I no longer trust Trump to have the balls or even the inclination to resist anything that doesn't affect him directly. I defend him insofar as every word out of their mouths about him is a complete lie, and their persecution of him is really persecution of the People, but I see Trump himself as pure narcissism and ego, nothing else.
Maybe he'll prove me wrong.
I'll consider feeling sad for him if he abandons the dishonest pretense that he's fit to serve, and retires.
This is almost certainly a token gesture so they can say 'Look, we got rid of the biased schemers, the process is 100% fair now!'
Wasn't there some bullshit about them counting ticks as a yes vote but not counting crosses as a no vote? Was that ever resolved?
It's striking that the right attempts to justify the murder of people on the right, whereas the left just does a who-whom analysis.
Yeah, trying to be fair against opponents who want you dead and will utilize every dirty trick to make it happen is a loser's game, I know.
But I value the truthfulness of our discussions here at .win, and I want to call it like I see it. When I try to put myself in the shoes of the guy with the gun I get 'Oh shit they're breaking through, I'm going to get mobbed and beaten to death and so are the people I'm protecting' because that's probably what my thought process would be if an angry group was breaking through a barricade. Maybe I'm being too generous. He is a professional after all.
I didn't mean a civilian. I meant if a cop had done it in defense not of the ruling class (or its puppets), but in defense of you and me.
That is also true.
I thought that was the whole point of an election. Have we stopped pretending that's the case?
(Or is the article is talking about an armed takeover or something? I can't seem to access it.)
This is my position too. I don't need hot girls in games, and I even get annoyed by them if they're inappropriate for the setting and tone. I don't even mind 'normal looking' (as in non-supermodel) women. But games with deliberately uglified or mannified women like the new Fable and the second Horizon game? REMAKES that make the women uglier like Dead Space? I don't want to touch those games.
black April O'Neil
Oh yeah, raceswapping goes in the trash too.
Stop letting old people be politicians.
They're fine if they're competent. Stop keeping them past their expiration date, I say.
from his entire scheme being click-baitey "wealth bragging"
This, and the exploitation of the people he's helping to boost his own profile, explains why I don't like him even though he does good things. It's not really 'generous', it's a business model that cynically monetizes hope and kindness to his own benefit, and it only ever makes him richer. It benefits others as well, but in a way that's more concerned with sensationalism than impact.
He's smart, he's got great business sense and he makes good things happen. Maybe he even has some genuine compassion. He also feels like a slimy narcissistic politician.
But as usual, the left is completely insane. Their entire ideology is driven by appeal to emotion, so they should be his biggest supporters.
The point that stands out to me is that she was in the process of climbing over/through the barrier when she got shot, and there were a lot of people behind her who likely would have followed. I can understand feeling like you have to shoot in that circumstance.
But I still wouldn't put it past them to have planned murder in advance, in order send a message. Everything else about that day was staged after all.
But murder in defense of the rich and powerful is always justified. I'm no John Brown supporter, but he said it exactly right.
Agreed. There's far too big a divide here when there shouldn't be one at all. If a civilian had done the same thing, in the same circumstances, the response would be very different.
and want to give a medal to the guy who murdered Ashli Babbitt, a short, unarmed woman who was no threat to anyone
I've always thought it wasn't completely unreasonable for him to shoot, but no way should he get a goddamn medal for it. Any call to give him one is politically motivated and is essentially saying 'it's virtuous to shoot right wingers'.
Which shouldn't be a big surprise from the 'Punch a nazi!/You're a nazi!' crowd.
The fact that they think 'X information is dangerous' is an acceptable reason to censor valid findings tells you everything you need to know about their so-called authority - and exactly how much credence you should give them when they tell you to 'trust the science'.
It's bought and paid for - has been for a while - and even if it wasn't, it's quickly brought to heel in the face of ideological pressure and hysteria. The more they do this, the more they destroy their own credibility, and, unfortunately, the credibility of scientific inquiry in the long term. Those among them who really do believe in destructive climate change are doing precisely everything they can to destroy their own narrative.
I haven't watched the video, but as to the question you're posing, it's not so black and white. But yes, because cops monopolize force and use it against you to protect the interests of the state. Very few of them break ranks when they're told to oppress citizens.
