jabbywocker

4 ms·

1. 31.▲
   by jabbywocker 11mo ago

   It was a major expansion, based solely on the reuse of the term. It’s why I used it as an example. The main arguments boils down to that since corporations are people and have free speech, and that a natural persons financial activity is co
2. 32.▲
   by jabbywocker 11mo ago

   At least for me, the problem is that making them completely equivalent in a legal sense has undesirable outcomes, like Citizens United. Having distinct terms allows for creating distinct, but potential overlapping sets of laws/privileg
3. 33.▲
   by jabbywocker 11mo ago

   I disagree, but I don’t think we’ll see eye-to-eye on much when it comes to the behavior of commentators
4. 34.▲
   by jabbywocker 11mo ago

   He wasn’t an ass about it. And the people who don’t know what BEAM is can easily google their way to more information than they’d ever be able to get from a comment here. Edit: I will say that’s a better take. It’s at least blatant about it
5. 35.▲
   by jabbywocker 11mo ago

   Can’t wait until we collectively drop whining about “gatekeeping”
6. 36.▲
   by jabbywocker 1y ago

   I find it much better for my use cases to use this than to use a JavaScript framework the necessitates the use of a JavaScript server
7. 37.▲
   by jabbywocker 1y ago

   By your own framing, literally any enforcement of a law is “terrorism”. So your solution to this proposal of “terrorism” is to actually commit “terrorism”.