@ginagirlgenius@PIneptos@MythionVR @KristinRix @MissDahlELama @MerriamWebster Shaming people for what they WANT to do is like prosecuting for thought crimes. We can't ruin a a person's life for wanting something if they aren't talking about or acting on their desires at all.
@Vyor_1@SmytheBobbi Articles of impeachment can brought for breaking of constitutional law, as well as criminal law. As the President's power is set out under the constitution, and he tried to abuse that power, he wasn't impeached for crimes, but for the reasons in the articles of impeachment.
@Vyor_1@SmytheBobbi That's not true. There are witnesses, both Democrat and Republican, stating Trump has committed crimes. He just hasn't been convicted of them. Yet ...
Is this truly where the world is headed? Where video games are put on par with Olympic sports and cheating casual players are criminalised the far worse than performance enhancing drug users are?
These guys weren't cheating in a Pro-Gaming tournament either ...
“15 major suspects ... were arrested for developing hack programs, hosting marketplaces for hack programs, and brokering transactions."
https://t.co/4TA0BwgUcm
These people made software that allowed people to cheat while playing a computer game.
If the savvy journalists and vocal "subject matter authorities" were so off the mark with the internet, why are we listening to them about blockchain and cryptocurrency?
https://t.co/FUXMcbsORv
It is best to attack the substance of an argument.
It is less good to attack the style of an argument.
It is pathetic to attack the identity of the arguer.
You can't say it, so you are discouraged from thinking it.
You can't think it, so you are discouraged from seeing it.
Restrictions on speech rapidly escalate into an attack on perception itself.