1
freespeechsquid 1 point ago +2 / -1

it assumes you think YOUR moral attitude superior

I think my moral position is correct, as does anyone advocating for a moral position, including you.

It’s their country, they can do whatever they like. Their morality is as valid as yours.

The will of the government is quite often not the will of the people.

Even if it is the will of the people, the tyranny of the majority is a very real phenomenon. Does having a majority consensus mean any action is fair game and morally valid?

Malaysia is also the country of the people who are being arrested for owning these watches. I very much doubt they want to be arrested. Why can't they do whatever they like?

0
freespeechsquid 0 points ago +1 / -1

I think a healthy society can do the job with encouragement and discouragement without needing to resort to oppressive laws. Oppression is the problem even now; this LGBT stuff is being upheld through regulatory capture, propaganda and the suppression of dissent.

2
freespeechsquid 2 points ago +2 / -0

I don't agree with locking people up for owning or wearing things, even if ridicule may be appropriate. If something's bad enough to require prohibition, then the sale of it should be restricted and the sellers who break those restrictions should be punished (which I still don't totally agree with), not the buyers.

I do support pushback against the destructive forces of progressivism and the LGBT cancer, but I'm not always going to agree with the form or severity of that pushback.

You know a lot more about watches than I do but it sounds like an awful trend of people wasting their money on status symbols, much like people who regularly line up for the latest iPhone. Consoomers gotta consoom.

1
freespeechsquid 1 point ago +2 / -1

Unfortunately for your worldview, THAT IS THE LAW OF THAT COUNTRY. Their culture of morality is as valid as yours.

Your argument assumes I consider all the laws and 'morals' of my own country valid. Sometimes laws are wrong. Sometimes social norms are wrong.

Authoritarianism is bad, even if it's on our side. It is NOT any government's business to tell people they can't perform mutually consensual acts. Libertarianism is flawed in that it lacks many of the defenses that a healthy society requires, but it is fundamentally true that the state has no greater right to dictate my actions than I myself do.

Restrictive laws like this are only ever, at best, a necessary evil. They are not to be celebrated.

1
freespeechsquid 1 point ago +1 / -0

In part, but don't underestimate the amount of actual white people debasing themselves and selling out their own.

12
freespeechsquid 12 points ago +12 / -0

some people obviously conceive of language as a collection of passwords rather than a means of communication

Yeah and once you realize this exists you start seeing it everywhere - people who have no idea of the meaning, use, or intention of words (or even actions) but invoke them anyway. They could be trying to create a result (crying racism for their own benefit), they could be using them habitually (like meaningless niceties in conversation) or they might use them in lieu of argument, as though they're imbued with some sort of sacred, infallible authority and are true just because (leftist academia buzzwords).

You see it with pedestrians waiting at a red light even though there are no cars, you see it with people using their turn signals for half a second before turning, because they don't understand the purpose of them, they just know they have to do it before turning the car.

It's depressing when you realize just how much of the population think like this, although it's kind of a spectrum. At one end you have people who never think at all, and by all accounts seem barely sentient; on the other end you have people who rigorously think and question, but will inevitably have a blind spot or two.

5
freespeechsquid 5 points ago +5 / -0

At this rate there will be an anti-white holocaust before 2039…

It will be led by whites, against whites, and then the first whites will go willingly to their deaths while lamenting that even death will not absolve them of the sin of whiteness.

15
freespeechsquid 15 points ago +16 / -1

I think he was joking, but you lived up to your username for sure.

-14
freespeechsquid -14 points ago +6 / -20

I really don't think it is based to persecute people for having consensual sex or owning rainbow watches, but LGBT shit has become so psychotically degenerate and authoritarian in the west, and is pushing so hard for the same globally, it's easy to cheer for any sort of pushback.

Sadly, defense mechanisms against LGBT encroachment have become very necessary. But for the sake of individual citizens, I hope this will be one of those laws that is in the books to act as a deterrent and won't actually be enforced too strictly.

