I kinda hate how even today, German heraldry uses the eagle. I get that it descends from the “Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation” and doesn’t strictly have anything to do with the fash, but I can’t look at it and not see all the things that were done under that sign. Not to mention that Rome itself wasn’t a squeaky clean bastion of morality and democracy either.

Except one of those group usually entertains and makes people happy

I guess we need to distinguish between legislation, regulation and case law established through judicial precedent. Legislation is definitely too cumbersome to react to shifting moral standards. Regulation and judicial precedent are more flexible in cases where legal consequences are warranted.

As so often, there is nuance to the topic. General statements are hard to make both concisely and precisely. I opted for brevity, but you are absolutely right.

Either way, we agree that complacency about CSA is fucked up.

Laws should follow and codify ethics, not dictate them. If a transgression (such as not reporting CSA to the relevant authorities) is not already banned by law, that doesn’t mean it’s fine. It means the law needs to be amended.

If it’s five people throwing them, they’re terrorists. If it’s five million, they’re a problem. (Depending on the size of country and military, I’m pulling numbers out my arse to exemplify a point, not as accurate measures).

Numbers matter. If you have enough people on your side and willing to join the throwing for your removedtails to make a difference, that might work for you. But if most of the populace are scared to lose more than they stand to gain, you’ll end up with the brave throwers arrested or killed, the media denouncing their “undemocratic” acts and possibly the people even more afraid to do anything.

Any revolutionary movement will need to hit a point of critical mass that allows it to succeed. It’s hard to gauge just when that point is reached, but if you misjudge, you’ll end up another failed insurrection.

Peaceful protests build the sense of consensus and unity. Violent solutions can’t succeed without both popular support and enough participants to make a difference, but if everybody’s scared of standing alone they’re doomed. Sudden upheaval is likely to make more people oppose the change, because most people like stability.

Peaceful protests that get gradually more frustrated are more likely to support more drastic measures than a sudden upheaval. Whether or not you believe peaceful protests will fix anything, they’re the best solution that’s viable right now.

Ah yes, the giant untapped market: Colorblind people, making up a solid 5% of the populace.

This is the rare time capitalism breeds good innovation. The right thing for the wrong reasons is still the right thing.

Removed by mod

I think that’s a question of perspective. We, judging from hindisght and with access to more Information, can tell that. But the people signing up out of a misguided desire to serve probably didn’t. Their motivation - regardless of result - was probably to do the right thing, which is a sentiment that Trump evidently doesn’t just not understand, but doesn’t even seem aware of. “What’s in it for them?” betrays a fundamental ignorance of even the concept that his ilk leverage to get people fighting their wars.