Initiateofthevoid

It’s the threat of danger that matters.

Correct! It is the threat of danger that matters. Domestic violence as you described is threatening and abusive, and therefore violent.

Is it the same thing when the property is owned by a company, not a person?

Is graffiti terrorism? It's property damage. It can be ideologically motivated. If someone had spray painted the cars, instead of lit them on fire... would it still be terrorism?

Who was threatened here?

Violent, criminal acts

Property damage is not violence and nonviolent protests are not terrorism. They will claim it is. They are lying.

It's a state response, not a federal one. NY doesn't really have the jurisdiction to file suits for crimes commited by the federal government against itself.

The states do have the jurisdiction to sue over a violation of the rights of its citizens commited by the federal government, especially when the violation is explicitly against federal law and the state has hard evidence with which to present their case.

So yes, I'll take it too! Anything is literally better than nothing!

This is basically how teaching secular ethics always is, though. Doesn't seem special about 2025. People will always be overconfident in their beliefs, but it's not necessarily a coincidence or even hypocrisy that they can hold both views at the same time.

You can believe that morality is a social construct while simultaneously advocating for society to construct better morals. Morality can be relative and opposing views on morality can still be perceived as monstrous relative to the audience's morality.

If instead you want people to continue believing what they currently believe, than yes, cynicism and snark is the way to go. Thanks for the contribution.

I don't interpet it differently.

I am telling you that as they realize things are currently bad, you can help them realize the ways in which things have always been bad. That the fact that current affairs are even possible suggests a progression of events leading up to this, rather than a sudden and reversible shift in political paradigms.

The whole point is that they don't know what you know. If you want them to know what you know, help them understand it.

If instead you want people to continue believing what they currently believe, than yes, cynicism and snark is the way to go. Thanks for the contribution.

"I was once willing to give my life for what I believed my country stood for" [emphasis mine]

Past tense. They did not say they will defend colonialism, racism, or genocide with their lives. They said they believed their country stood for different things, and now they know differently.

This isn't about respect or civility. It's about productivity and purpose. I'm not telling you to play nice. I'm asking you to try to help people understand your point of view when they're clearly in the process of changing their mind about how the world works. It's an opportunity to spread awareness and you're wasting it on snark and pointless cynicism.

“We were planning to now focus on new accessibility features on our open-source Thorium Reader, better access to annotations for blind users and an advanced reading mode for dyslexic people. Too bad; disturbances around LCP will force us to focus on a new round of security measures, ensuring the technology stays useful for ebook lending (stop reading after some time) and as a protection against oversharing.

This is a genuinely disgusting statement. "We were planning on helping the blind, but now we don't want to. Look what you made us do."

Why is lemmy filled with this?

What do you want from this interaction?

Do you want them to feel shame for not seeing the truth you've seen? What are you trying to accomplish?

Things are bad. Things are getting worse. People are learning this in real time, and the endless commentary of "it always has been" and "nothing's new" is not helpful or productive. It doesn't even make sense. People are coming around to your point of view - that things are bad. Maybe, as they learn why and how things are bad, they will learn about some of the things that have always been bad, but they won't learn it from a comment like this.

Things are bad. Things are getting worse. We don't need more cynicism and apathy. We need to help people understand that things are bad, and things are getting worse.

Not a good idea, if only because it further supports and legitimizes private security firms and embeds them deeper into government functions.

They seem to be genuinely trying to provide information about a tool that they find preferable to your solution. And you're not even the OP they were responding to. Nobody in this thread has called you or your solution lazy.

A bash snippet extension is "an extension [for a code editor] that provides a collection of snippets for bash scripting." It's a tool that is purpose-built to tell you bash commands on the fly, but smaller, more efficient, and easier to install than a local LLM.

The user you are replying to appears to prefer this because it will also tell you the same bash command every time you ask (non-deterministic outputs can be different for identical requests)