SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for AndyTheAbsurd
The Satanic Temple, an activist group based in Salem, Massachusetts, is threatening to sue Twitter for religious discrimination after one of its co-founders had his Twitter account permanently suspended.
Lucien Greaves, the Satanic Temple's co-founder and spokesman, said his Twitter account was permanently suspended without any notice after he asked his followers to report a tweet that called for the Satanic Temple to be burned down.
"We're talking to lawyers today," Greaves said Friday about whether he planned to take legal action.
Source: http://www.newsweek.com/satanic-temple-threatens-sue-twitter-over-religious-discrimination-780148
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Satanic Temple Threatens to Sue Twitter Over Religious Discrimination
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 203 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Finagle's First Law:
If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday January 16 2018, @09:17PM
Ok, you've got a few good points here.
Why coal pollution in streams is a problem regardless of the trend of coal usage [vox.com]
From your link:
Appalachian Voices, an environmental group, estimates that coal companies have buried over 2,000 miles of streams in the region through mountaintop removal mining since the 1990s. And there’s growing evidence that when mining debris and waste gets into water supplies, the toxic metals can have dire health impacts for the people and mostly rural communities living nearby.
Ok, but at least we know that this mostly affects Trump voters, so they're getting exactly what they voted for. I feel sorry for the wildlife though.
The removal of the subsidies has caused insurance rates to rise, and plans to reduce coverage, and plans to exit regions.
Last I checked, subsidies were still in place. Some plans were exiting regions before Trump came along; ACA has always been a bad law, a band-aid on a massive open wound. It was never going to work very well.
Yes, the current crop of Republicans are complicit, no argument there. Our citizens will die as a direct result of this.
Yes, but this would have happened with any Republican in office, and maybe even with a Democrat since Congress is controlled by the GOP. Trump wasn't unique in his opposition to ACA, and some of his bloviating was actually much more reasonable-sounding than what the other mainstream GOP politicians were calling for. Trump specifically said on the campaign trail that he wanted everyone to have coverage; GOPers like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul do not want this.
That's what Trump's bloviating amounts to, only writ on the national (and international) political stage. It's bad, in and of itself, and again, makes this country look like it encourages a jingoist, xenophobic society
So now you're mad that Trump is just showing America for what it really is? I'm sorry if the truth hurts, but much of American society really is racist, jingoist, and xenophobic. Just look at what happened in Charlottesville, and the defense the neo-Nazis and other racists got all over the country, even right here on SN. How is it bad for Trump to be honest?
what they do is enable travel and so enable commerce and much tighter family ties and so make living in the boonies, where much of your food and raw materials are produced, a reasonable proposition
That's a bunch of crap. I'm very well-acquainted with rural life and rural dwellers; most of my family lives that way. The vast majority of people in rural areas aren't there to produce your food and raw materials, they're there because stuff like this subsidizes their existence there, so they can drive around gigantic vehicles they don't need and use far more energy per capita than anyone in the world, while not doing any kind of work that actually needs to be located remotely, or frequently not doing any kind of work at all because they live on government benefits. Most food now is produced by large agribusiness corporations with a lot of automation, and most rural areas do not have any mining operations nearby.
It's hard to live hundreds of miles from family and supplies.
Then don't. Move into a city. The vast majority of people living in the boonies don't need to be there, and aren't an important part of the economy there. These people simply don't like cities, but they're being subsidized to live the way they do.
Amtrak isn't really needed for rural areas. It's needed for inter-city travel, and it's pretty lousy for that compared to trains in Europe and Japan.
The economic value of rural America to non-rural America is huge; that is why there are roads here, trains here, communications services here, hospitals here, postal service here, schools here, and so on.
No, it's because of inertia, and because of people who refuse to leave. In case you haven't noticed, Americans have been urbanizing in droves in the past several decades, and small towns are dying, and for good reason: their industries are obsolete, and we don't need armies of people to work on farms any more thanks to automation and mechanization. The people who are left are generally old people who refuse to leave, and young ones too stupid to leave.
So this degrades the office, the respect other countries have for us, the reception of American citizens elsewhere
So what? We had that when Dubya was in office. And again, *we voted for Trump*, so if that means other countries respect us less, then we're getting what we voted for.
Again, you're not paying attention. The process has already started with prototypes.
We've had a wall along parts of the southern border for probably decades now. Have you ever been to San Diego? Prototypes do not equal an actual wall, or significant spending.
There's no valid "but" here - it was an asshole move, by an asshole, that hurt people.
I can point to asshole moves that hurt people by all the Presidents during my lifetime I'm pretty sure.
From what you've said so far, you appear to be focused almost entirely on immediate and first-order effects.
I'm focused on *actual* effects, which I'm not seeing many of so far. Basically, your claim is "well nothing too horrible has happened yet, but it will!!!" Maybe, maybe not. So far, not. You haven't proven anything, your whole argument seems to be "Trump is an idiot and should be impeached based on that alone!". Dubya was an idiot too, and look what happened there. Being an idiot isn't a disqualifier for the Presidency.
As for your list of accomplishments, that's extremely biased. Many of those are genuine improvements, others not so unarguably, such as the GM bailout (should have let it die and be broken up and bought up by competitors), the broadband subsidies (which went to incumbent companies who pocketed the money and didn't deliver anything), and the space program (Obama was a disaster here; we haven't had manned space launch capability in ages because of him, and the decision to abandon/bypass the Moon was just stupid; we're in no shape to send humans to Mars when we can't even build a semi-permanent presence on our nearby Moon).
Is Trump bad? Sure. Is he the complete world-ending disaster you claim he'll be? Sorry, but I'm not yet seeing evidence of that. We already had an idiot buffoon as President back in 2000, and we re-elected him, and we managed to survive that. I'm not seeing yet how Trump is actually worse than Bush. When Trump starts two (not just one, but two) separate wars, and actually has people tortured, *then* I'll admit that he's at least as bad as Bush.