That's just made up claim there's no evidence to support this. Even if it were true it's not the taxpayers responsibility to import all the degenerate murderers and rapists from all over the world in the hopes of civilizing them.

Why should someone from a developed country agree to give up their safety and wealth to run this ridiculous and deadly experiment?

1. Are they a net benefit to the country's finances? Do they pay more than enough taxes to cover the public services they use and then some. Or are they just a leech on the welfare system and a burden to society in general.

2. Do they integrate well into the society? Do they commit crimes?

3. To whom is their allegeince? The society they live in or the one back home? Do they promote the interests of their own ethnic group at the expense of the natives?

The first two are already available to state, tax, crime, welfare records. The third can be found out with a simple investigation.

If this passes maybe there is some hope after all.

Note: In case anyone wants to exclaim xenophobia or some other nonsense I'm also part of the "xenos". So no it's not xenophobic to want your country to be safe and prosperous.

It keeps losing my downloaded podcasts. Takes forever to switch from online to offline mode. How hard could possibly be, just send a few packets if you get no answer you're offline.

It's really not that complicated yet they somehow managed to mess it up.

We can't convice any WS if we single out the attrocities of "their group" while ignoring others. That's why they don't even care anymore. They see the hypocrisy. They're told they can't have an ethnostate while being forced to pay for and protect another group's ethnostate which is engaged in genocide as we speak.

My dad's always searching for some usb drive he lost with hours of work on it. He'd be much better off using google.

Neither the republican nor democrat base wanted this. There wasn't even an attempt at justification, the drugs argument was a complete and utter joke. They could at least do a little false flag attack.

If voting does it solve it what does?

My mom works as a translator and all she needs is email, something to edit documents in and a browser, thats it. She was able adapt to ubuntu pretty fast even though she's not the kind of person who likes learning new tech.

There must be millions of users just like her. But people are very resistant to change and few have an annoying linux evangelist like myself in the house to push them.

We need to get them young somehow. I'm thinking around highschool.

Sometimes I'm not even sure it's for it's own interests.

Tyranny is the only alternative to free speech. I just don't see it ending in any other way.

> I don't think misinformation should be illegal, for the reasons you touch on: You certainly don't want government deciding the truth.

Awesome! Then we can stop making such a big deal out of misinformation and protect free speech.

> But I can at least hope you can agree that misinformation as a concept is unethical, right? People are literally dying because of misinformation.

Yes lying is unethical it's been established thousands of years ago.

As for libel, it has always existed and always will. There are laws against it to protect people if they suffer any damage from it. It's not without consequences.

What you're proposing is so much worse. Imagine a tyrant government is after you and has control on information like you propose. How will you protect yourself from the goverment's false accusations?