Communism is a liberal political and economic philosophy that finds its roots in The Enlightenment.
Short answer: no. But one should define terms, especially with legal implications.
"Hate Speech" always sounded a bit Orwellian to me. Just like "Homeland Security". People should be allowed to speak about what they hate, even if it's bigoted, racist, sexist, etc. if free thought and inquiry are valuable human rights.
In general, I believe the jurisprudence of free speech in our country (USA) essentially says beyond, libel, slander, inciting violence, or sedition, the government can't imprison you for expression or forcibly silence you in a public forum.
Private organizations and companies can regulate speech within their domains and property to the extent that they don't violate other laws or rights of other parties within and without their said domains and property.
I think that's pretty fair.
Hypocrisy is rampant among those who are rarely/never held accountable. My assumption is either that he's incapable of comprehending it, or he doesn't care about it.
Elon Musk is an authoritarian masquerading as someone who values free thought, inquiry, and action. What he means when he says "freedom" is for the ultra-wealthy to have "freedom" from accountability to an "authoritarian" government or the "whims of the unwashed masses" and do as they please with impunity.
The British Government is an authoritarian police state which punishes thought-crimes against their contemporary monarchist/corporatist zeitgeist with impunity.
Both things can be true, and I argue they are.
How can it not have the right to do that
Forcibly take land and murder civilians?
and then have the right exist simultaneously?
One can have a country and be fair and magnanimous with the people who were on the land before.
Israel as a haven for European Jewry after the 2nd world war is dumb idea to begin with for a plethora of reasons at the time. That said there're plenty of states through history that begin under dubious pretenses. Their citizenry doesn't deserve wanton violence nor do they necessarily deserve wholesale dissolution.
Israel does have a right to exist. The Israelis don't have a right to take land forcibly from people and murder women and children.
Israel, as an idea to act as a haven after the 2nd world war for European Jewry, is dumb to begin with for a plethora of reasons at the time.
That said there're plenty of states through history that begin under dubious pretenses. Their citizenry doesn't deserve wanton violence nor does its necessarily deserve wholesale dissolution.
Israel does have a right to exist. The Israelis don't have a right to take land forcibly from people.
Hamas and the Netanyahu regime are bloodthirsty authoritarian regimes who both qualify as terrorists, given their recent exploits.
You're correct. I was wrong. The Constitution would have to be amended to allow for it first.
The United States Constitution does not explicitly provide a method for the dissolution of the union. In fact, the Constitution is quite silent on the topic of secession or dissolution.
However, there are a few relevant provisions and historical precedents that are often cited in discussions about the possibility of dissolution:
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1: This clause, also known as the "Guarantee Clause," states that the United States shall guarantee to every state a republican form of government. Some argue that this clause implies a constitutional obligation for the federal government to maintain the union and prevent secession.
The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2): This clause establishes the Constitution and federal laws as the supreme law of the land, which some interpret as precluding the possibility of secession.
The Civil War and the 14th Amendment: The American Civil War (1861-1865) was fought, in part, over the issue of secession. The 14th Amendment (1868) was ratified in the aftermath of the war and includes language that could be seen as prohibiting secession. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states that no person who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States shall be eligible to hold federal or state office.
Texas v. White (1869): In this landmark Supreme Court case, the Court ruled that secession is not permissible under the Constitution. The decision stated that the Constitution looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states.
While these provisions and precedents suggest that the Constitution does not provide a clear method for dissolution, they do not necessarily rule out the possibility of secession or dissolution entirely. Some argue that secession could be achieved through a constitutional amendment or a negotiated agreement between the federal government and a state or group of states.
It's worth noting that, in practice, the possibility of dissolution is often seen as a highly unlikely and potentially destabilizing event. The United States has a long history of federalism and a strong tradition of national unity, which has generally been maintained through a system of shared power and compromise between the federal government and the states.
I've always loved this quote about conservatism:
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition: there must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
- Francis M. Wilhoit
Depends.
Protected by the first amendment, one can legally advocate for the dissolution of the Union through bicameral ratification outlined constitutionally by constitutional amendment. To advocate for armed insurrection or violent overthrow of the federal government is sedition and considered quite illegal.
If you increase my workload but don't give me a raise, I quit. Immediately.
The linear algebraic computations performed on their GPU's tensor cores (since the Turing era) combined with their CUDA and cuDNN software stack have the fastest performance in training deep neural network algorithms.
That may not last forever, but it's the best in terms of dollars per TOPS an average DNN developer like myself has access to currently.
Yo prefiero vivir con paz si posible.
Should women be allowed to fight on the front lines?
If the individual woman passes the required physical and psychological standards and requirements for the combat MOS, absolutely.
However, they shouldn't get carte blanche special or relaxed standards and treatment; lives are at stake.