Louis Ingenthron @LouisIngenthron@social.cleverlibre.org

@Catawu Your endless straw men and arrogance are getting tiresome.

If you'd prefer to engage with the arguments I've made instead of the ones you've imagined, I'll engage. If not, then goodbye.

@Catawu If it's criminal harassment, they should be arrested and charged. If it's civil harassment, then the injured party should sue for damages.

Neither of these requires a court order before the offense occurred to be enforceable.

There is no point to trying to get a court order against someone to "not do crimes". That's what the law is already there for. So then it stands to reason that the goal of seeking a court order is instead to restrain otherwise legal conduct.

@NPR Is this the NPR account or the TMZ account?

@Catawu I never claimed anything of the sort.

@Catawu https://qoto.org/@LouisIngenthron/111585654949024562

@Catawu I'm pretty sure you can have asset forfeiture in criminal cases.

@Catawu That sounds good. If they were harmed, they should sue. That's different from the government suing.

@Catawu Or you could arrest them when they commit violence, as I said above.

Believe it or not, there's a wide gulf between "do nothing" and "unconstitutional prior restraint".

@Catawu That's only if you win the suit, and even then, the penalties are usually relatively minor.

But either way, you also validate their persecution complex, giving them a clear message to fundraise on.

Just look at Trump. Every time a new development in one of his 30+ cases breaks, the donor texts go out.
On the other side, Planned Parenthood also sees big revenue boosts whenever Roe is further dismantled by the courts.

If your goal is to bankrupt them, this is a failing strategy.

@Catawu I could be wrong, but I don't think the Nazis are antisemetic because it's profitable.

@JoshuaHolland Interesting, I hadn't heard that. Kind of the opposite of their playbook up to this point. Here's hoping it pans out.

@undefined @JoshuaHolland That would be nice, but he seems to be stubbornly opposed to the latter.

@ConsoleWitch @Av8rdan Yeah, that's a nice idea in theory, but it basically requires knocking down cities and rebuilding them. Passenger jets and busses are good examples of how we can incrementally improve things by encouraging folks to save gas by riding together without disrupting everything else.

@IdahoLark What, 8 billion people in this world and you think reindeer can still handle the load unassisted? 😋

@Av8rdan I mean, we basically do already have autonomous airplanes, right? How much of a passenger flight is actually done with a pilot holding the yoke? 15 minutes?

It's just an easier engineering problem to solve: fewer obstacles, all electronically tagged and tracked.

I feel like, if we do get flying cars in our lifetimes, they're going to resemble quadcopters more than airplanes, especially because those would be more efficient for short-range local flights (where they could potentially even stay in class G), and wouldn't need runways. But then you still have the problem of where the hell do you park it?

@JoshuaHolland I agree with that. And anyone who uses violence to keep others from exercising their rights *should* be arrested and charged.

But it doesn't justify the government violating someone else's rights to try to preempt it.

@NPR So most of them were just scared of criticism.

That's not "censorship". It's cowardice.