We draw, somehow, more votes from Trump.

Weird. Who would have thought batshit crazy would also like greedy, hateful, and stupid?

A democratic republic is a representative democracy.

Some of the universities mentioned in the article are public institutions. SCOTUS held in Healy v James that the 1st Amendment applies to public universities. So some of the actions could be considered 1st Amendment violations.

Except these restrictions prevent speech, not harm.

That’s a false dilemma. There’s a middle ground between allowing only approved speech and allowing any speech whatsoever. And we already make that distinction. Fascists don’t believe in free speech and threaten the rights of others through threats of violence, which isn’t protected speech. Likewise fraud, libel, slander, blackmail, false advertising, and CSAM aren’t protected and are considered harmful.

If I have to wait for an employee to unlock an item, I’m just buying it somewhere else, whether it’s online or another brick and mortar that doesn’t make me beg to spend money there. Same with stores that have passcode locks on their bathroom doors. I’m not asking a retail worker for permission to pee.

Add time tracking for time tracking with every other task.

That’s a false dilemma. You can oppose all imperialism at the same time regardless of who is pursuing it. Justice and freedom isn’t a team sport. You don’t have to take the side of any major power.

“The bigger kid is the only obstacle to peace on the playground. If the bigger kid would just let the bully get away with bullying the littler kids, then everything would be fine. The bigger kid is only helping the little kid stand up to the bully in order to hurt the bully.”

Yeah, the US didn’t invade Ukraine. Russian presence and Russian attacks are the only obstacle to peace in this situation.

Simp for imperialism somewhere else, tovarish.

Anticolonialist is a weird username for someone simping for Russian colonialism in sovereign territory.

It’s also possible to be a person who genuinely cares about classic art and the environment already. And it’s also possible to be a poor person with little to no power to influence the fossil fuel industry. Chiding people for not having the privilege of free time and minimal obligations to protest isn’t very productive. Again, change needs to happen at the top and it’s not going to be achieved through appeals to emotion or coercion via symbolic or actual threats to famous art or sites.

I will not be fair, the publication isn’t. Why should I?

Because arguing dishonestly makes you look irrational and does their propaganda work for them.

but you are more likely to try to distance yourself from fossil fuel reform movements, and that’s all they need you to do to be successful.

Not really. This isn’t an effective form of protest or reform. Stunts like this allow articles like this to be written in the first place, but the stunts, even if written of with the highest of praise, are useless. Effective action would involve changing the minds of those who profit from fossil fuels the most and making it unprofitable for them to continue. You don’t need to convince people who care about world heritage sites or famous artwork. You need to convince the profiteers of industry and that won’t come from an appeal to emotion but from a threat to their financial well-being.

To be fair, that’s a false dilemma. Caring about Stonehenge doesn’t have to be compared to caring about fossil fuel reform. You can care about both or neither to any degree and they can be completely unrelated.

Find a student at a university whose student accounts get access to jstor.

It might be similar to a song you’ve heard but you’re misremembering the notes of the existing song.

Maybe try playing it for an app that recognizes the song that’s playing and then listen to any songs it guesses might be the song.

I’m going to be disappointed if you didn’t type this out on a command line.

Famous sportsballer ages like every else. News at 11.

This is less of an issue if you judge everything that isn’t first hand from a known friend or family member as suspect or at least just a waste of time. Facebook used to be a place to talk to people you knew in the real world. You could ignore anything they reposted and still engage with the actual examples of their own experiences that they posted. But now it’s so flooded with ads and listicles and clickbait and video clips that it’s not even worth trying to keep up with the people you actually know.

It’s still not stealing. It’s plagiarism or fraud or any number of other terms, but stealing necessarily requires the deprivation of a limited, rivalrous thing, like money or property. You can’t steal fame or exposure or credit, except poetically. And by that point, the word becomes so watered down that it’s meaningless. You might as well say I’m stealing your life seconds at a time by writing this extra sentence.

The purpose of using the term stealing here is only to borrow the negative moral connotations of the term, but it doesn’t communicate clearly what exactly is happening.

It’s perfectly valid to say you consider it morally equivalent with theft, but it’s not stealing.

I hated it when older people said this to me, so you probably won’t appreciate my perspective now, but you have a vast amount of life ahead of you with a lot more information you can encounter that will contradict what you think you know for certain right now. And you’ll encounter newer information after that that will contradict the previous new truths you felt so enlightened to recognize. You don’t have to listen to me at all of course, but if you think you already know what you believe, you don’t need to make a post here to discuss it. If you’re not open to the thoughts of others, I wouldn’t recommend wasting your time soliciting them. If you’re just looking for affirmations of your pre-existing perspectives, a chatbot might be a better outlet.