Until one emerges that’s even slightly stable enough to use as a secure currency (and not a stablecoin…), there can never be the kind of broad adoption introducing an entire separate exchange paradigm to the global economy would require. And that’s aside from the technical requirements that aren’t met - there’s no crypto network that could even come close to handling the load put on ex: the ACH, meaning awful lag on every transaction.

It’s just not there yet, and pretending like extreme reactions to a comment that’s both condescending and insulting to the users who disagree with you are unreasonable - or a reflection of nuanced opinions on cryptocurrencies in general- is disingenuous enough to be concerning. Surely you must see the flaws in how you’re behaving here.

Not every country has a corrupt securities administration.

Man, imagine how nice it would be if this were true.

The situation, where public lobbying for morality alone is capable of unilaterally causing wide cultural censorship, is the issue that has arose. Correcting that situation by rising to the tools by which the puritans are attempting to force their backwards morality onto society is a reaction, not the root cause. It’s pretty explicitly different.

“Man, I don’t understand why unregulated currencies are unpopular! I’m going to dismiss the heaping mountain of examples of it being abused with no possible recourse as just people being unreasonable in their dislike! That’ll convince the masses!”

A: that is not what I said
B: So the crusades were what, then?

Atheism has never been used as the justification for a genocide - can any major religion claim the same? It’s obviously an extreme example, but at the same time it’s not entirely unreasonable to feel superior when comparisons like that are so easy to make.

Ah, preachy and unoriginal. Noted.

Ew, when did we get reddit’s cringy appeals to the audience talking past the original poster in an ineffectual attempt to throw shade?

Almost like it’s the goal. It’s not, they’re just hacky idiots, but it’s almost like that…

The question here was whether it was subject to civilian or military aviation ATC - from every report released thus far, it was under civilian authority. Obviously, yes, a fighter jet was originally a military aircraft - but that isn’t relevant at the moment, since it’s registered to an organization independent of the US military.

Lemmy is pretty great compared to reddit so long as the topics stay away from anything to do with feminism or women’s rights. Otherwise it starts to feel like the reddit cesspit is leaking, and it’s depressing. Anyone remember the few days when “the bear” discussion took over the fediverse? Those were dark times. Or any time someone even mentions the word “mansplaining”, even if it’s satirical.

This wasn’t a military aircraft, it was a privately owned 70 year old jet.

The nazi presence in the furry movement is really under estimated by people who’re outside the subculture. There’s, like… there’s a lot of them in there, guys. Recruiting from persecuted groups is already standard operating procedure for fascists, and the furry community notoriously has both money, a great deal of practice at forming groups that insulate their members from criticism, and a real serious problem with sexism. Unfortunately, it makes for the ideal environment to grow far-right movements.

I think that’s commonly what things like this are called, do you have a better name? Regardless of that though, that doesn’t really address that this is a very common concept across a great many cultures, most likely including your own.

You think ya’ll don’t have community spaces? I have 100% seen things like this flying into numerous European countries and in the larger train stations, they just didn’t have the obnoxiously ostentatious signs (which I sorta appreciate having, though it’s form is laughable it’s a decent warning about what’s going on there so you can avoid it like the plague). It’s pretty common to have some sort of designated managed space within public spaces, with an admitted abstraction it’s not all that different from getting parade permits or reserving space in a park.

Colloquial use, not legal. It has been years since I had a class on the admission of testimony, and I mostly just made 40k jokes every time someone said ‘hearsay’ anyways.

Yeah, basically. They’re not uncommon, usually the way it works is you can reserve the booth as a representative of a non-disruptive, non-commercial group then go there and hand out your pamphlets on how ankles are sinful or collect signatures for a ballot initiative or just generally ramble on about how knitting is lizardpeople math. Do whatever, you just can’t approach people outside the little defined space.

Wait, how? Not like in general, obviously it sucks here, but how is this particularly egregious…?

A bit of a clickbait title (but only a bit) - the WA law moved to make priests required reporters, professions who are legally required by law to report child abuse. The injunction sought to exempt catholic priests from being required to report child abuse which was reported to them under the ‘seal of the confessional’ (the special super secret group chat that only exists between you, your priest and god) and after this injunction they are still required reporters in all other instances.

This is… at least a consistent ruling? For example religious leaders can’t be held as accomplices if they don’t report crimes that were told to them in a ritual setting (oversimplification) or be held liable if they don’t forewarn about someone planning suicide or some other crime and then said person goes thru with it. Predictably canon law is rife with examples of breaking the seal of the confession to prevent a suicide, of course, but lets just ignore that.

The rationalization for this is twofold: First freedom of religion from civil regulation. Second and more credibly that it would be allowing unfair weight into criminal proceedings because of the perceived sanctity of the confession and the upstanding character of priests (lol). The argument goes that testimony brought of things revealed in confession is by it’s nature hersay, but hersay that would be presented as being devout reporting of an unimpeachable confession, and that could unduly sway juries and in general get really messy so the law just doesn’t want to deal with it.

I strongly disagree with this ruling, the catholics get enough special treatment what with not being prosecuted for raping all those children, that’s just the background to the arguments being made about it.

Yeah that… actually, yeah that’s a good point. Why are we believing this is true? I’ve never heard of this site, their citations are all just random social media dead ends, the article is really sloppy… are we just not questioning this because we want it to be true?