WorldWideLem

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Would it matter? If they died living well according to Jesus's teachings they'd be rewarded in heaven. Their mortal death would be inconsequential.

That said, they could probably survive as many homeless do through donations and begging.

[–] [email protected] 62 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I was interested in it but at the end of the day Dorsey got Twitter into its initially mediocre state, and he's endorsed RFK Jr. as well as Musk's purchase of Twitter. So should I really expect it to be any better? I'll keep an eye on it but my expectations aren't terribly high.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

This principle exists to shield the people from their government. It is not intended to be (and has never been) a protection for someone's social status or reputation.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

The real question is how much would I accept in payment to use Twitter. It's probably not a lot, but it surely is not negative.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I don't think it's that simple. Heinous allegations can make that business relationship untenable. YouTube has an image to protect as well as other partnerships to maintain. There are people (not just wealthy executives) whose livelihood relies on those things,.

If a person's reputation, fair or not, creates a risk to those things, why should YouTube be forced to assume that risk on their behalf?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If the company you're representing would prefer you didn't, then sure.

Let's use another example, if someone was a big supporter of fascism and was wearing a hat or mask that said, "save fascists", would you prefer the store couldn't prevent them from wearing that?

How bad would the phrase have to get to change your mind?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

The statement itself shouldn't be political in its sentiment, but obviously the organization exists and it has its own policy positions, events, advocacy, and I can go to their website to donate. I think it's fairly obvious which one Whole Foods would be concerned with.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

I believe the legal repercussions are part of that "can ruin your life", not just the addiction and/or health concerns.

Though that still makes it an entirely artificial consequence that does not need to and should not exist.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Poor diet, alcohol abuse, and tobacco use can all certainly be attributed to corporate malfeasance in at least some part.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)
 

Somehow this is the only country on earth where this seems to happen. When talking about shootings involving guns, okay, fine, the US is certainly an outlier there, but every country has cars and police.

This is murder.