blockmarker

People have this idea that gun owners would stand in an empty field shooting at tanks with their handguns, and whoever won in that field battle would win the control of the country, which is quite silly. First, if enough gunmen rose up, the US would be ruined, and the tyranny with it. Sure, they can bomb any rebelling city, but those rebelling cities are their cashcows. Enough of those destroyed and the tyranny is less profitable than freedom; too many of those destroyed and the country as a whole is ruined. Even if the factories are not ruined, big population losses would be equally bad.

Or they can do terrorism. Assassinations, sabotage of infraestructure. Tyrants live somewhere, and they send their children to school. Collaborators(which probably would be civil servants, police and the army) also need to sleep somewhere and have children and family. They could just be shot while going home, or killed by IEDs while patrolling. Infraestructure is much easier to destroy than to repair. Killing the power grid or destroying a bridge hurts the rebellion as much or more than it does the dictatorship, but I don't think they would care much.

Having guns is also a great detterent to creeping tyranny(well, at least when the guns owners care enough to do something). If every overreach was met with hundreds of thousands of angry people with guns on Washington, they would stop overreaching.

I agree that it is quite foolish that these people support things which actually work against them, but do not understimate what hundreds of thousands of angry gunmen could do. Even if they didn't win, they would ruin the US. And making tyranny less profitable than liberty is a good protection against it.

America, the country where you can't stop massive voter fraud because every time it is tried, one of the two parties disallow legal voters from voting. America might be richer than Europe, but it seems to me to be much more dysfunctional.

Not parent commenter, but you are competing. You might not compete for the nicest car, but you are competing for housing, healthcare and education. Houses aren't expensive because they are built with gold, but because everyone needs one.

>just in case I'm getting this wrong, let's make sure it's an unalienable right for people to have weapons in case they need to kill me?

That supposes that the Founders would forever rule and be unified, with no possibility of anyone else ever ruling. That obviously is idiotic.

Actually, this is false. IIRC, it seems that most women on OkCupid considered 80% of men under-average, but still messaged them. Which is strange to say the least.

"Far-right fascists" This shows that you don't actually know what fascism is. PP is center-right, you only think that it is far-right because you are very far left.

The problem with talking about this era is that half the country believes that the republicans were blameless and the nationalists were the devil. Both sides freely executed suspected political enemies, but the left is unwilling to recognize this. If the republicans had won there would have been as many or more executions than under Franco's regime. There would have even been a chance that Spain became communist, which would have resulted in even more deaths.

Now, I agree with you on the lack of freedom of speech in Spain. But it censors the left as much as the right is censored in England or Germany. That is to say, the censorship is shameful but on the same level as the rest of Europe.

It was inevitable when they started censoring the red team. I for one am glad that they are researching how to do it, social media is the new public square, and no entity should be able to control it.

The article itself says that Republicans are skeptic about the government deciding when it is politically fair, so it will probably end up being a more elegant solution, like removing CDA 230.

EDIT: Rewrote the comment a few times.

It wasn't enacted by the 8chan community, it was enacted by the shooter only. And endorsed, well, I have seen many people on Reddit and Twitter who say that all Republicans are evil and should be killed, yet when Steve Scalise was shot, they weren't banned for their support of terrorism and assassination. The same principles you apply to your side should be applied to the other side.

Medicinal CBD can get you arrested in places. While long ago, alcohol was also prohibited. Also, forbidding drugs was used to oppress African-Americans. None of these things seem to me good.

And we are already coming to a more censored internet. Sex work was forbidden with FOSTA. Many mainstream conservative opinions are censored. Opinions which Obama had when president are now considered hate speech and censored. There is more and more censorship.

I am saying both are violent, not that one's violence excuses the other or that they are perfect moral equivalents.

Steve Scalise's assassination was attempted by a radical anti-Trumper, Antifa has cracked open skills and sent people to the hospital. We have strong evidence that anti-Trump Facebook groups and subreddits cause real-world violence.

>However, the baker in this case specifically argued that homosexuals should be prohibited even from purchasing pre-made off-the-shelf cakes that were not made-to-order. This clearly crosses the line into discrimination of a protected class, so in my view he ultimately got away on a technicality

If political ideology was a protected class, would you be opposed to Cloudfare dropping 8chan?

Do you really want to give Trump the power to choose what is allowed to be said and what isn't?

How conveniently you forget how Steve Scalise was shot, how Bike Lock Man cracked open an old man's skull(and got away with probation), and many other things. The neonazis have done shootings, but the far left attempted to assassinate a senator. Both are pretty bad.

That does help, thank you. The "hi" insight is great. I will endeavour to understand more things myself. Thanks.

I have diagnosed ASD, and such a thing would be incredibly helpful to me. I know that this is a hard ask, as it would imply a lot of writing, but could you tell me your rules? It would be incredibly useful to me.

I don't believe that will happen, because that treatment would massively boost the economy. Nowadays we have to spend around 23 years until a person can be productive, then they have to learn to be more efficient, and in a few years they have children and focus less on their job. As well as they becoming older, losing efficiency until they retire and then they consume the resources of social security for twenty or more years.

Eternal youth would be so good to the economy that it would never be hidden.

Oh, that is a relief. Thank you.

>You just show them the attributes you want them to see, and make them want to be with you based on what they see.

That makes a lot of sense. It's not one scale from uninteresting to interesting, but rather showing what makes you you, and prioritizing which.

That is helpful. But what does less attractive mean? Because by OkCupid's own stats, women find most men to be under-average(https://web.archive.org/web/20170330131859/https://theblog.o...)

EDIT: By this I mean, how much unattractiveness can actually be compensated for by being more interesting. Specially since you can't do that much with photos.

Not your parent, but it doesn't matter how reasonable this way of thinking is, if it stems from our biology.

I'm glad that you achieved a better life. I agree, one should love their life regardless of whether they have a girlfriend or not.

However, I don't believe you are the type of people we are talking about. You say "being punished for girls being attracted to me", which implies that you were already attractive.

It might have helped you because you were already physically attractive. The problem is for those who aren't (and aren't able or willing to get surgery). If physical attractiveness is so important, many men, including myself, might not be able to do anything. Not get a girlfriend, nor get just sex, which is still important. Can you ask any trusted friend to tell you how attractive you are? I would love that you are average or below and still have success.

In any case, your solution seems to me to be a good idea even if you don't get laid. If I might ask, how did you do that? Changing my mentality and habits is something I've not had much success in doing.