Are you aware of what an "unfalsifiable conclusion" is?
But of course, I am but a mere faggot.
I'm supposed to believe that the "It didn't happen but it should have" crowd is going to know or care about the difference?
To undermine fed-posting primarily. Secondly because mass murder, or specific murder, is not part of a reasonable discussion. Thirdly because it poisons conversations. Fourthly because you shouldn't be treating each other with such hostility as it promotes flame wars.
Comment Removed for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
Rationalizing mass executions
Comment Reported for: Troll User
Comment Approved: The vast and sweeping majority of this forum is not anti-porn, and certainly the anti-porn movement has basically no significant power nation-wide. It's mostly an issue on the internet. Beyond that, the government has been aggressively targeting right-wing speech since LBJ with basically no pushback up until 2018 or so.
Comment Removed for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
The "in season" comment is what did it.
Comment Removed for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Your criticism of Islam has to focus on Islam, rather than Muslims particularly, especially how you worded it as an inherent moral failing among Muslims, rather than claims of over-representation.
Comment Removed for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Comment Reported for:
- Troll user
- Rule 3 - Harassment
Comment Approved: That being said, most of the racists spend their time defending white women from criticism by the incels. It's quite a hilarious back & forth.
Most of the actual people here, don't care.
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Comment Removed for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
That whole 2nd & 3rd paragraph.
Your literally espousing "Might is right" as soon as you see a tattoo.
That's retarded on a lot of levels. What people are trying to say is that in most modern western countries, it is the law that we live under which compels our compliance with the police. You've actually gone further and said you will openly refuse to comply with people with tattoos, which is such an arbitrary standard it is utterly comical.
Even from a position of tactical awareness, compliance can't be ruled off the table for a genuine attack; let alone any normal police interaction.
No one is agreeing with you, because each one of us knows what the consequences are of choosing to violently resist literally all people with tattoos 100% of the time, even cops. That's why we don't want to experience it first hand. Experiencing it first had will simply reinforce our position, as it will lead to the violence we predict. It will cause us to disagree with you further, because we are correct in what we expect to have happen.
Even if you say that you are not going to be aggressive, if you are permanently refusing to comply with the police just because you saw a tattoo, you will inevitably use violence to resist your arrest. This will include violence against the police, correctional staff, judges, the bailiffs, etc; because somewhere down the line, even if the person you are immediately resisting doesn't have a tattoo, they will be operating as part of an institution where someone with a tattoo gave you an order and so their collective force flows from that. Inevitably, you'll end up getting yourself killed, probably by trying to grab a cop's gun in a prison while hand-cuffed; all because a cop with a tattoo told you to step out of a car as you are legally required to do so.
Your position is a deranged one.
Now, if you would like a less deranged position, you should just demand that police departments don't hire people with tattoos. It's still stupid because a tattooed criminal can still kill you for you refusing to comply with his orders while you are in an ambush; but at least you will have come down from full-on fed-poster, to internet macho-man.
Comment Reported for: Rule 15 - Slurs
Comment Removed for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
Do not tell users to kill themselves.
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Comment Approved: A comment claiming that that an ideological movement originates from the French intellectual class doesn't do this.
Post Reported for: Rule 12 - Falsehoods
This is basically raw Pro-Palestinian propaganda, no different from what we used to see with the Ukranian Invasion. We have basically no context for either of these people, and Al-Jazeera Arabia is by no means a reliable source.
Post Reported: Brigading from c/Conspiracies
Graphenium has been around for quite a while here. That being said...
Graph, you can't just start throwing slurs around and telling people that they should kill themselves just because they disagree with you. Calm down. Do not start a flame war.
Your concept of British Law was already binned by the British much more aggressively.
Comment Removed: Rule 16 - Identity Attack
Comment Removed for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Post Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Post Approved: This post is condemning identity attacks.
Post Reported for: Spam or Self-Promotion
Post Removed for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
This is a wildly low-effort post by a user that regularly advocates jew hatred, to try and explain that jews (who he believes universally have large noses) are universally untrustworthy as a race.
The founding fathers would not have supported either policing or long prisons as institutions, but would have instead relied on a militia system and corporal punishment.
However, those things are not the current law. Dialectic is correct. Pennsylvania v. Mimms applies here.
Post Reported for: Rule 12 - Falsehoods
Post Approved: The person isn't really showing that they are "visibly uncomfortable". She seems very comfortable with the fact that she was lying to avoid any issue with her captors. This has happened in all wars. Telia is seeing things because he hates jews, but that's not exactly disinformation.
Technically, her original video is disinformation.
Comment Reported for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
Comment Removed for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
Fedposting
Rainbow symbology comes from the Queer Revolutionary Movement, which derives from Queer Theory, which originates from the French Intellectual movement. Almost the entire thing originates among only a handful of Frenchmen.
"Can't help who you love' is a point of rhetorical warfare by the Queer Revolutionary Movement, in order to get around the claim that sexual attraction was inherent, and was therefore unfair to regulate, in order to do an end-run around anti-sodomy laws using 'Equal Protection" doctrine, specifically within the US.
"Miscegination" is a completely different concept, and had different arguments against it. Particularly was the fact that 'miscegination' was not the abnormal position, particularly in the US (or soon to be American territories). Marriage laws were typically religiously set, rather than legally set, and most marriages allow different race marriages, but set stricter guidelines along religious differences. Conversion may be required, or the children may have to be raised under the religion to recognize it. This is why American pioneers, French settlers, and Spanish conquerors had effectively no demand to restrict marriages outside of race. It was actually an importation of Anglo Supremacism and Anglicanization doctrines that were adapted into the US. Segregationism was the imposition, not the default.
As such, the argument for why inter-racial marriage should exist has been a counter-argument: "Why should it not?". It's not "you can't help who you love", that was never really part of any argument leading up to Loving v. Virginia. That argument resides within the Queer Revolutionary movement. The primary argument for marriage integration was that there wasn't any valid justification to forbid it, let alone imprison people for it, and further harm children for it by imprisoning their parents and destroying families.