6
freespeechsquid 6 points ago +6 / -0

I was surprised—people were very upset about things that we would never have thought would be dangerous

Haven't we been saying this since like 2014? That trigger warnings and safe spaces (i.e. pathologizing and avoiding sources of discomfort) just create an illusion of danger and harm your ability to cope?

14
freespeechsquid 14 points ago +14 / -0

They don't comprehend anything about the way you think, or about reality in general. They are not working with a full complement of brain cells.

3
freespeechsquid 3 points ago +3 / -0

Never allow the public to cool off.

Bitch, you're the one who chose to throw, and is still choosing to throw, a never ending tantrum over the guy. This one is squarely on you.

4
freespeechsquid 4 points ago +4 / -0

women and girls the world over are suffering due to the actions of men

No. They are suffering due to the actions, and inactions, and lies, and weakness, of politicians. 90% of their REAL problems comes back to that. And men are suffering just as much, if not more.

Maybe turn the gaze inward, Humzy.

2
freespeechsquid 2 points ago +2 / -0

The character sitting on top of the ramp is the same height as all the standing characters. The 'artist' couldn't even get that right.

4
freespeechsquid 4 points ago +4 / -0

'Basic human decency' is another one of their nonsense buzzwords. They don't even know what it means, because it doesn't actually mean anything.

It's just the magical combination of words they employ to conjure a moral bludgeon and hit you with it so you'll be shamed into meeting their ridiculous, openly harmful demands.

6
freespeechsquid 6 points ago +6 / -0

I don't see a call for censorship here, and I wouldn't support such a thing, but the writer is right about the game being 'too horny'. I'm no prude either, but from everything I've read and seen about the game it's just too much. They made a sequel to a beloved series and bragged about how 'horny' it is, and boy is it ever. In quite a 'progressive' way as well, despite being a rare modern game that allows women to be sexy. But the aggressiveness of its sex and fetishes is completely inappropriate for the series and the genre. It is, quite frankly, degenerate.

I still would not support censorship of it. But I do believe it's yet another example of the decline of gaming and our society as a whole.

7
freespeechsquid 7 points ago +7 / -0

Thankfully most of them aren't in STEM (yet), but the social sciences, bolstered by the facade of 'authority' given to by these degrees, are horribly destructive in their own right.

1
freespeechsquid 1 point ago +1 / -0

Define 'Full LGBTQ rights'. They demand this while never explaining what it actually means, and I can only infer it means mandating the use of their pronouns, mandating males in women's sports and locker rooms, and mandating sex with transgenders.

4
freespeechsquid 4 points ago +4 / -0

Their omission from pop culture is not an accident.

These are the people who call you conspiracy theorists.

1
freespeechsquid 1 point ago +1 / -0

If he did, the current administration would just let him have it. One less red state to defraud, and it would avoid wasting resources that would be better spent on Ukraine!

1
freespeechsquid 1 point ago +1 / -0

I completely agree that monogamy is good for gay males (for their sake and and ours!), I'm just not sure how much gay marriage helped with that. The monogamous ones have always been able to have stable relationships, albeit not with the perks that marriage provides, such as tax benefits and family rights. It could be said that the ability to marry encourages monogamy but I'm just skeptical about how much of a difference it's actually makes, especially compared to the damage it's led to. I can't help but think the push for gay marriage was more about 'sticking it to the straights' and advancing a much broader progressive agenda than it was about gaining any benefit.

You're absolutely right about the degenerate state of modern society being about incentivization, although I would add disincentivization and relentless propaganda to the list. Get rid of those and things will go back to normal in time. Most of our problems are fabricated in subtle and insidious ways, whether by malicious intent or as the result of policy that's too incompetent to understand its own long term impact. Barely any of the people in power are actually capable of thinking ahead more than a year or so, let alone factoring in the impact of logistics and social pressures. It seems that the few who do understand these things are maliciously using that knowledge to their own advantage.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›