If a religious text is cited in anything non-religious, the religion or religious text should be proven physically true first, otherwise dismissed from use.

That's all very well but prove it first. "Narratives" are perfectly fine stories but not physical truths. It is absurd to cite a "narrative" without proving it's physical truth first.

It is still unless proven otherwise a purely physical process.

Yes, but physics is more than electrons.

How will it change anything? Simulation is a pointless term that has no meaning here. It is completely real to you. In fact I don't even know whats the difference between a so called "real" universe and a "boltzmann" brain. This weird "analogy" seems to ignore information itself needs a certain amount of energy/matter/space, I doubt simulating our universe can be done with anything less than the universal size of complexity.

Whether it's possible or not is not really relevant.

All I'm saying is that if you were shown undeniable proof that you were in a simulation I think it would change how you felt about "reality".

Usually they regret him not being extreme enough. Being personally harmed to a very high level also works. The keyword is very high level, people are willing to take a lot of pain for someone they think is "jesus".

Basic empathy would be letting in refugees from any race or background.

Exactly, which is clearly not what leftists want.

Whos blocking refugees? Trumps government is trying to make immigration harder. How does the left get blamed?

Leftists are attempting to block White refugees from South Africa.

I have not heard of that, can you find me some articles showing leftists are trying to block south africans? Trumpers are attempting to block almost all immigration. It is clear which is worse. If it were up to me, I'd open up south africa like any other country for refugees of any race of course.

People have a right to join and quit any company they want. I don't see why it should be so much different for countries. Especially so when it's karens making decisions on behalf of land they don't own. Do you own the entire land in your country? You definitely don't.

I don't see why someone should have say what happens on others land. If I want to allow someone in my land or kick someone out of my land it should be, within some restrictions completely my own decision. Do you have legal ownership deeds over all the land in your entire country? I just think it's very strange.

The tricky part is that these are public lands owned by the city/government e.g. homeless camping close to my house on a public street.

But yeah people who don't live close to that specific spot should have 0 say.

That's life. Supply and demand is simply life. I understand as an artist it might hurt you. But see from the other side, paying 50 dollars to some stranger on the internet to paint something is not something even most people in first world economies do for fun. Today people can satisfy maybe 60% of such impulses with free tiers. Bump it up a few percent points for paid tiers. Most of what is paid for on artstation, deviantart etc isn't radical new art but permutations/combinations of shipping characters, outfits, etc. Commercial art as in product art, store signs, etc also doesn't have RADICAL tier of creativity requirement for the bread n butter tier of it.

I come from software dev, so sure it irritates me that its cutting my market ability down, but think calmly about the opposite side. Actually I think software is safer in some ways, software isn't just WYSWYG, it needs good thinking and engineering to make things work safely and consistently. But art? That's the oldest impulse and for many branches of art WYSWYG.

What is art? How is it not art? Collage is art, photoshop itself is used for cut n paste of photos, and people call that "art". AI image generators go through a much more interesting process to make their art.