Would it really be (serious question, as I dont know a whole lot about legal matters)? My limited understanding was that perjury is lying under oath, and sarcasm, while it does involve saying untrue statements, isnt considered lying in everyday speech because what it actually communicates is the opposite of the literal meaning of the words. Since laws deal with humans and not computers, my assumption would be that it probably works in such a way as to depend on what message a person is actually communicating rather than the precise syntax by which they communicate it?
I mean, it isnt like it is the job of women to sleep with men in order to prevent them from becoming incels, that would be essentially like victim blaming at a population level. Im also not really sure that it would do much: most women arent going to do this, so the impact on average men's dating prospects is much smaller than the total lack of dating for any women that actually go through with it, but nobody is seriously suggesting that doing so will turn them into something akin to incels.
I dont expect this would really help much, beyond the obvious personal benefit that not becoming pregnant in a state that is hostile to women's reproductive health would have, but incels were going to hate and complain about women regardless of the sexual habits of those women, so I dont see it really making things worse in that regard either.
I mean, deport him where? Any other country would probably deport him right back here.
It wasn't until this comment that I understood it was the windows operating system and I was wondering what aspect of the online left I had somehow missed that complains about being able to see out of buildings
Wasn't he on the record criticizing Trump over j6 at some point? Might not have actually done anything about it, but that's probably incentive to at least want to avoid letting Trump go full dictator, lest he eventually find himself targeted for past disloyalty
I know that, for "truth" social at least, I meant lemmy specifically though, that they could easily do the same with the lemmy code if they wanted to make a new voat or something
I mean, I don't see any mechanism precluding conservatives from joining. They'd probably get defederated or banned on most instances, but they could easily create their own little connection of servers and run a parallel network on the same software, if they so desired. Heck, for all I know they might and I just don't know about it
Not really? Its a marketplace and some regulations on how insurance companies can conduct business. It doesnt really have anything to do with having the common people have economic control
Even Americans as a whole dont. Did you vote for Trump? Given the userbase of this platform, Im guessing likely not. What about someone who isnt yet of voting age? Or even who was just born, and therefore cant even have contributed memes and talking points to Trump's cause? There are a great many people who did what they could to stop Trump and were outnumbered, or who simply had no ability to affect the situation and so had no part in causing it. All these people are guilty of is happening to be born within the same lines on a map as a bunch of fascists and fools that have been duped by fascists.
No, thats the thing, he doesnt want people to think he's a trump supporter, and hates that if he wears this old hat he used to really like people will think its a trump hat
My father sometimes complains that he cant wear his red fishing hat anymore, because unless you pay close attention to the different design on the front, it looks like a maga hat.
the thing is though, its not really punishing all men. Not dating someone, or not having sex with that someone, is not a punishment. Like, I'm a guy myself, and I also happen to be asexual. Do you think that I am in some way punishing everyone around me by not dating them, because I dont happen to be attracted to them? Functional relationships cant really be forced, so if something leads someone to not feel safe dating, they're not obligated to force themselves to go through with it when they dont feel up to it, just because not engaging denies other people the chance to be with them. I just see this as the state of the country leading some women to not feel safe, or just not enjoy, romantic and sexual relationships as much, because the real and perceived risk to engaging in them has increased. And if they dont feel up to it, and so decide not to do it, and then meet up with some other women that feel the same way and assign a label to it, why does that suddenly make them misandrist?