A democratic republic is a representative democracy.

Some of the universities mentioned in the article are public institutions. SCOTUS held in Healy v James that the 1st Amendment applies to public universities. So some of the actions could be considered 1st Amendment violations.

Except these restrictions prevent speech, not harm.

That’s a false dilemma. There’s a middle ground between allowing only approved speech and allowing any speech whatsoever. And we already make that distinction. Fascists don’t believe in free speech and threaten the rights of others through threats of violence, which isn’t protected speech. Likewise fraud, libel, slander, blackmail, false advertising, and CSAM aren’t protected and are considered harmful.

The people who could have possibly predicted that were also fired.

If I have to wait for an employee to unlock an item, I’m just buying it somewhere else, whether it’s online or another brick and mortar that doesn’t make me beg to spend money there. Same with stores that have passcode locks on their bathroom doors. I’m not asking a retail worker for permission to pee.

Referencing people whose communication styles are notoriously difficult to understand for average people is not great support for your point.

Add time tracking for time tracking with every other task.

That’s a false dilemma. You can oppose all imperialism at the same time regardless of who is pursuing it. Justice and freedom isn’t a team sport. You don’t have to take the side of any major power.

“The bigger kid is the only obstacle to peace on the playground. If the bigger kid would just let the bully get away with bullying the littler kids, then everything would be fine. The bigger kid is only helping the little kid stand up to the bully in order to hurt the bully.”

Yeah, the US didn’t invade Ukraine. Russian presence and Russian attacks are the only obstacle to peace in this situation.

Simp for imperialism somewhere else, tovarish.

Anticolonialist is a weird username for someone simping for Russian colonialism in sovereign territory.

I will not be fair, the publication isn’t. Why should I?

Because arguing dishonestly makes you look irrational and does their propaganda work for them.

but you are more likely to try to distance yourself from fossil fuel reform movements, and that’s all they need you to do to be successful.

Not really. This isn’t an effective form of protest or reform. Stunts like this allow articles like this to be written in the first place, but the stunts, even if written of with the highest of praise, are useless. Effective action would involve changing the minds of those who profit from fossil fuels the most and making it unprofitable for them to continue. You don’t need to convince people who care about world heritage sites or famous artwork. You need to convince the profiteers of industry and that won’t come from an appeal to emotion but from a threat to their financial well-being.

To be fair, that’s a false dilemma. Caring about Stonehenge doesn’t have to be compared to caring about fossil fuel reform. You can care about both or neither to any degree and they can be completely unrelated.

Find a student at a university whose student accounts get access to jstor.

However by only contributing what you dislike as opposed to contributing what you do like, you’re coming across as entitled and disrespectful to the spirit of the community.

This is an odd perspective. They’re literally contributing by fixing what they dislike and preventing others from having to waste time. They don’t come across as entitled. They come across as helpful and respecting the time and attention spans of the community.

It might be similar to a song you’ve heard but you’re misremembering the notes of the existing song.

Maybe try playing it for an app that recognizes the song that’s playing and then listen to any songs it guesses might be the song.

He also stacked the SCOTUS by contradictory practices, denying Obama a pick in the last year of his presidency but giving one to Trump. That has had grave consequences for recent rulings since Trump only nominated extreme conservatives.

This is a decent one, but a ton of the HFY stories are just so problematic. Many just feel like they’re congratulating humanity on being vicious and creatively violent, like they think the Terran Empire in the Star Trek Mirror Universe were good guys.

Otherwise, a bunch just feel lazily formulaic and repetitive with others. Take a random human trait or convention from a human culture like say…fried foods. Use an alien narrator to describe how weird they think it is to fry foods. Find an angle to portray humans as plucky and great for their fierce devotion to frying foods and involve it in a narrative about humanity winning against greater odds. “And the human just dumped the entire chargizoid corpse into a vat of boiling oil! And then he took it out with something called tongs and ate it, skin and all! And that’s when I knew I needed humans on my side in the coming galactic war…”

I guess I feel like the subgenre plays on the optimism of Star Trek utopianism, but ditches any real criticism of humanity’s past (or our present). I think the message from Orville’s Season 3 Episode 10 about what made humanity better in their past is a better heir to Star Trek utopianism than most of the HFY stories I’ve read.

Happens to everyone eventually.

None of this is an opinion.