Just a random thought on this topic: Putin originally claimed (and his Western partisans still do) that the offensive in Ukraine was about countering NATO aggression. It’s resulted in attacks on Moscow itself, occupation of Russian territory, and now, modern NATO weapons being used inside Russia. He’s still in a fairly advantageous position militarily right. He could easily, I think, ask for and win strong restraints on NATO in a peace negotiation. But it never was actually about that, now was it?

If you’re asking whether the binding arbitration clause would apply to the murder case, then no. Homicide falls under criminal law, where the state is the plaintiff. The state didn’t enter an agreement under the TOS. I suppose Disney could try to argue it applies if your legal estate filed a civil suit; in the real case it argued that the arbitration clause applied because the husband (who’d agreed to it) filed a civil suit as the plaintiff.

Instead, Disney would get away with it the old-fashioned way: because it’s a rich corporation.

I think it makes sense in two ways: Some people in right-wing world think that women are property, without individual agency. If another man has been able to have sex with her, you have failed as a Real Man™ to protect what’s rightfully yours, in the same way as you have failed if a fox gets into the henhouse.

Or, a Real Man™ is so good at sex that his wife doesn’t want anybody else. Either way, being a “cuck” means you’re not a Real Man™.