If you ask the more thoughtful Republicans on the internet, they'll tell you that they were against this sort of thing, but the Democrats weaponized it anyway and now they're not going to put themselves at a disadvantage by refusing to retaliate in kind. It's consistent, although I don't know if it's true. Trump and co aren't principled people but they might not have come up with the idea themselves.
“Businesses cannot discriminate,” Bondi said, referring to the Office Depot incident. “If you wanna go in and print posters with Charlie’s pictures on them for a vigil, you have to let them do that. We can prosecute you for that.”
You might want to read more about corporate personhood. It doesn't mean that the corporation is considered by the law to be a person, or that whoever or whatever performs the duties of the CEO is by definition a person. It means that a corporation, despite not being a person, has certain rights usually associated with people. For example, a person can own property or be sued. A cat cannot own property or be sued. A corporation is like a person rather than a cat in that it can also own property or be sued. There's debate about exactly which rights should be granted to corporations, but the idea that a corporation has at least some minimal set of rights is centuries old and an essential part of the very definition of what a corporation is.
You're mixing up corporate personhood and the CEO's own personhood. He isn't the corporation. Ultimately, he's just an employee. There's no good reason for the board of directors to pay him if a machine can do a better job while costing less. I'm not sure why you might think that wouldn't happen.
Not really. Everyone understands that "smart" is referring specifically to intellectuals. The idea is that his supporters have what they perceive as straightforward, simple, traditional values which are lost rather than strengthened by exposure to liberal ideas in higher education. Meanwhile so-called smart people treat his supporters with contempt while commanding them to do immoral things for reasons that go against the supporters' common sense.
I suppose I still want life-extension technology to be developed for the sake of the large number of humans who aren't Putin or Xi. But for them,
And on the pedestal, these words appear:My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!"Nothing beside remains. Round the decay.Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare.The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Progress in AI. The sooner we build a machine god to judge us, the better. But seriously, it's exciting to see something so new and different being built at a time when so much human effort is dedicated to destruction.
I should clarify what I mean by tolerance. I'm talking about the ability to co-exist peacefully even with the people that one hates. If this sort of tolerance breaks down, then the left is at a large disadvantage in the conflict that would follow - the right is generally more unified, better at violence, and in control of the federal government.
I'm not saying that people shouldn't look for objective truth, but rather that the behavior of someone who thinks he's probably right and the behavior of someone who thinks he's definitely right are going to be quite different, and that we would all (probably) be better off if cultural norms favored the former sort of behavior rather than the latter.
Norms according to which it is ok for one side to attack the other in some way but it is not ok for the other side to respond in the same way (because the first side considers itself objectively correct) only work when the balance of power between the two sides is so uneven that it would often be called oppression. The desire to oppress others is a part of the human condition that everyone ought to be alert for in themselves - being on the left does not mean being immune. However, even those on the left who are in no mood for tolerance currently don't have the power to win the fight their way - if tolerance doesn't win then the right will win.
Everyone doing this sort of thing is sure that he's the one speaking objective truth while his enemies are evil and destroying the country. The sight of so many people on the other side equally sure that they're actually the ones speaking the objective truth ought to cause some self-doubt but it seldom does.
There really are people out there who are evil and people who are destroying the country (not necessarily the same people) but we either have rules for everyone or rules for no one. "Rules for them but not for me, since I'm speaking objective truth" is, in effect, rules for no one.
Hah, I'm in the center (at least compared to the self-identified leftists here) and even I'm not eager to unite with either the people to my right or the people to my left. I'm willing to tolerate in order to preserve democracy and the rule of law, but I don't see how to unite with people whose goals for this country are incompatible with my own. I do think that tolerance would be sufficient if everyone did it - people in the past sometimes managed to attain peace that way even when they still hated each other, because they were exhausted by conflict. But the conflict here may still just be beginning and people aren't exhausted yet.
Plenty of other people's interests don't align with mine either - these days, it seems like most people's interests don't. What makes a corporation less reliable than my fellow Americans?
Corporations are predictable - they try to make money. If their profit motive aligns with my own interests, then what they do will be good for me. Amazon, for example, sells me all sorts of things for low prices and with great customer support. My interests and corporate interests won't necessarily align and that's why exit rights are so important, but at least I will still be dealing with an entity acting more-or-less rationally.
It may be related to the motive for the shooting somehow, but it's neither chilling nor political.