I am not arguing in favor of pacifism. I fully recognize the need to defend against harmful ideologies that infect people’s minds with bad ideas. And if those who harbor bad ideas threaten violence then it may be necessary to react in kind. I accept that.

I’m simply saying that it matters what kind of language we use when we talk about it. Calling conservatives, or any opposing side perceived as a violent threat, subhuman creates the misconception that your own side could not ever be in the wrong. In so doing, it is possible that the we too could become infected with the bad idea that “All (insert opposing threat here) must die.” I don’t ever in my life time want to see anything like the Holocaust happen because people couldn’t stop and think that at some point the killing needs to stop, because it’s reached a point where we are no longer defending and only killing out of pure and base fear that the threat will rise up again. There is a point where self defense goes too far and gives rise to genocide. That possibility scares the hell out of me.

I don’t disagree with you, but at some point, most of these folks are grown ass adults with full cognitive capacity and the same access to information as the rest of us.

It’s a commitment and dedication to wilfull ignorance that is a conscious decision. They make the choice to ignore new information and ignore their own values and hypocrisy. They are 100% responsible for their own actions and treating them as victims invalidates their responsibilities and denies them personal accountability.

I don’t know that I’d call them subhuman, but they are hurting, killing, and oppressing people in active worship to the God of ignorance. These are bad people, and they don’t deserve your defense.

As long as they keep indoctrinating newer generations, they are part of the oppressors.

Are they still victims when they become violent? Or when they promote violence? At some point the threshold is crossed.

So the poor defenseless indoctrinated are ok with racism in their party and nazism? They have no autonomy at all to choose?

Those “victims” will gleefully watch you suffer and die. They will smile as your existence becomes illegal. Those “victims” will proudly facilitate your death and, in many cases, will physically participate in committing that murder.

Nearly every act of domestic terrorism in U.S. history has been committed by conservatives. Nearly every act of racism, bigotry, misogyny, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia and antisemitism in our country is committed by conservafives. They are not the victims, they are the victimizers.

Conservatives have the entirety of the world’s knowledge at their fingertips and access to the world’s foremost experts. Yet, they choose to follow hateful ideologies. They choose to be opposed to education. They choose to condemn scientists and doctors as liars and traitors. Conservatives are not the victims. They are not victims of anything at all.

Has anyone ever told you that you look like Hony Tawk?

Because it’s the internet, and different communities exist in different places. I watched Reddit deteriorate into a far-left cesspool like many others, and hoped this would be a place where talking to other people and having discussions is encouraged. More so, I thought this would be a place where delegating your political opposition as ‘subhumans’ would be countered the way it should be.

Right. The individual base stations always have had a service region. It’s why I can’t use starlink over international waters and the same thing happens from a fishing boat or anything. There’s no purposeful deactivations. Just boundaries of service already established.

It’s literally part of the service when you sign up.

You’re right that technically he could provide coverage anywhere in the world. There’s lots of reasons he doesn’t. But that’s always been part of the service.

18 UNcountries recognize it as Russian territory. Some of them large superpowers or economic hubs. Including one that’s expected to launch starlink soon. (Though all generally shitty countries.)

But aside from that. The rules for supplying things to Ukraine were spelled out very clearly. It’s why none of the Western supplies hsve been used in Russian territory attacks. Doing so Russia claimed it would retaliate.

The articles are claiming that he intentionally turned it off when it was originally on and that’s not the case. It was never active there.

Yes. However Russia has claimed it years before this conflict and threatened retaliation if westerners interfere. It’s why all of the supplies we give are only used in Ukraine. The attacks on Russian soil are not with Western supplies intentionally and this would be no different.