blackbelt352

If by right wing you mean not strictly anti-capitalist, sure, at the end of the day shes not going to ovsrthrow capitalism. Still the policies and protections she wants to enact is the furthest left we've gone in multiple lifetimes. The last time we've had any kind of policy proposal like hers was likely FDR.

It's something I've noticed is pretty consistent across a lot of the very evangelical Protestant denominations, they have so many contradictions that just asking some veryxbasic questions just shorts out and they have to rely on thought terminating cliches. At least the less insane Protestant denominations and the Catholic Church try to maintain some level of actively grapple with the conflicting concepts. The catholic church for all its problems does have theologians throughout its history attempting to make more logical sense of the beliefs, even if many of those beliefs are somewhat nonsensical.

And literally multiple times in the gospels Jesus literally says none of us will know the day or the hour of his return. And so many people take the Book of Revalations at face value rather than understanding it as more of an encoded hit piece against most likely Emperor Nero who very much ramped up persecution against the early Christians. Basically saying, this Nero guy is a piece of shit but don't lose faith.

So at the end of the day it's Dominionism amd The Book of Revalations. It's the idea that once the Jews take control of the holy land the apocalyptic prophesies in the Book of Revelations will be set into motion and God will come down from heaven and separate the 144,000 good holy people from the sinners who didn't belive in God and take them into heaven, probably rapture style.

Being Pro Israel and a conservative isn't really about caring about the history of prejudice the Jewish people have faced throughout much of history, it's about using the Jewish people as a pawn in fulfilling a ~2000 year old prophesy.

Honestly, it holds up. Sure there's fewer polygons, but more polygons doesn't mean it looks better.

https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/

Read up on how exactly copyright works, as soon as you fix a work in a tangible and communicable form, you have a copyright to it. Taking a nude photo of yourself gives you the exclusove copyright of that photo. Taking a tourist photo does give you copyright to that specific photo, but also doesn't necessarily supercede another existing copyright if that photo is of something else that already had a copyright.

And depending on jurisdictions, your tourist photos might not be fine. For example, in France, they have very strict privacy laws and copyright enforcement, the Eiffel Tower might be public domain, but the light installation is still under copyright. And any modern buildings designed by an architect who died within the last 70 years is still protected by copyright. And on the privacy front, accidentally taking pictures of other people even in tourist areas could actually open you up to a lawsuit, but nobody's actually tried that yet so it's up in the air whether it would hold up.

Not what I'm saying. I'm saying using copyright enforcement systems as the workaround to getting non-consenusal nudes taken down from a website is putting even more burden onto already heavily abused systems. That doesn't have anything to do with the Zucc running ads, it's because copyright enforcement systems don't work very well to begin with and are very easily abused by bad actors. It's not the right tool for the job, and it would be much better to have something specifically dedicated to getting the non-consensual publishing of nude images taken down instead of some bubblegum and twine hack of a solution through copyright enforcement.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/publicity

Its the Right to Publicity. Walmart can record security footage but they shouldn't be able to use a recording for commercial purposes unless you explicitly give them permission to use it.

The Right to Publicity: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/publicity

I'm not making a comparison between the two, I'm pointing out how resolving posting non-consensual nudes of someone through copyright systems could be abused in other instances. I'm also not saying there shouldn't be a system for having non-consensual nudes taken down, we absolutely should, but it needs to be a system dedicated to taking down non-consensual images, not a patchwork workaround using copyright.

Then the half eclipse would be wrong, 50% eclipse wouldn't be a straight line across the diameter. An eclipse is two circles intersecting, not shadow sweeping across a sphere.