And the main point I was trying to make, which obviously got muddied by my misguided humor, is that we (in the US, at least) already classify corporations as "people," which is something I strongly disagree with.
I refuse to respect corporations like I respect human beings, and I don't think they deserve human rights or the influence they have over our government.
You find dehumanizing others humorous? You should work on being less terrible.
No, the dehumanizing part isn't the humorous part. I'm sorry if I offended you, most people I know personally would find it funny and not take offense. It was meant to be light-hearted, but maybe it didn't come off that way.
Prove you never have and I'd pay you, otherwise I will forward you a list of charities you can send your loss to.
Why is the entire burden of proof on me? Shouldn't you have to prove I've never called a real person an "NPC?"
Yes, but a "person" can be a corporation, and now apparently a machine learning algorithm. A "person" isn't always a human. I care about humans, not whatever our current legal system calls a "person."
You're moving the goal posts, and drawing associations without any evidence. This thread is about the article being clickbait, which it is. This is an omnibus spending bill, so the existence of anti-LGBQT+ riders on the same bill doesn't make this specific clause anti-LGBQT+.
Again, we're talking about using technology to make human lives better. Even if AI is legally recognized as a "person," that shouldn't change our morals.
The article says this applies to all non-governmental flags, not just the pride flag. I read the article and didn't see anything singling out LGBQT+, but if I missed something I hope you'll point out out.
You're missing something. He's being charged with breaking multiple laws, not just "interfering with a government proceeding."
The criminal proceeding against him has been tied up in appeals after a Trump-appointed trial judge ruled that one of the criminal laws Fischer is charged with violating must be read very narrowly.
But only one of those charges is being contested. The Supreme Court gets to decide if he'll be tried on that charge, but it sounds like he'll be tied on the other charges regardless of what the Supreme Court decides. The headline is sensational, but what else would you expect from Vox?
And the main point I was trying to make, which obviously got muddied by my misguided humor, is that we (in the US, at least) already classify corporations as "people," which is something I strongly disagree with.
I refuse to respect corporations like I respect human beings, and I don't think they deserve human rights or the influence they have over our government.