You tear yourself apart!

That’s my point though. If you don’t ban (aka censor) illegal things as a foundation, you end up living in a hellscape. I’m saying your argument isn’t thorough enough. It’s not going far enough. It’s scratching the surface and saying “good enough” when it doesn’t actually appear to be.

I am talking about illegal things because it’s an obvious hole in your argument. What are you talking about about? Because it sounds like you’re being short sighted to me, sticking to a happy path, but I could be wrong. What do you think?

You can’t seriously be against all censorship in books, right? Where are your actual boundaries? I don’t think you’d be ok with something obviously evil like a book of cp… Right?

Edgecases are why it’s hard to be consistent.

Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should!

Yeah, it’s just billionaire funding, not gumption.

Left is king of grassroots movements that go nowhere because they can’t get funded while the right has daddy koch and murdock making it rain all the way down to altright and neonazi youtubers.

But call me a hippie conspiracy theorist and move on with your day, because you’re obviously not too bright.

I think the commenter you’re replying to made some logical enough jumps.

Like it seems that they’re assuming people in Republican rural counties who start doing this to random candidates would move out, causing a localized housing crisis in that area that banks could come in and capitalize on like the vultures that they tend to act like. That would lead to the pattern that they’re painting in their comment.

So I can imagine how it’s all connected, but that said, I don’t claim to know the inner mind of this poster so I could be very wrong.

Calling me chronically online has literally no effect, but since we’re gotten to the name calling stage, allow me to respond in kind:

Next time, state your stance instead of playing shitty word games, coward. You didn’t state your stance when asked, you only responded with “what do you think”. Therefore, I told you. And now you’re trying to backpedal instead of owning the fact that you’re acting like a smug asshole instead of just changing your behavior.

It’s a shame though, we could have had an interesting conversation about this. But I guess all you have is pointless trivia and no actual opinion. Why do you even bother to talk, then? Like I’m actually asking, why did you even bother to respond “what do you think?”?

Your position and lack of answering the question implies to my naive mind that you do advocate for killing all the sheep that have been bred to need shearing. Do you not? I really can’t tell lol your stance seems to imply that would be where you land, but I would also call that pretty fucking ghoulish if that’s the case.

Since we set the world up this way, now we have a responsibility to treat the animals kindly. That’s my stance. Supply and demand is technically irrelevant. Obviously I’m gonna have an issue with factory industrialized wool though… Mistreating animals, especially species we specifically messed with through selective breeding is absolutely inexcusable. And the PETA route of annihilating all the selectively bred animals is as abhorrent as factory farming to me.

Yes, let’s go die of exposure because there’s a hole in the roof. Throw the whole house away just because there’s glaring issues with it when there’s no other viable choice in the vicinity.

What level of analogy do you need to understand that if you abandon the power you do have (ie minute nudge control of democratic establishment) you become irrelevant due to powerlessness?

To change what’s acceptable, you shift what’s considered acceptable, nip at the bits that are trying to stay with the old status quo, and repeat until you move the window to wherever you’re trying to push it. That’s how this works (if the window goes left for democrats, you would call that an “improvement”). Revolution is anomalous. Pushing for revolution and depending on the assumption of it happening leads to total powerlessness, which is less than what lefties have right now (right now I’d only call them mostly powerless).

You can’t get away from dealing with the devil when Satan created the whole system in the first place.

You’re still acting like a bitch. I hope you’re not like this to your neighbors because they might shoot you AND your kids if shit hits the fan (but you have nothing to worry about… Right?).

Might be a bit contentious to say, but you’re really bad at protecting your young’s survival chances right now. Your selfishness actively endangers them even though this vector has no consequences right now. I hope you learn not to be an asshole to random people. It might impact more than just yourself. Granted I’m sure you’re only like this because you’re behind a keyboard, but if you said this to people in real life, I doubt you would have many reliable friends left.

