Because they're ignorant about what is and isn't the left/right dichotomy. And the small percentage that have even a slight idea (but still don't understand it) buy into the idea of The Great Swap, an idea that supposedly only applies to America, but they truly believe that all historical great evils of the left are now evils of the right for some arbitrary reason.
They don't care to look at the horrors of people like Stalin or Pol Pot. They're not interested in the reality that they'd agree with most of NatSoc talking points if it wasn't presented as NatSoc. They're not interested in the reality that Fascism is a threat to the left because it was explicitly an authoritarian reaction (and not one born from the left/right dichotomy) to the failures of current leftist doctrine, namely socialism.
They're not interested in the reality that the vast majority authoritarianism, paternalistic policy and general statism has roots in leftist doctrine. Because one day, they hope that they can be one of the people who can control someone else. Because deep down, that's what kind of person they ultimately are.
To be fair, at least the Kyle situation was politically charged and mainly by the mass media, so that explains some of the division due to partisan lines. Can't really say the same for Gary.
I understand why this needs to be illegal
Personally, I don't. I have no issues with vigilantism like this with the simple clause being that you being convinced someone is guilty doesn't absolve you of criminality if someone you target is innocent.
Basically, this shouldn't be illegal so long as the target is objectively guilty. I have zero issues with this.
It's kind of insane to me that there are people who are actually against what Gary did. It's truly hard to imagine the kind of person (that isn't themselves a pedophile), who is so utterly brain rotted to think that what Gary did wasn't swift and deserved justice.
So you're suggesting it's a chicken/egg kinda situation? That while it could be single women are more prone to paternalistic policy making due to some sort of innate maternal drive, you're suggesting such people are less desirable as a life long partner?
It's not a terrible theory, though there is other elements at play, like long documented generational shifts in voting patterns (eg the young of that era tend to be more inclined to vote left while that same group will end up more right wing as time goes on. Pretty clear cut example of that is hippies being baby boomers). However, there's also the counter point to that about constant political shift, in that today's Republicans are yesterdays Democrats, so have those demographics actually shifted, or has the Overton Window just moved to make them appear more right wing?
The overall point I'm trying to make is that for most of these things that can be presented as chicken vs egg dichotomies, it's less a dichotomy and a little of both, and in some cases can even feed into one another.
Just like when women say they don't want a guy who uses steroids, what they mean is they don't want a guy who looks like a walking beef jerky and garden hose golem. But they love moderate steroid use and a little bit of eating disorder thrown in, you know to be 'naturally' fit like their favorite celebrities.
This is such an easy concept to understand I don't see how even a woman could not get it.
Well you see, it's actually pretty simple, and it boils down to being an egotistical cunt that not only lacks the ability but actively refuses to have any sort of actual empathy. And when I say empathy, I don't mean sympathy where you feel bad for others circumstances, I mean actually trying to understand a given point of view that you don't agree with.
These people lack this ability. They cannot comprehend outside their very narrow, very egotistical mindset. That's why they cannot see their own hypocrisy in this manner.
Oh, and they also ignore that the vast majority of people who "enforce beauty standards" are other women, not men. So it's once again "Women do X, men at fault".
Japan has insanely strict laws, and in some cases it could be easy to suggest it's very much over the top. However. Japan also does NOT have an issue with prison overcrowding.
As per usual, if it's not strict, overzealous laws that cause prison overcrowding, what is it? And the vast majority here already know that answer, but people not paying attention need to be asked in that way because they instinctively reject uncomfortable truths. They need to stumble upon the answer themselves.
This is just objectively false. Are the instances where interpretation is needed? Sure, but in the vast majority of translation, and even more in the specific examples that receive 99.9% of criticism, interpretation isn't something that comes in to play. It's the fact that these worthless turds explicitly, knowingly, and often gleefully alter the translation to push their agenda.
This is a repeat of Gamergate. One group levies legitimate criticism while the defending group focuses on a topic virtually nobody is talking about. It's cliche Motte and Bailey tactics.
It's really amusing because NOTHING about this says they don't care about anything. Merely this one topic.
But as per usual, it's all or nothing for these terminally brainrotted losers.
Congratulations, you've discovered the reality of most internet companies. YouTube also makes no money. Twitch is a disaster. Elon showed that Twitter is trash and even before then it was known they solely survived off government grants.
The reality is that consolidated internet forums/sites are not viable. Centralisation is overwhelmingly a massive mistake. Where centralisation is possible in the physical world (though still not a good idea in my opinion), centralisation on the internet cannot be viably monetised to accommodate users that (rightfully) refuse to pay for these services.
But these companies somehow stay afloat? How? Most of the time, through investors with vested interests, or government grants. Why do these companies get grants? Who knows, but they get them. Almost like it's a scam, and they're able to scam taxpayer money.
Reddit is failing to pull off that scam, and so they're hoping that going public will bring in the money instead. But it won't. They'll get an immediate inflow, and then it'll continue to fail again. Like it always does.
>has dogshit standards
>is surprised he gets dogshit results
Try reading old pulpy romance stories. You'd be surprised how many involve some element of force. Not rape per se, but consent is a very distant consideration.
I love how this betrays how utterly stupid the woman is for seeking validation, while trying to blame the man for "failing" some stupid, arbitrary hurdle that she says is a "simple fixable problem", but everyone can see it's her own irrationality that put this "problem" there in the first place.
