That’s my point though. If you don’t ban (aka censor) illegal things as a foundation, you end up living in a hellscape. I’m saying your argument isn’t thorough enough. It’s not going far enough. It’s scratching the surface and saying “good enough” when it doesn’t actually appear to be.

I am talking about illegal things because it’s an obvious hole in your argument. What are you talking about about? Because it sounds like you’re being short sighted to me, sticking to a happy path, but I could be wrong. What do you think?

You can’t seriously be against all censorship in books, right? Where are your actual boundaries? I don’t think you’d be ok with something obviously evil like a book of cp… Right?

Edgecases are why it’s hard to be consistent.

Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should!

No. The instance being killed by the taliban is the opposite of that is happening here.

The taliban has done nothing, in this case. The admins of the instance have chosen not to keep the instance due to not wanting to fund the taliban in anyway.

This phrasing fucks up which way the action flows, which is important for a headline to get right to remain accurate to the story. Does that make sense?

Yeah, it’s just billionaire funding, not gumption.

Left is king of grassroots movements that go nowhere because they can’t get funded while the right has daddy koch and murdock making it rain all the way down to altright and neonazi youtubers.

But call me a hippie conspiracy theorist and move on with your day, because you’re obviously not too bright.

I think the commenter you’re replying to made some logical enough jumps.

Like it seems that they’re assuming people in Republican rural counties who start doing this to random candidates would move out, causing a localized housing crisis in that area that banks could come in and capitalize on like the vultures that they tend to act like. That would lead to the pattern that they’re painting in their comment.

So I can imagine how it’s all connected, but that said, I don’t claim to know the inner mind of this poster so I could be very wrong.

As long as you’re not being a douchebag, or, if you were, you immediately stop being a douchebag, I don’t think anyone has basis to eat you alive.

Calling me chronically online has literally no effect, but since we’re gotten to the name calling stage, allow me to respond in kind:

Next time, state your stance instead of playing shitty word games, coward. You didn’t state your stance when asked, you only responded with “what do you think”. Therefore, I told you. And now you’re trying to backpedal instead of owning the fact that you’re acting like a smug asshole instead of just changing your behavior.

It’s a shame though, we could have had an interesting conversation about this. But I guess all you have is pointless trivia and no actual opinion. Why do you even bother to talk, then? Like I’m actually asking, why did you even bother to respond “what do you think?”?

Your position and lack of answering the question implies to my naive mind that you do advocate for killing all the sheep that have been bred to need shearing. Do you not? I really can’t tell lol your stance seems to imply that would be where you land, but I would also call that pretty fucking ghoulish if that’s the case.

Since we set the world up this way, now we have a responsibility to treat the animals kindly. That’s my stance. Supply and demand is technically irrelevant. Obviously I’m gonna have an issue with factory industrialized wool though… Mistreating animals, especially species we specifically messed with through selective breeding is absolutely inexcusable. And the PETA route of annihilating all the selectively bred animals is as abhorrent as factory farming to me.

That’s fair. In that case, with that reasoning, it seems less like you’re being pessimistic and more like you’re trying to be realistic. I would caution though, reality isn’t ALL negative, though the neutrality and negativity inside of it can always be improved. Heck, even most positives in reality can often be improved.

Personally, I think the Olympics game tends to start when focus becomes too great on one specific aspect, which leads to what is essentially a one upmanship of situational comparison, but that’s all I really wanted to poke at.

Thanks for the even response! Sometimes me phrasing stuff like that starts fights even though I only want to poke a little bit. In any case, I hope your day goes well!

“Stop complaining, pissant, it could be worse” - most abusive situations

The “it could be worse” Olympics is the game of the complacent. You may be complacent. Are you?

Yes, let’s go die of exposure because there’s a hole in the roof. Throw the whole house away just because there’s glaring issues with it when there’s no other viable choice in the vicinity.

What level of analogy do you need to understand that if you abandon the power you do have (ie minute nudge control of democratic establishment) you become irrelevant due to powerlessness?

To change what’s acceptable, you shift what’s considered acceptable, nip at the bits that are trying to stay with the old status quo, and repeat until you move the window to wherever you’re trying to push it. That’s how this works (if the window goes left for democrats, you would call that an “improvement”). Revolution is anomalous. Pushing for revolution and depending on the assumption of it happening leads to total powerlessness, which is less than what lefties have right now (right now I’d only call them mostly powerless).

You can’t get away from dealing with the devil when Satan created the whole system in the first place.

I got a reason! It’s because people are afraid meta is doing what Microsoft did to a much earlier project. The crux of that whole story is that Microsoft adopted the new tech, became the biggest player thus dominating the area, then, when they had full control of the tech they ended up shutting it down. Some people are convinced meta is going to do that to the fediverse.

This is vague and handwavy, I’m hoping someone actually knows the name of the project. It was early 90s I believe or maybe into the early 00s but it was before my time in the tech sphere of the internet.

You’re still acting like a bitch. I hope you’re not like this to your neighbors because they might shoot you AND your kids if shit hits the fan (but you have nothing to worry about… Right?).

Might be a bit contentious to say, but you’re really bad at protecting your young’s survival chances right now. Your selfishness actively endangers them even though this vector has no consequences right now. I hope you learn not to be an asshole to random people. It might impact more than just yourself. Granted I’m sure you’re only like this because you’re behind a keyboard, but if you said this to people in real life, I doubt you would have many reliable friends left.

1. you don’t have to understand it, you just shouldn’t be a legislative genocidal asshole about it (not that that’s what you’re doing, but that’s what republicans seem to do to anything they think isn’t their slim sliver of a definition of “normal”)

2. if you’re talking about furries, to my layman’s understanding of the subculture, that’s not how the vast majority of furries relate to themselves. From what I’ve seen, it’s not that they are the animal itself, they are the aspects of the animal, and those things are just little icons that they’re like boosting because they resonate with it. That said, there are at least a few people who DO feel that way, but I’m pretty sure they have a special category name (ferals? I think that’s what they’re called but I could be wrong, this is some deep lore I picked up years ago). If they do have that special name and I’m not just making that part up, then that implies that most furries do not feel that way about themselves.

But, acknowledging the existence of people like that at all does validate your question in my mind. I don’t really understand that extreme either. My only point is that most furries are what you would likely consider “normal”, they just have a particular hobby. It’s no more nefarious or odd than being into gender bending cosplay. You’re just taking something (yourself rather than an anime/video game character) and twisting it into something artistically different (a fursona instead of a cosplay outfit).

…no I did not intend to write that much defending furries but here we are lmao

deleted by creator

…there is a joke here that I could make about incel forums. I’m not going to try to because it’s in poor taste, but my point is that I’m pretty sure that does exist…

Also, what’s your actual position if that’s your devil’s advocate position? I’m a bit unsure if the implication there is intentional or not

Ohhhh that’s why football got huge, like, turned into a full on human meat grinder industry huge. Because advertisers wanted more eyeballs, so they started pumping money in.

Wild how capitalism effects everything like that x.x

Not sure I would have ever put that together without your “the game exists to only serve us ads” quip. Like, there’s naturally big, but when advertising gets involved, it becomes gigantic, whatever it is.

That blue color on the map? Believe it or not, liquid meth

The way I (layman) read it, they seemed to be saying that it would be phased out by newer companies finding different alternatives, not that everyone is phasing it out as we speak.

Does this seem more realistic? Or just completely non-factual?