whoever loves Digit 🇵🇸🇺🇸🏴‍☠️

Other healthcare CEOs count as “the general public”

But you definitely have valid grounds to consider it subjective. While I mentioned it for comparison, a religious extremist targeting the janitor in the world trade center is not the same as someone justifiably targeting Brian Thompson

So 9/11 wasn’t terrorism because people in the twin towers were responsible for many deaths?

I don’t see the point of trying to shift the goal posts. Everyone is responsible for many deaths, the question is whether you believe in the classical style of warfare where the losing side has survivors that surrender out of fear. The “anti terrorist” crowd believe that’s just inherently wrong, killing should be strategically designed to wipe out the people it could coerce. They believe nobody can use “intimidation” or “negotiation” when reason fails because it would be coercive. Nobody can live their life with zero connections to deadly violence, so trying to change minds by force is coercive. And they hate that, so they want a pejorative word for it, so they came up with calling it “terrorism.” I just think that doesn’t sound like such a bad thing, they’re just extremely sick and insane for thinking it’s better to wipe out all “enemies,” and pretending they can avoid “terrorism” themselves, while they actually do it constantly in the process of seemingly trying to wipe out enemies.

If you’re asking me to condemn whoever killed that healthcare CEO last year, the answer is [censored].

If you’re not asking me to condemn that person, you might be a terrorist like me, but not as used to thinking about that fact as I am.

Or anyone that knows what “terrorist” means

I think it would be highly insane to call me a fascist for recognizing myself as a terrorist

I’ve been identifying as a terrorist for years in preparation for this. I have less than zero emotional reaction to being called a terrorist because I already call myself one.

For example, when I promote fighting back against Nazis, the goal isn’t to silently wipe out every Nazi and have them surrender because they’ve all died without any fear. I think we should deal with it more like how we dealt with the German Nazis in World War 2, where they surrendered because they were scared, not because they all suddenly died without warning and there were none left.

I willingly make statements people are scared by, sometimes those statements even involve stuff like fighting against Nazis, and it’s not accidental, I am willingly happy to recognize a goal of scaring people instead of just making them stop moving, so how am I not a terrorist? What part of the word “terrorist” isn’t fit by this? It’s like 2+2=4

On 9/11, some Jihadists did terrorism where they killed a small portion of Americans to scare others into doing what they wanted, without killing every American that didn’t willingly agree to begin with

The US tried not to be terrorists in Iraq, we were just going to wipe out everyone that didn’t take our side, we weren’t going to leave any survivors agreeing out of fear. We were just going to have people who were on our side the whole time left alive, and everyone else dead. Then we found out we couldn’t do that, so all we could really do was terrorism where we scare people into doing what we want if they didn’t agree before, like the Jihadists that attacked us

I’ve never really tried to wipe out my enemies, I’m more like the Jihadists where even if a country attacks me and refuses to listen to reason, I’m fine with having attackers survive and stop attacking out of fear instead of being dead. This is simply understanding how the term “terrorist” is used and recognizing how it applies

I’m with the old school million year old school of thought called “terrorism” upheld by examples like FDR and Winston Churchill, where if you can’t reason with violent people, you still don’t necessarily have to kill them. Killing them can be considered a last resort. I’m not with the recently-dominant idea of “absolute brute forceism” or whatever the alternative to “terrorism” is (never really heard anyone establish that or clarify it)

.mp4 with H264: the most universal, and can be compressed to smaller sizes than you might think. Compatibility and compression will still vary depending if you use AAC or opus audio

.webm with VP9 and opus audio: better compression, not as universal. More open-standards based, maybe best balance of compression and compatibility

.mp4 or webm with AV1 and opus audio: probably best compression, also probably less compatibility than VP9, maybe depends what devices they use - good on new computers / phones / Android based TVs, more iffy on a wider or older range of devives. MP4 maybe friendlier than webm on newish Apple devices

I think a VPN with port forwarding helps make your library discoverable on soulseek, but I don’t know enough to answer beyond that

Borrowed WiFi is definitely your best bet. Find a place with a fast public WiFi network you can reach from your car.

Everyone has already suggested soulseek, so I will also add that on rare occasions I’ve been able to find downloads with Yandex that I couldn’t find on soulseek or anywhere else.