"yOu ShoULd hAve vOTeD FOr OuR BabY kiLLeR tO SToP ThE otHeR BabY kiLLeR!"
State violence is still violence, the main difference being that it's supported by a bunch of documents containing rules for all supposedly agreed to by Society (i.e. Laws) and an set of processes (the Justice System) to supposedly make such violence only ever be exercised when required, and in a fair and proportinate way, hence why such set of processes includes things like "Innocent until proven guilty" and more generally "Due Process" (elements which the simpletons often dislike since for them Justice is as just a way to hurt people they dislike, exactly as Trump is using it).
So yeah, emprisionment differs only from kidnapping if it's done fairly and proportionatelly, which is what a functional Justice System is supposed to guarantee but often fails to, and the non-functionality of the Justice System in the US has become far too frequent, especially when it comes to non-nationals (though we also see it in the de facto immunity for the ultra rich), especially under Trump. Without the whole fairness and proportionate component, emprisionment is just kidnapping with a bit of performative (theatrical, even) folklore to make it look like the socially approved version.
I would say that "Fascist" and even "Nazi "are pretty appropriate words for Genocide deniers.
I'll explain: mass murder of women and children when the victims are white is "Genocide", whilst when the victims are not white it's " collateral damage" whilst "fighting terrorism".
Hope that clears up any confusion.
People can't really receive Empathy since that's an inherent human ability in others. Also Empathy itself is an entirelly emotional thing - it's feeling a reflection of what others are feeling - that involves no reasoning.
At most what can happen is that those who do have more empathy can turn it down a bit for some and leave it at a higher level for others, but those who have less empathy (or none, such as psychopaths) are literally unable to empathise more even if they wanted to.
So I don't think it's Empathy that's the social contract, I think it's more something like Respect For Others' Feelings, as in "I'll respect the fellings of those who themselves respect the feelings of other people", which works even for people who have no empathy because beyond a certain level of feeling even psychopaths can see the external effects of an emotion in others and determine rationally - rather than via empathy - what those feelings are and take them into account, and thus they can refrain from doing things that cause certain feeling in others.
It's a "publicly traded company", not a "public company" - so a company where anybody who has the money to do so can buy shares in it, not a company owned by the state (which can be States, Regions, Municipalities, the Central Government and so on).
Since a "public company" is one oned by the state, in a Democracy that means every citizen owns part of it and all have an equal share of ownership (via their electoral vote they chose directly or indirectly who manages the companies owned by the state), whilst a "publicly traded company" is only owned by some amongst the public (those who bought shares in it, which can only happen if they had the money to do so) and the sizes of each owner's stakes are highly uneven with a few owning far, far, FAR larger fractions of the company than the vast majority (so, not at all a democratic system).
I read the comments here, starting from the perspective that merely being a "conservative" was no reason for defederation (I have a 1990s idea of what the word "conservative" means), then it turns out we're talking about people posting Nazi shit at will and it staying up, which definitelly justifies defederation and the "Nazi bar" label, but apparently (from his own participation here) the Admin of the instance is willing to ban the Nazi types and possibly the groups in that instance which were ok with Nazi posts.
If the admin does this, then I'm against defederation, if not then I'm in favour of defederation. Sadly I can't encode such a view in just a Yay or Nay metric (i.e. upvote/downvote), hence I will neither upvote nor downvote and instead am leaving my rationale here as a post.
That second formula is for how much power gets dissipated in a resistance (hence the R in it) , not how much power travels through a line.
That said the previous poster was indeed incorrect - the required thickness of a cable through which a certain amount of power passes depends only on current, not voltage: make it too thin and it can literally melt with a high enough current and the formula of the power it is dissipating as heat that can cause it to melt is that second formula of yours and the R in that formula is inverselly proportional to the cross-cut area of the cable, which for a round cable is the good old area of a circle formula which depends on the square of the radius - in other words the thicker the cable the less current it can take without heating up too much or, putting it the other way around, the more current you want to safely pass through a cable the thicker it needs to be.
In summary, thinner cables heat up more with higher currents (and if they heat up enough they melt) because even pure copper has some resistance and the thinner the cable the higher the resistance. If you need to move Power, not current specifically (such as to charge something), you can chose more current or to have a higher voltage (because P = V x I), and chosing a higher current means you need thicker cables (because as explained above the cables would overheat and even melt otherwise) but a higher voltage doesn't require a thicker cable.
I've been very purposefully avoiding the US ever since the Patriot Act exactly because it became possible for the TSA to riffle through your electronics (even confiscate them) and do this kind of shit.
Then on top of that festering pit of autocracy which, by the way, nobody reversed in all this time, Trump added the risk of ICE detention and "free trip to El Salvador (to go check a mega prison there)".
"As long as it's the right races doing it, they have our unwavering support"
I'm thinking that maybe it's because, having spent years with a "if you're not with us then you must be with them" bubble, really believing it and actively using that "argument" against others, they suddenly find themselves is disagreement with the old us yet not because they agree with them.
That being so, their "I'm not political" is their way of coping with it.
Of course, as many are pointing out, everything is political, but given that these people for years believed a hyper-tribalist and ultra-simplified "it's either us or them" view of everything the idea that everything is politics might be a bit too far ahead for them who have just discovered the hard way that one can have beliefs about how things should be which are neither us nor them.
If you're going to protest, cast a blank vote, if you abstain you're just going to end up mixed with the "too lazy to vote" crowd.
Also, having maned voting booths in my own country a couple of times (I expect it's not all that different in the US) writting stuff in the your ballot paper will just make a vote invalid and nobody will record or even care about you wrote there - maybe 2 or 3 people will see your words there while counting votes, but that's it.