#Fediblock recommendation - @amerika

A single glance at the profile ought to be reason enough. πŸ˜…

Roland HäderπŸ‡©πŸ‡ͺ doesn't like this.

in reply to Traveling OSM Salesgirl Problem βœŠπŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆπŸ³οΈβ€βš§οΈπŸ‡ΊπŸ‡¦πŸ‡΅πŸ‡Έ

in reply to Rock DJ

@dj @roland

What troons need to know is that we accept you, as long as you do it on your own time and keep it quiet.

When you rub it into other people's faces, naturally we tire of seeing you demand that we validate your mental health problem.

When you force women/girls out of their spaces so you can masturbate there, we want you dead.

We accept you. We will always be disgusted by you, make fun of you, and stay away from you, but we accept that you should follow the path that makes sense to you.

I do not support allowing people to bully you, or to allow you to bully others, even if passively. I have no problem talking to or interacting with a trans person. But at the end of the day, we are going different directions.
t755hz65q7e61.jpg
talkwithcommunists.jpg
throw_communists_from_helicopters.jpg
satcong-carversion.png

in reply to Rock DJ

in reply to Rock DJ

@dj @roland @dcc @p @sun

Censorship just seems so juvenile to me these days, but more importantly, I think it always backfires.

Technically banning different types of pornography is censorship, but I think I'm okay with that because no viewpoint is suppressed.

in reply to β‰  hippies->chipper β‰ 

in reply to β‰  hippies->chipper β‰ 

@dj @dcc @roland @sun Well, the issue there is still what constitutes porn. Then there are secondary effects: if all porn is illegal, there's not a meaningful distinction between one type of illegal porn and other types of illegal porn.
in reply to pistolero

@p @dcc @roland @yomiel @dj @sun

I favor a world where there are consequences for results, not methods.

That is, maybe you needed to shoot a motherfucker, and if crime goes down radically in the neighborhood... we move on to something else to worry about.

In this world, no action would be illegal or legal per se. Do all the drugs you want. But if some addict fucks up the neighborhood, we will exile, asylumize, incarcerate, or execute him.

It's the return of Darwin and evil...
It's the RETURN of the fire and flame
It's the RETURN of my master Satan
It's the RETURN of desire and pain

(as the poet said)

in reply to β‰  hippies->chipper β‰ 

@dcc @dj @roland @sun @yomiel

> I favor a world where there are consequences for results, not methods.

This post endorsed by Robert McNamara and also all communists.

I mean, look at all the batshit insane shit commies do while chanting "by any means necessary!" and they do this because they think it will save the world and that there is nothing that is so evil that it shouldn't be undertaken in order to save the world.

The issue is that even if you could achieve "means-to-an-end" morality (which you cannot), you will be unable to get agreement on what constitutes a "good result" and which means violated ends-in-themselves. On a practical level, you will also create a shit-ton of problems: at the surface, for one thing, you have people screwing you over for some utilitarian concept of the greater good, and then for another, you could end up getting executed a thing that eventually ends up being good *long-*term that no one but you could see as a long-term consequence.

Consequentialism requires an objective measurement of outcomes (which you do not have) and a means to predict the future (which you do not have).

> It's the return of Darwin and evil...

It's the return of someone stealing your beer because they figure that they'd enjoy it more than you.
robert_strange_mcnamara.jpg

robert_strange_mcnamara.jpg
in reply to β‰  hippies->chipper β‰ 

@dcc @dj @roland @sun @yomiel

> The less agreement, often the closer one is to a more realistic take on the situation.

You have to have some sort of buy-in on the basic framework of your society.

> Humans are inherently anti-realistic, and are not equal.

Equality under the law, that is, everyone playing by the same rules, is a different thing from the Harrison Bergeron thing you're talking about.

in reply to β‰  hippies->chipper β‰ 

@dcc @roland @p @yomiel @dj @sun the people in charge nowadays are fascinated by methods and doctrines and treating society like a cause-and-effect machine you can get whatever you want out of if you just hit all the right buttons. but it's not like that *at all.* it's a living system made up of living people. I don't know how that translates into what you should do, but near the top of the list should be to avoid alienating and depriving the very people who make your society run well.
in reply to β‰  hippies->chipper β‰ 

@bajax @dcc @dj @roland @sun @yomiel

> Who is "They" again?

Bernays, Dulles, FDR, Rockefeller, Carnegie, and all the motherfuckers that Bretton Woodsed the earth into oblivion.

> We have "freedom,"

Only in the Huxley sense.

in reply to pistolero

@p @dcc @bajax @roland @yomiel @dj @sun

No, we have more legal and economic "freedom" than at any other time in history, is what I am saying.

We have freedom, but look at the Bell Curve. Most people have no idea what to do with it, so they vote for easy answers and end up enslaving themselves.

The clowns you mentioned got power because of the vote. (True, FDR had Tammany Hall on his side... but that's the Irish vote.)

in reply to β‰  hippies->chipper β‰ 

@bajax @dcc @dj @roland @sun @yomiel

> No, we have more legal and economic "freedom" than at any other time in history

The 1960s called. They didn't want anything back, they just wanted to laugh at your assertion. Then the 1920s called them. Then the 1880s called them.

> Most people have no idea what to do with it

You think you can eliminate retards and you can't. That will *never* happen. You can get them to stop bothering you.

> The clowns you mentioned got power because of the vote.

Nobody "elected" Carnegie, Rocketfeller, Rothschild, etc. Nobody "elected" Bernays or Dulles. FDR straight-up killed Huey Long. Try again.

⇧