Fair enough.

Wow! Hosting terrorists on your stream is so perfect! So is blasting propaganda music with flags saying “death to the jews” on them!

The “hosting terrorists” part would be referring to the Houthi soldier he interviewed on stream. I personally don’t have a problem with having controversial people on for stuff like interviews but the problem was more that Hasan was trying to make him seem more appealing and only giving him soft-balls.

• The Houthi guy was talking about guarding captured foreign merchant ship crews and making them dance and Hasan was talking about how much fun that must have been.
• Hasan later cut him off and redirected when he started talking about how the knife on the shelf behind him can’t be sheathed until tasting blood.
• Hasan ran out of prepared questions pretty quickly so he started asking him about what his favorite anime was and what fast food they had available there. He was just generally trying to make him seem relatable.
• Someone in chat wanted Hasan to ask about if they would release the hostages if peace or a ceasefire was negotiated and Hasan something like “I’m not asking him that, of course he would”.
• He later described it as “like talking to Anne Frank”.

The “blasting propaganda music” refers to him showing a Yemeni propaganda music video on stream to a guest and viewers. The lyrics were mainly about all the weapons and war supplies they wanted, and what they would use them for. It honestly was just bizarre and left everyone confused since there wasn’t really context for showing it.

I love how people (rightfully) called out Pewdiepie for jokingly paying guys to put “death to jews” on a sign, but when hasan does it unironically its okay

Not sure if the “Death to Jews” thing is referring to something specific or just that Hamas is very vocally anti-Israel.

That sucks, but good on you for looking out for others. What community was it? If you want to call out bad mods, you could make a post on yepowertrippinbastards or fediverselore. Besides letting others know about the injustice, hearing about the drama can be very entertaining.

I really suggest people don’t block it. Lemmy needs active users and communities engaging with each other and while it is going to have some crazies just from how many people are on it, it should also be the least vulnerable to group think. When I hear of another instance defederating I always suspect it of being a fringe echo chamber.

Honestly though I would defend the man too. Take from that what you will, but I’ll just say it’s usually good to be exposed to people who disagree with you.

Yeah according to fedidb it has about 36% of users, and over 5 times the amount of the next highest. It will probably represent the general public better than anything else.

I always took the phrase “She is someone’s [whatever]” not to suggest that the recipient isn’t thinking of them as a person, but that they are thinking of them as a stranger. As in, “How would you like it if you knew someone was treating your [person you care about] like that?”. It’s still a criticism for the recipient, but it doesn’t go as far to accuse them of dehumanizing anyone. Instead, it suggests you should treat them like you would someone you are close to and care about more deeply.

Mr. Bean energy https://youtu.be/4JwBaLrgzUY

I frequently see people get negative scores for politely expressing an unpopular political opinion. And people at c/UnpopularOpinion get downvoted for it all the time. Reddit is probably worse though

I always recommend Aldi if it’s a local option. It’s where I do most of my shopping and I honestly have no idea what people are talking about with increasing grocery prices. It’s probably gone up there too, but not enough to notice when I get my receipt.

Non-interference is a good default position to have, but we are capable of acting on behalf of others when we have a certain threshold of confidence for what they would want in a situation. Otherwise, we would consider it wrong to give CPR to an unconscious person.

When it comes to life, people overwhelmingly prefer to continue existing when they have the power to choose. So it makes sense for us to presume that a hypothetical person would choose to be born given the opportunity.

For general rape, the victim is typically capable of giving consent but chooses not to, meaning we know the rapist is violating them. For situations where the victim is incapable of consenting, it is true that we are assuming a position for them. As a society, we have observed that being made to have sex in a vulnerable position is a negative experience, so it makes sense to extrapolate they would be opposed if they were capable of choosing.

For life, the observation is different. Once people have the power to knowingly “opt out” of existing, they rarely do. Most people instead prefer existing and consider it to be positive. So we should assume a hypothetical person would also choose to be born when acting on their behalf.

Is that saying meant to cover baseless assertions about someone’s actions? Hillary Clinton was involved in enough shady shit to not need to make stuff up. If someone says that she donated to her opposition’s campaign they should have evidence to back that up. Otherwise they just give ammunition to people convincing others to ignore real, substantive criticisms against Trump.

That article mostly describes her campaign focussing on criticizing stronger and more likely candidates early on when the Republican nomination was still up for grabs. That just makes tactical sense. Otherwise you might as well also accuse her of being involved in a conspiracy to get Vermin Supreme in power too.

You can say the fact that Hillary is a woman contributed to her loss. You can even argue that it was enough to make the difference in Trump winning. But the main reason she lost is because she was still otherwise a weak candidate overall.

For free speech, that would be similar. A company can have a social media account or make broadcasts or advertisements, and having to have an individual as a proxy would just be cumbersome. And yes, that includes things like lobbying. Otherwise, you could have a company pay for private individuals for the service of lobbying on their behalf and essentially have no cap or regulation. Formalizing what they are allowed to do also allows you to go after them for things they aren’t, again without needing to prove individual culpability. And if we decide they have too much influence in politics, it gives us a lever to pull to reign them in.

Corporate personhood is mostly for convenience. Otherwise a company would need an individual to buy and sell corporate property, and they would have to rearrange stuff like that whenever that person dies, retires, or does something else that restricts property use. And it means an individual wouldn’t be able to be a tyrant for everyone else working at the company just because everything is in their name.

Importantly, it makes it much easier for customers to sue, since they only need to show the company wronged them in some way rather than an individual being personally responsible. Usually they would have no way of knowing who makes which decisions and has which responsibilities, and by suing the company as a whole. they don’t have to. The same applies for governments, police departments, school boards, etc.

He was making a joke about Paw Patrol

This is just an episode from the Office