deleted by creator

It’s populism. Donald Trump everytime he speaks, speaks to his constituents. Joe Biden addresses the whole room. Donald gets to say “these people on this side, with the blue name tag, those folks are bring our society to its knees” where Joe has to play “some of those red-tagged folk don’t like change.” It’s a lack of historical context that makes the same event repeat over and over again, and societies repeat the cycle over and over again.

Many prominent Greek philosophers, then Roman philosophers, then French philosophers (and in-between) thought that the power structure naturally drifted from Monarchy->Republic->Anarchy->Monarchy ad infinitum. But I think that the only true constant here is lack of context. This type of soft-balling, easy to chew bs that dems propogate isn’t popular, it isn’t compelling, it isn’t dramatic. It is mostly geniune, even if geniuenly worthless. And that doesn’t play to a crowd filled with people who are willing to accept the first idea that drift into their hearing range.

The only thing that wins is fighting fire with fire. And after a certain point, was it worth it? Wouldn’t things just be better if it wasn’t so damn complicated? Let us return to the Earth that we so desparately categorize ourself as without.

Rap Snitches Tellin all their business Sit in the court and be their own star witness “Do you see the perpetrator?” Yeah, I’m right here Fuck around, get the whole label sent up for years

Until they actually aren’t:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6Kf3I_OyDlI&pp=ygUYdGVzbGEgc2VsZiBkcml2aW5nIGZhaWwg

This is another example of how leniency for those who would make themselves king eventually leads to dictatorship. See you in another 5 years for the civil war.

Not a historian, but from what history I know, it generally depends on the momentum of the person who was assassinated.

If the assassinee is both a) popular and b) not a force in the status quo, then I would say that generally assassination halts their platform.

If the assassinee is popular, and at work in the status quo, it only serves to make their platform more visible and therefore generally stronger.

One example I can think of of the first situation are the Roman Gracchi, who were populists during the late Roman republic. Assassination of two successive ‘Brothers of the People’ led to a complete rout of their platform - the Lex Agraria.

There are many examples of the second situation - MLK jr. is an easy one. The platform of MLK jr. had already come to be accepted in the nation’s consciousness as right - it is only the logical conclusion of the cessation of legal slavery some 100 years prior. Therefore, when he was assassinated, it only served to justify the directive of the nation.

I’m certainly open to examples exploring exceptions to the two cases provided, as well. I think it’s an interesting topic.

ITT: “Blocking isn’t a necessary feature, specifically because I do not get harassed.” Also: “Because you COULD just make an alt, take the time to make a fake email, and even potentially be required to have a fake ID in the future, muting and blocking are LITERALLY the same thing”

Any disincentive is one more step some spineless bastard has to go through to harass you, even if there are work arounds.

Hi! When DNS servers are launched, they have to be purchased, correct? So in this case, did Mali file for the domain to be reclaimed somehow? Do you have an idea how that might work?