If you're dating someone and they need validation like that? Leave. Seriously, dodge the bullet. Because it's not worth it. Anyone who would take a good morning text as some weird ritual of adoration does not ultimately love you.
But then again, the idea of love is totally lost on most people and struggle to understand the idea of being comfortable with another person for constantly seeking validation and approval from the person who you are supposed to love.
At least my way is consensual, I mean straight to rape fantasies?
You'd be surprised how common rape fantasies are among women. Obvious "not all X", but it's much higher than most think it is.
You're not wrong, but I just think that that era for Biden was some of his most charismatic too, which does take a level of intelligence to quickly read the room and behave accordingly. Now he can barely keep a thought straight.
Of course Theoden was once a good man
As you say, Biden was never this, but I truly cannot comprehend how people can look at footage of Biden from the 90s and early 00s, and not think this man is a husk that has lost a LOT of mental acquity. Hell, here's a random video from 1992, and he wasn't young there, that's still him at 50. This is not the same man we see today.
Biden was never a good man, but he was at least capable of intelligence.
I'm not bothered to go through it all, but last time I saw this, I think the majority of these things were either very much part of a team, outright lies, or patent squatting on an idea already created but altered and then never actually realised.
But this was also years ago that I saw this, so I could be misremembering. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
And how much did those parents both sacrifice for those kids, and how many luxuries were there? Do you think that they had all kinds of cable and on-demand services all the time? Do you think they had AC running practically 24/7? Hell, do you think they moved into established neighbourhoods? Definitely not! They sacrificed, scrimped, and saved, and because you were a child, you saw virtually none of it. You remember the good times. The comforts your parents afforded you.
I absolutely detest these kinds of posts, because they're so utterly blind to just how far we've come. These losers want the "securities" of the past (absolutely hilarious statement), but REFUSE to live to the same standards of decades gone by. That means less electricity usage, less sq/m in a house, less services, no subscription bullshit, and just a complete lack of most modern luxuries that have become common place. The harsh reality is that the vast majority of people absolutely spend far more than they need to. Even something as relatively mundane as their phone they spend too much on.
YOU need to lower your standards and look at the negatives (compared to now) of that time before demanding the positives.
It is, but I think we have to remember that there are people out there who don't know these things or how they work. Having an article like this is actually pretty damn helpful to show and share with people who are out of the loop on the finer details of this stuff. It's important that people know this, and just presuming that they already know it because a lot of us know it isn't beneficial in the long term.
Sucking off an ever expanding state is not based, and never will be, especially when those expanding powers will very quickly be used against you.
That's what I mean by "writers that rely upon subverting expectations".
There's nothing wrong with twists. Twists are generally good. The problem arises when a writer relies solely on twists as their bread and butter as a marker of quality.
Twists are just one tool in a writers repertoire. Ignoring the other tools available can only lead to substandard stories.
It's something that so many people still cannot accept: Martin is and always was a hack. All writers that rely upon "subverting expectations" are terrible. Do you think Tolkien was interested in "subverting expectations"? Do you think Shelley was? Lewis, Barrie, Stoker, Carroll, etc, etc, etc.
Great authors don't look to subvert those that came before them. They simply wish to be among them, even if they often don't think they could be.
The fact that it's a "new message" that wasn't yet sent to herself aside........
"Americans want a choice in this election"
So what choice do you provide Nikki? Because if you win the primary, it's going to be establishment crony against establishment crony. I don't see a choice there.
Whole lot of words for what boils down to "I don't care what people here think". Which is funny, because either it's a bold faced lie, since pretty much all of what you post is essentially Op Ed tier content that's looking to share your opinion and get responses, or it's bait like this post here which inherently is attention seeking behaviour. I don't see you looking to earnestly discuss ideas for their merit here. I don't see you sharing things you simply find interesting. It's all based around how others would respond.
and if you don't understand i'll just stop responding to you
I doubt you would stop. Because if that was the standard for you to not respond to me, you wouldn't be posting on this site either, because that's the treatment you're already receiving by pretty much everyone here outside a very very small circle of people that are considered losers by everyone else.
So no, I don't take you at face value. Because your behaviour and antics, like posting bait like this post, speak far far louder than what you claim to be like.
You want to be taken seriously, but you take measure to ensure people won't take you seriously. I can't take that at face value because to do so would have to assume you're the dumbest motherfucker out there that is ultimately looking to self sabotage.
So which do you want to be assumed to be? A really, really stupid person? Or someone malicious deliberately looking to antagonise others? People already treat you like both. Because if you want me to take you at face value, it's the former every time. And I don't want to assume you're that stupid, especially when you've got a clear history here of being antagonistic.
I always laugh at these kinds of things. Because I truly do believe it has to be a really hopeful naivety to believe the system can be reformed. At every step it's been actively against the public, and there are people that think this knowing hostility can and more importantly should be saved?
And I know it seems like this is just doomposting and to a certain level it is. But it's also not. It's about coming to terms that the state is something that cannot be reformed and moving forward from that. Anyone that still clings to that at this point is either wilfully naive (and I don't entirely blame them) or subject to a sunk cost mentality and doesn't want to comprehend the idea of giving up on something that has ultimately already failed its purpose.