They wouldn’t be able to finish stealing that car before a thousand hungry lawyers ate them alive. Why do we let media companies do that?

They would probably actually have a decent shot at getting away with it, at least at first.

And to answer your question, it’s because the anger that companies generate by doing this shit ends up turning into piracy. Why would you try to punish a corp for doing this (likely wasting your time) when a cheap VPN and basic tech literacy gets you what you want?

The effort ratios are way out of wack when it comes to digital products. It’s easy to get around digital bullshitery, not so much in the real world where we are all car dependant.

That, and a land tax

I don’t think there are enough such edge cases for it to make sense for it to be legal.

If a corp needs an employee to be that close, then they should hire local, and/or rotate staff.

At a bare minimum, I agree, no corp should profit off of housing.

That’s how a lot of co-ops works. Or maybe it’s called non-market rental. I don’t remember the exact name but it’s definitely a thing.

Either way, landlord parasites are not needed.

restricting corporations from purchases, banning Airbnb (yes, they drive prices up, and if you use them, you are contributing to it), penalizing if unit is not occupied (though enforcement of this will be hard), or banning foreign investors.

Agreed, we should be doing all of those things. Corporations should not be able to own any kind of housing at all, and multi unit buildings should be under non-profit co-ops.

And to penalize unoccupied housing, we should have a georgist taxation system.

One day I’ll have more to do and you people will be rid of me.

And that day will be a sad one.

The democrats will just pick another stinker. How do you think we got Biden in the first place?

The two party system needs to be fixed before we will see any actually good candidates.

Because enshitifying their service would earn them short term profits, which is the only thing corps/shareholders care about.

Go for it. It was already an old, long dead meme when I posted it here.

This but corps

Instead of hotdogs, get something that actually has taste. Either bratwurst or hot Italian sausage.

Civilians are pretty much everywhere alongside Hamas members who are usually between them.

Yeah, so maybe they should stop dropping bombs.

Israeli actions wouldn’t be similar to any of them.

Not only is this not true, but even if it were, as I’ve already pointed out it doesn’t need to be similar. A genocide can be totally unique yet still fall under the definition of genocide.

It’s impossible not to kill civilians in such a conflict when the area you are fighting in is a densely populated city

But it is possible to not drop bombs on areas you KNOW civilians are at.

Of course genocide is not defined by numbers. However, all genocides should have some traits in common.

This is also not a part of the definition of genocide.

How should Israel respond?

I get that there are unused ways of minimizing civilian deaths

Seems like you already know the answer to that question. Yet for some reason you’re giving Israel a free pass for killing civilians. So effectively you’re just arguing for terrorism. State terrorism, but terrorism nonetheless.

Good people don’t kill civilians.

I agree that genocides have different flavors but the results of all is a completely or partially removed ethnicity. By saying partially, I mean roughly 40% killed or moved to a detention facility.

The definition of genocide contains no percentage threshold. You’re making definitions up out of thin air.

Most of those deaths happen due to the lack shelters and lack of places where people can hide.

…and the bombs landing on their heads.

If Israel wanted to genocide Palestinians, they would have done it in a week.

Not all genocides are done with equal fervor.

Also, they would not have to be dead if Hamas didn’t start this.

This was started in 1948 when Palestinians were forced from their homes. Playing a game of “who started it” doesn’t justify anything.

it’s more of an approach where they no longer try as much to limit civilian causalities as much as possible.

Yeah… almost like they are totally OK with killing civilians (genocide).

it’s probably more than 20k. What does it prove though?

See above definition on genocide. If thousands of dead Palestinian civilians (~50% of whom are children) isn’t enough to be labeled as genocide then the definition you are using is a bad one.

Judging which bomb is purposefully thrown on civilians is impossible.

Are you saying that when Israel bombed the Jabalia refugee camp, they were not intentionally killing civilians?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/18/israeli-airstrikes-kill-80-in-palestinian-refugee-camp

How many Palestinian civilians have been killed?

How many bombs have been intentionally dropped on civilians?

in whole or in part

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

In Israel, citizens are equal. Muslims and others have the same rights as Jews.

https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/human-rights-watch/

It is an ethnostate, by definition it does not treat people equally.

You also conveniently ignored the fact that they are committing genocide.

Ethnostates are inherently immoral, regardless of which race they are. Everyone should be treated equally under the law, regardless of race. Nobody should be a 2nd class citizen, apartheid is immoral.

And that’s all before counting the ongoing genocide.