It is absolutely not a fact. There is nothing inherent about any human being that causes damage to the environment. It’s what human society as we organize it does, and a very small number of people do an incredibly outsized proportion of the damage. Focusing on things like birth control and overpopulation is a major part of ecofascist rhetoric. It is also very much about punishing a distant other because after all, if you really believed that all human births were inherently damaging to the environment, we wouldn’t be having this conversation as you would have already undone the damage caused by your own parents. But you haven’t, and nor should you for many good reasons! Those reasons also apply to everyone else too.

That’s ecofascism.

Yay, happy hail Satan day everyone. I remember when Intel chickened out and rounded up their 666 megahertz pentium 3 processors to report as being 667 megahertz. Absolute cowards, no wonder China is kicking their ass.

Even more than it used to be. Canadian foreign policy regarding Iraq, Vietnam, and Cuba took the opposite position to the US and was on the whole quite good (for a western country). But that was all decades ago. Practically speaking, Canada no longer has its own independent foreign policy.

i was shocked when I found out that The New York Times wasn’t a clock and watch fan forum for New Yorkers.

Every modern law of economics?

Yeah, I remember thinking all of these terms were strange and creepy back when I first learnt them as a kid for goodness' sake. They've always been bad and I'm very glad they're finally going away.

Hold on to that leverage over your employer with a union

In the sense of “liberal” as used in political philosophy or how the word is applied to party names in most countries around the world, yes Bush was a liberal. Americans tend to use the word differently though, since both major US parties are pro-business liberal parties, of a sort. This maybe applies a bit less to the Republicans today than in did in GHW Bush’s day, although by how much is still up for debate.

Yes it absolutely does.

Copyright infringement is absolutely the moral thing to do in quite a lot of cases. For example, for the preservation of cultural works. Corporations aren't exactly spending their money on proper archives and the people to curate them. Quite the opposite! For example, if some or all of the lawsuits against sites like archive.org are successful then the result could be a mass erasure of cultural works on the scale of the burning of the Library of Alexandria.

I really don't understand the people who (on an open source social media platform of all places!) rush to defend Meta/Facebook on bill C-18. Any action taken against Facebook's power in society, no matter how flawed, is inherently good.