It's a "hobby" of mine to guess if there's some awareness or observation day from the M:tG:A daily deals choices, and I'm proud to say I guessed snake day!
No science here at all, because even ignoring the liberals who love women soldiers and fighter pilots, oil riggers and builders, or how crime data correlates much better with economics than race (and the same ethnicities vary in crime rates from country to country) the genetic data isn't on your side either.
There's more gene variation of race in Africa than the rest of the world. And Asia is hardly a slouch when it comes to ethnicies... But I wouldn't expect a racist to recognise that.
Like the others so far have said, if government is to justify its continued existence it needs to be for the good of all the people, not just those with capital.
It still implies a level of hierarchy and control, which isn't good and will tend to lead to centralisation and corruption because power tends towards collecting more power.
But if it could be making life on the ground better for all the people, (food, shelter, education, preventing the environmental destruction that private ownership has bought) not at the expense of people within or without it's borders (even that one child in the secret basement), them it'd be a damn sight better.
Sure, if one of the arguments against it was that there was no civilisation in the world (or fertile crescent and adjacent areas) then yes, that's not a valid counterpoint.
I was thinking of using the evidence of megastructure building culture in Egypt that there is that matches the, according to the other person, water rising up (if I recall correctly).
It'd be fun and interesting if you're theory is right. But there's a lot of burden of proof it needs to overcome. Still, who knows?
A very different, impressive structure, build on a different way in a different environment.
That's like saying the Chinese had paper in 100BC, so Europeans must have as well - we just haven't found any evidence of it yet. Despite all the evidence to the contrary.
I think the counterveiling argument is that there is a lot of evidence of large stone construction and similar cultural activities at much later dates.
And 10,000BC would be an impossibly ancient thing. You'd need a smidgen of proof to get anyone to think that was likely compared to all the circumstantial evidence we have for conventional estimations.
I rate both JohntheDuncan and Andrewism highly as not overly wanky Left politics channels.
(No, you don't need to pad the video out with 50 minutes of intercut "plot line" where you fight with a mirror world version of you, who's wrecking havok on the lives of your guest stars who can only be sent back by a tangentially related metaphor to the main topic of the video.)
I don't think a stereotype can ever really be constructive, even if "positive" since it limits the space for people that don't fit it.
A clear example of this would be that Asian people are good at Maths. Not true, and does a lot of harm to the many Asians who are not exceptionally good at Maths. (For instance that Asian University candidates are often penalised for only having average Maths grades, or just the bullying and social pressure of feeling you're not living up to a birthright.)
I accidentally beat the Mantis Triplets far earlier than I needed to because I couldn't find the path into the ruined capital city I was meant to take.
Long route back to fighting the optional boss to enter a far too difficult zone for me.
Only after beating them and discovering that that was not where I was meant to go did I backtrack and find the turning I'd missed to actually progress. (I rather liked Hollow Knight despite this, but you don't and that's fine. I just think it would be funny (, and a sign of poor map design if you made the same map reading error I did).)
I'm fairly sure that at this point pirating has been shown to lead to increased sales, even of small scale productions.
Also, no one said that people can't keep the rights for a while, just that if you don't let people access those things you don't get to prosecute them for making the art available.
No, (though depends on your definition of art) but there's a reason that public buildings (Churches, for instance) were often the best decorated with murals, frescoes, and statues.
Also within local communities there would be musicians and artisans who were known for their work.
That said, art did become more privatised once the 17th century rolled around. Obviously varied by geographic regions, etc. (e.g. Artist items (amongst other items of worth) were deliberately shared out by many American Indian groups in potlatches as acts of redistribution.)
You're right, the bribery talk is the logical extrapolation of the ruling that is laid out in the dissenting opinion. (and also in a minor dissent from one of the 6 judges who made the ruling.)
Edit: and unfortunately I live in a place where the US supreme Court website does not allow access so I can't read the conveniently shared link. I have tried to find it online and read as much of it as I can. I would like to read the full thing, maybe you could share the image on a Lemmy instance and link to that? You could do the same with the dissenting opinion, too, for completion's sake.
What I can find from the reports and snippets I can find is that the ruling that Roberts wrote talks about not only immunity for official acts, but not using official acts as evidence for prosecuting a US president. This then becomes the talk of bribery as making an appointment is very much an official act, and where that one conservative justice breaks line with the other five, as she maintains that official acts should be eligible as evidence when prosecuting unofficial acts.