Cops are necessary and they're not bad in a political vacuum, if kept in check with regulations, but under a hostile regime they are little more than troops mobilized against the citizens they're supposed to protect.
Australia is currently trying to ban (the purchase of) old farm equipment (40/50+ years old), under the guise of “accidents”, so that’s an appropriate point!
I hear the Australia is like that, always trying to ban shit for 'your own good'. It's so interfering and condescending. Whatever happened to individuals willingly assuming risk on their own behalf? Or does the Australian government think you're its property?
(I was going to fix 'the Australia' but I decided to leave it in because it's funny)
This is too much concentrated dunning-kreuger NPCism. My disgust is reaching dangerous levels.
If it was just 'she/her' you could make the argument it's peer pressure and appeasement, something a friend convinced her would be a nice and loving and wonderful gesture.
But 'they/them' as well? This person is 100% on the progressive train and the game will inevitably suffer as a result.
Coincidences are bound to happen when you spend your every waking hour consuming race grifting delusions.
This sounds a lot like that 'implicit bias' I keep hearing about, but that can't be. That's something only white people do to every other race!
Dishonest media tactic #425: It's 'landmark' when they approve and 'unprecedented' when they don't.
Anyway, this is what happens when communists are in charge.
I can't understand why a non-sequitur post like this would get upvotes unless people were just unironically in favor of moral relativism when it goes their way.
It's specifically because it's anti-LGBT. Hatred is starting to outpace pragmatism, and thus resistance is going to turn into vengeance. It was inevitable; the pendulum was always going to swing back in a big way. I can't blame people for feeling that way but I still don't like to see it.
Enforcing community standards isn't "oppression". Neither is enforcing against indecency or obscenity.
Legally enforcing community standards isn't an inherent good, it's a sometimes-necessary action that needs to balance individual freedoms with the needs of the community. Whether or not it's oppressive really depends on the law itself. It very well could be oppressive if it's overly broad, disproportionate in its punishment, or invasive (as in, violating citizens' privacy and prosecuting private behavior instead of public behavior).
Another question is what good comes from having sodomy be legal?
Admittedly, it doesn't provide much (if any) benefit except for freedom itself. But freedom is an important consideration. The test for whether something needs to be banned ought to be whether it's causing harm, not whether allowing it provides benefit. The latter position leads to things being banned by default, which inverts the burden of proof, as it were. A society that functioned that way would inevitably become oppressive.
Degeneracy is allowed because "discrimination" is illegal or if not illegal it is a considered a civil tort. If people could be fired and kicked out of leases for being gay then faggots would go back into closet and we would go back to our reasonable equilibrium that we had for centuries.
I agree with this completely. That's why I think the best way forward is fewer laws and de-facto laws, not more. Instead of banning things (except where absolutely necessary) allow people to discriminate and society will sort itself out. The people should be able to decide what they will tolerate via their culture, rather than have their will haphazardly filtered through incompetent/corrupt/flawed politicians and then be dictated to by the state.
If sodomy isn't against the law then it is a signal that sodomy is tolerated.
This is a good point, however. Laws aren't only about restriction and punishment, they represent a society's values and signal its intent. Sometimes a law can solidify an official position but not be rigidly enforced, and sometimes that's preferable.
Well gee, I hope you don't hold opinions about anything at all happening in countries other than your own because, according to you, that would just be you trying to impose your morality on others.
You've been trying to define my position for me from the beginning, which is actually quite dishonest in itself, and now you are now accusing me of arguing in bad faith. I get that there are a lot of dishonest people on the internet but people like you, who decide that everything you don't agree with is bad faith by default, are just as bad. Please learn to actually hold a rational discussion instead of leading with smug, bad faith assumptions about your intellectual and ethical superiority.
Now compare every 'oppressed' minority in the west to their counterparts in the Middle East etc and see how long your video lasts.
No way. Games like Baldur's Gate 3 are too 'horny', they built the entire game around it. But it's the kind of 'horny' that avoids healthy sexuality, romance and attraction, and goes straight for the degenerate cooming.
It does make sense. You are not allowed to own things or have power, only your betters and their fake-people (golem?) corporations are allowed that.
I might just Imp-post.