I love everybody bro
But no, seriously, I see no reason to believe they ordered the hack, or that they believed the passwords would continue the illegal exploitation of private information.
I see no reason why people who shared the hacked data of a Nazi website would be prosecuted as if they are malicious hackers themselves.
So, why?
The real answer to all of this is just decentralization - this was the intention of the Constitution, I believe, and the very model of American government.
I am uncomfortable with the idea of being held responsible for them circulating this data - if they did not illegally obtain it, can it be said to be the case that they are violating rights by presenting it..? Unless, of course, they believed they were functioning passwords and it was part of a further operation to continue using the information to breach the company's data.
It could potentially be seen simply as verification of some element of a news story - like how we have seen the publication of names / email addresses / passwords etc. of Nazi websites be leaked, often after the sites have been taken down, simply as part of verifying that the site was legit taken down, the site was populated by actual people, etc.
I also do not think it is good to take down "far right" news media that isn't even really far right. OAN, Newsmax, etc., are certainly conservative, but what would we really be even doing if we were to take down mid-stream conservative Trumpist outlets..? Driving more people towards news sites like Unz and platforms like Gab. Make it impossible for them to have larger networks in the free marketplace of ideas, and then you drive them into the arms of smaller & more radical networks.
I am not a Leftist, but I wouldn't think of this as a leftist W unless your idea of a W is serving the short-term interests of the DNC.
I imagine that some do pay for it, while others don't.
I've learned there's a huge variety in compensation for Priests, as well. In places like Greece, where it is the state religion, Priests are government employees, I believe, and they get some fixed amount as public servants, while in much of the world it all depends on the local parish. Many priests have to continue working in the world to pay their bills.
I am not sure if there has been a case at my church where we have crowdfunded a casket but I know we have people pay something like $25 USD a year to be buried in the Church cemetery, which is an absolute steal.
Poor people here are universally cremated.
The most annoying aspect of this is when you know actual information has to be out there, but it is being drowned out by dozens of sites reposting the less relevant and low quality information... And then you go to search in another language and you see substandard machine translations of all the garbage you were just fleeing, lol.
I consider it to be alarming because it can encourage people to choose cremation unnecessarily, just because it fits the budget. I would not take away or mock anyone's choice to cremate if that really is their first choice...
But I think it's upsetting for Orthodox Christians and other groups that require burial and would like to have a dignified casket at an affordable price. Just like how I sometimes feel bothered thinking about *the cost of burial plots." The idea of being fleeced of a significant part of a modest inheritance through the funerary process is really off-putting.
I suppose my definition is the one from the Oxford dictionary:
an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence:
J6 cannot meet such a burden since it was not an organized attempt and it certainly wasn't violent in the way that a real move to overthrow the government would be, only violent in the sense that any disorganized protest can be.
... And while some people can toss around the word insurrection, you notice that there is no serious charge against Trump on this, because there can be no charge, since he said nothing nor does any other evidence exists which show he incited anyone to any illegal act, let alone an attempt to overthrow the government. This is only possible through assumption & interpretation of what happened that it was even an 'insurrection.'
That's a mere interpretation of what happened that would never stand up in a court of law, hence why no formal charges have been brought. It's completely speculative.
Which is exactly why we can't remove him from ballots or refer to it as an insurrection.
Remember the Iraq War? We referred to the opposition after Hussein fell as terrorists (not very accurate, very lame Zioconservative take), or as insurgents, which is accurate.
Insurgency implies some long term armed resistance. It can't refer to some impromptu riot on the police lines.
Ummm… but what about all the men in the bible with many wives. There was no one man one wife thing in almost the entire Bible. Almost all of the people who are touted to be amazing examples of God’s peopel… were polygamists… and since that wasn’t enough, they would have the concubines on the side. Point that out and they run away.
There's several points in the Gospel where Christ points at a departure from this though, right, like in Matthew 19 and Matthew 22, but the most poignant passage is 1 Corinthians 7:
2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
8 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
The purpose of getting married is the relief of sexual lust - and since we are talking about just relieving it, the idea of having multiple wives or concubines on the side is a perversion of this. We can even look at the story of King David and Bathsheba as an example of why you shouldn't covet moaaarr wamen. It has been pointed out before that, like, adultery and lust are so powerful and pertinent that 2 of the 10 commandments are about it...
So i would say that one of the clarifications that exist, and one of the new usherings in of Christianity, is strict monogamy, and also praise for monasticism...
Conservatism, at its core, has always been a purely reactionary opposition to liberal and progressive politics. In the modern era, it has felt the need to wrap itself in something resembling a positive ideology which presents thinly falsifiable policy positions, regardless of how narrow and mutable those ideological boundaries might be.
Well, there's two major divides within conservatism as it plays out today, right?
Classical liberalism, we can call one, and then populist conservatism...
Classical liberal Republicans/Libertarians are highly principled and highly progressive with very positive, engaging values - think about these old guys like Paul Findley who were fundamentally isolationist, anti-war, pro-Palestine conservatives, that truly believed in Hayek's Constitution of Liberty and that the key to bettering humans is through decentralization of power, minimal government, and human freedom.
And then there is conservatism that goes back to, like, tradition or populism.
Of course, these things often combine, but I think you need to treat conservatism with a lot of nuance because otherwise you are just dismantling a strawman.
Because until recently, abject, reactionary nihilism has been seen as a losing position.
Revolutionary nihilism is how radical liberalism was portrayed by Dostoevsky in the Devils - a great book - and it does make sense, because we see at its root that some of these radical movements actually were about reinventing all of society around totally new principles and annihilating what has hitherto been normalized in Western civilization...
Yes, there is like the Nietzschean reactionaries who want to build the New Man, but yeah, it's still a losing position. I do not even think that guys like BAP are even on that level - like some of the hardcore neopagan LARP squad certainly envisions a completely new basis to muh Western civilization. But it's not like Varg Vikernes is a viable option - in spite of how wildly popular Black Metal became after hipsters getting into blackgaze and shit after ironic Pitchfork album reviews, not even one of the most seminal figures in the genre can be anything much more than a joke for having these beliefs.
I think one of the problems we have is the paranoia about this stuff - you act as if the right is really some monster that is rising to swallow the country in a wave of Fascism, but it's not the right who are anywhere near successfully removing their opponents from ballots.
... It's doubly true for blue collar workers in Asia.
White collar workers get like 15-20 days off a year in Korea, and these are also used for sick days - at enlightened companies, you can work from home on a sick day and have it not count as leave...
I don't know that much about what goes on in blue collar work, but something tells me the workplaces for natives just that are just a few steps above the blue collar labor done by migrants living in barracks in isolated locales working 60+ hour weeks aren't the type to liberally give sick days.
Pretty garbage takes here: we have the good, properly motivated group that votes for good guys and the bad people who are attached to the superficial and illusions...
This would not be different from a conservative analyzing the left as motivated by prestige/status (proper virtue signaling as approved by academia/mass media) and material gain through democrat policies, while the right is motivated by reason and real values, true philosophy, etc. Something I think we've heard done...
Pathologizing your political opponents is absolutely never a good look whether left or right does it.
I will not say that there are aspects of the above that are not true, however, just as how some leftists are very performative and only concerned with appearing correct and receiving accolades from people they admire. But to really suggest the majority of Trump voters (which are conservatives in general) are not motivated by their own principles and visions is just demonizing your opponents.