How did they get mixed? I see 1 in arabic and 2 and 3 in Hindu. Is there a good place to start reading or watching about this in your opinion? If not, I’m just gonna YouTube the history of numbers and see where I land

1. you don’t have to understand it, you just shouldn’t be a legislative genocidal asshole about it (not that that’s what you’re doing, but that’s what republicans seem to do to anything they think isn’t their slim sliver of a definition of “normal”)

2. if you’re talking about furries, to my layman’s understanding of the subculture, that’s not how the vast majority of furries relate to themselves. From what I’ve seen, it’s not that they are the animal itself, they are the aspects of the animal, and those things are just little icons that they’re like boosting because they resonate with it. That said, there are at least a few people who DO feel that way, but I’m pretty sure they have a special category name (ferals? I think that’s what they’re called but I could be wrong, this is some deep lore I picked up years ago). If they do have that special name and I’m not just making that part up, then that implies that most furries do not feel that way about themselves.

But, acknowledging the existence of people like that at all does validate your question in my mind. I don’t really understand that extreme either. My only point is that most furries are what you would likely consider “normal”, they just have a particular hobby. It’s no more nefarious or odd than being into gender bending cosplay. You’re just taking something (yourself rather than an anime/video game character) and twisting it into something artistically different (a fursona instead of a cosplay outfit).

…no I did not intend to write that much defending furries but here we are lmao

deleted by creator

The way I (layman) read it, they seemed to be saying that it would be phased out by newer companies finding different alternatives, not that everyone is phasing it out as we speak.

Does this seem more realistic? Or just completely non-factual?

Ah I get that, like the frustration of a sociological paper pointing out a societal issue but offering no steps on how to solve it due to fixes being out of scope (utterly infuriating lol).

I still think the criticism is valid, but I do think I agree in that the criticism could be more constructive… But I still think laying the foundation of the argument, so to speak, is still constructive even though it may not go as far as one may need for it to cross the threshold back into polite…

I am still convinced this is a knee jerk feeling issue more than anything truly being amiss, but I have been wrong before. What do you think?

I agree it probably is a definitions thing, I’m very pedantic sometimes and it feels like my definition of constructive is much more optimistic/wider/encompassing than yours. That doesn’t mean that my definition is right or that your position is wrong though, that’s just what I think is going on here.

The first step to correction is understanding there is a problem in the first place. This is quite constructive, it may just not feel like it is because it’s framed combatively.

You’re doing it wrong is the phrase that lets teachers teach at one of the most basic levels.

The public is essentially a self teaching teacher, so this is just the process of public correction happening. It may look/feel like public shaming, and it may be if they’re going too far, but that is the mechanism that I think is playing out here.

Does that framing make it any more palatable to you or does it still seem unnecessarily disrespectful?

Interesting, I personally wouldn’t actually accuse the UN of being tankie… Maybe capitalist but not tankie… I think if someone makes a convincing argument about the price of oil, it might result in the US or the UN (most likely UN I would wager though) stepping in…

I don’t think the UN will actually do anything though, this is more just me harvesting some hope/cope

Hah! I see the logic, but I think that happened only because the big powers backing each Korea couldn’t push the proxy war to overwhelm each other either way… But then again, I could be wrong, and that could be a viable option here, I really don’t know… The less buried mines on earth, the better, but when you’ve got 1/4 of the population of your enemy, you don’t exactly have the privilege of fighting traditionally either…

Fascinating, that hadn’t crossed my mind at all. The actual world police could do something probably good (stabilizing at the very least) for the situation.

But that said, I don’t think I would bank on the UN for this one… It seems like Guyana would need continual military presence to dissuade Venezuela because it appears that Venezuela is doing this because Guyana was too fiscally successful over the pandemic. But I mean if the UN does long term guarding like that, then it might be a viable option…

With who’s army fighting though? Guyana seems a bit too small to properly be able to defend itself from Venezuela… Unless Brazil goes full on South America police on the situation (and apparently, they might?), I don’t see how this will end in anything other than Venezuela steam rolling Guyana…