unconstitutional law in ways that leave evidence, but the state will not punish.
In 1950, the law is judged constitutional again.

Are those violations from the past now subject to prosecution since the law is constitutional?  The law was broken after it was passed, so this is not a clear ex post facto situation.
3 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


Probably not new laws, but the charges would need be after the changed decisions.


Ok you're trying to answer hardcore constitutional law questions that are going to be up for serious legal debate for years with some middle school civics.


Are you arguing with Sweet Panda and/or Mellow Eagle's answer or my restatement of their answers?


File: 1651629099427.jpeg (305.87 KB, 1400x584, 175:73, w.jpeg) ImgOps Google

What would be perfect society at the absolute pinnacle of advancement be like? Not the most perfect realizable civilization, but the actual best life imaginable for everyone?

Would it be completely free of pain and struggle, with all things we covet and pray for, all manner of sensual gratification, the deepest love and the greatest sense of achievement, absolute enlightenment, available at a mere thought or less?

If you could personally change and improve anything about life, society, technology, to the limits of your imagination, again and again to the unlimited future, what do you think your ultimate, final version of reality would be?
10 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


If you'll pardon the song form, I think this does a good job of exploring that notion;

War is not pleasant, to be sure, but conflict and violence are not inherently wrong.
There's a time and a place for such things. What we must always remember is the cost, that we don't act unduly.


Would you consider that a maximally progressed society, or would those people strive for progress themselves? Would you imagine such a civilization would remain indefinitely, unchanged for millions of years, or might they have their own ideas of advancement? I don't mean to suggest these are easy questions, but it bears putting forward the implications of a "perfect" utopia being reached.


I like the song.  It's a good point -- if you are building a utopia without war you have to ensure there aren't reasons people would want to go to war.  I suppose at the very least you'd have to say no war, and no oppressive police state.

In the end, I do believe violence is wrong.  Or maybe more generally trying to hurt people is wrong, as your song talks about starving people, which might not be violence exactly, but I think you have to count that as under the umbrella.  Or more generally still, trying to hurt people who are not credibly trying to hurt you is wrong and, even then the hurting should be at a minimum and preventative of harm.

And if my utopia starts at peace, nobody will have a reason to make war.  I have to assert there will be societal organizations and sufficient per capita resources to keep people reasonably content, so although there will be rivalries and conflict, things will be stable enough that groups will not desire the extermination of other groups.  Which I guess is utopian, but that's the tread.  :)


File: 1649553007574.jpeg (110.66 KB, 900x1163, 900:1163, 3FA790F6-02B9-448D-811A-7….jpeg) ImgOps Google

Will got banned for 10 years
7 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


In a just world, it would be up to Chris.


The wealthy rarely do anyway. In a practical sense, this may well be a stronger punishment.
Assuming he remains banned for the set time, anyway.



File: 1651260032666.png (711.45 KB, 959x616, 137:88, Disney-CEO-Bob-Chapek.png) ImgOps Google

Have you followed the Disney company losing its special legal status in Florida due to the corporation expressing opposition (especially in terms of CEO Bob Chapek's comments) to recent legal changes by the state's sitting Governor on children's education?

Context: https://www.wesh.com/article/desantis-reedy-creek-wakeup-call-disney/39859459#

Apparently, millions of dollars are at stake. It's not clear who will be left holding the bag. Disney's previous situation had both advantages and disadvantages in terms of taxpayers.

Do you fundamentally think that corporations should speak out about discrimination and prejudice against people who're Jewish, LGBT, and disabled, particularly when it comes to education?

If that does happen, should said company fairly receive pushback from Americans who hold to social traditionalist views against people who're Jewish, LGBT, and disabled, particularly parents who don't want inclusive views on minority rights taught to their children?

In this specific case, what will likely happen to local Floridians with the legal changes? Is it a fight worth having for Disney? For the Governor?
62 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


It's not an irrational fear. It's fact. Conservatives are engaged in bigotry in terms of political actions such as this Flordia measure, and people are dying as a result. It should all stop.


I've yet to see evidence that this particular bill is killing anyone.


i'm not even gonna bother linking all the violating posts, just yeah, you were asked to tone it down and completely ignored that warning. You have a history of this kind of posting on townhall and honestly i think the place is just bad for you and your mental health, so i'm issuing a permanent ban (townhall only). You are free to appeal if you want.

Also, locking the thread since we already gave it a chance to recover once.


I heard today trump in court told they judge abs other that he would tell his guards to be aggressive if protester through tomatoes at him appearanlty he is scared of friut And tomotoes
26 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>Fascists are antigovernment, though, that's why they organize as militias.
Fascists are authoritarians first and foremost.

>They're also against tyranny and oppressive states.
Definitely not.  No.  What is your definition of fascist, if it's not most simply first and foremost a totalitarian state?

>Hence why if you look up the Oath Keepers specifically you see them justly described as far right and fascists.
By who?

I can find sources calling Obama an Islamist. Didn't make it true


Are you really not able of understanding that Amercisn fascists claim to be patriotic, libertarian, antigovernment, and so on in opposition to the current U.S. government as a part and parcel of their agenda of replacing it with a right-wing state to benefit right-wing people?


It just appears downright contradictory and conspiratorial besides.

I've no cause to believe these groups want to replace the US with a fascist totalitarian government.

Previous [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]