[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

 No.2[Reply]

File: 1559435267262.png (905.05 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, Mayor,_Let's_get_galloping….png) ImgOps Google

Welcome to /townhall/! This is an anonymous-only board for debates, dialectics, and discussions of a serious nature.

As the topics discussed on this board may deal with sensitive or controversial subject matter, we expect a higher standard of conduct than elsewhere on the site, and will enforce the board's rules with a greater degree of strictness. Inability or unwillingness to follow the rules will result in a /townhall/-only ban.

 No.3

1) All posts in a given thread must contribute constructively to the conversation, whether agreeing or disagreeing. Off-topic, contentless, inflammatory, or hostile posts will be deleted and result in a ban.

1a) Derails that occur as a natural result of discussion progressing from the original subject will generally not be interfered with; however, if these hinder discussion of the original topic, making a new thread is preferred.

1b) Part of contributing constructively is understanding and addressing the reasoning behind an opposing view. While this can be a tedious task and will generally not be officially enforced, please make an effort to at the very least avoid "talking past" someone when presented with a counterargument. Simply doubling down on your initial point does not advance a discussion.

1c) Be as willing to "lose" as you are to "win", and above all else, be willing to learn and understand. You will not get the most out of this board if your only goal is to persuade, and you will not even be effective at that unless you understand what you are arguing against.


2) Ad hominems and other uncivil behavior will not be tolerated. You may have a significant personal stake in some subjects discussed here, and it is normal to be frustrated when someone cannot relate; however, lashing out is not an effective way to engender sympathy for your position, and will not advance the conversation in a constructive way. Even if you find someone's argument morally abhorrent, there are constructive ways to express this.

2a) Attempting to deliberately provoke an uncivil reaction is prohibited, even if it is done within the letter of the law.

2b) Snark and other forms of mockery are strongly discouraged and may result in warnings or bans.

2c) "Strawmanning" an "opponent" deliberately will be regarded as uncivil conduct and will be dealt with accordingly. This will not apply to genuine misunderstandings.


3) While we do not claim to be arbiters of absolute moral or empirical truth and aim to moderate this board in a fair and even-handed, politically agnostic manner, the following extreme positions are considered "off-limits" regardless of how they are put forward, including attempts to "hint" or dogwhistle:

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


 No.13069[Reply]

File: 1711169877618.jpg (60.62 KB, 754x721, 754:721, question w8x3mtfl92621.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Why did Muslim terrorists attack *Russia* of all places?
12 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.13086

>>13081
Then die.

This defeatist notion that humanity is irredeemable is part of the problem.

 No.13087

>>13084
>the temptation to dehumanize
That's absolutely a fair point. Feelings are an extremely powerful motivation. And while they can blind, at the same time they can bring about the sensations of being able to "revel in" something happy. As you put it.

I suppose I'm still idealistic and optimistic about humanity even though I don't really know how the human condition as such can be changed as much as it needs to be.

I suppose it can be compared how to, say, smoking cigarettes and drinking dangerous mixed alcohols are hard to argue against from a broad social viewpoint. As an individual, you want to just feel happy. It's difficult to condemn positive feelings.

 No.13091

>>13071
>>13078
>>13079
Arigato, it seems I was rather ignorant of tensions between Muslims and Russia.


 No.13061[Reply]

File: 1710899238224.jpg (6.41 KB, 275x183, 275:183, Giant_reddit_icon_in_backg….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

The tech companies Reddit and YouTube must face a lawsuit filed by the survivors of a mass shooting in Buffalo inside of New York State given that the online organizations hosted media that the murder engaged with in order to pick out both the best firearms for the attack and also the best body armor to wear during it.

In general terms, I'm basically a free speech absolutist. However, explicitly giving somebody who says that he or she is going to commit real acts of violence your own best advice to help them do just that, particularly when it comes to something like buying the right pieces of body armor, appears to me personally to be so immoral that it ought to be clearly illegal. Similarly, I would think that somebody giving out tips about filming child pornography and how best to host it online has crossed an ethical line and should also get in trouble.

There's more at: https://www.npr.org/2024/03/19/1239478067/buffalo-shooting-reddit-youtube-lawsuit

Am I making a mistake? Could increased legal scrutiny of those two platforms have negative side-effects? It's almost goes without saying that increased online censorship causes unintended consequences.
7 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.13082

>>13062
>>13064
This seems way more like the exploding pen (which is both a grenade and a usable writing device) in the famous spy film Goldeneye:

>

The online platforms deliberately chose to organize themselves so that their framework hosts content that actively incites violence, going way beyond just being hateful to actively recommending what body armor to wear when undertaking a mass shooting, and also consciously steers people to this content.

I would argue that giving somebody an exploding pen (or any other inherently malicious product) would be illegal at least in theory, unless there's some absolutely compelling and clear-cut reason as to why they deserve to be treated like that.

 No.13085

>>13082
>The online platforms deliberately chose to organize themselves so that their framework hosts content that actively incites violence,
Did they, though?
Or did they just make a platform built to allow people, generally, to organize themselves, host content for whomever wishes to use it?

You're prescribing a motive that I do not believe exists. Especially considering this is Google of all things.
Nothing I've seen suggests that this system is inherently only good for one purpose, violence, as you seem to suggest with the pen analogy.

Google is not handing out grenades, here.
Platforms for content and means to organize are not grenades.
In fact, it falls under an umbrella the government can't regulate, as I understand it, thanks to freedom of association.

 No.13090

File: 1711338778086.jpeg (108.4 KB, 1080x1080, 1:1, FdInY1JWAAEo5gY.jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>13082
>content that actively incites violence
Do you have an example of that?  The incitement exception of the First Amendment is pretty narrow.  In particular, it only applies to incitement of imminent lawless action.  See Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio :
"""
Clarence Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan (KKK) leader in rural Ohio, contacted a reporter at a Cincinnati television station and invited him to cover a KKK rally that would take place in Hamilton County in the summer of 1964.[9] Portions of the rally were filmed, showing several men in robes and hoods, some carrying firearms, first burning a cross and then making speeches. One of the speeches made reference to the possibility of "revengeance" against "Niggers", "Jews", and those who supported them and also claimed that "our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race", and announced plans for a march on Congress to take place on the Fourth of July.[10] Another speech advocated for the forced expulsion of African Americans to Africa and Jewish Americans to Israel.[11]
...
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation.
"""

>recommending what body armor to wear when undertaking a mass shooting
That sounds more like crime-facilitating speech than incitement.

>>13082
Huh?  Lots of inherently dangerous products are legal to sell (and should be, IMHO).  Firearms, ammo, circular saws, angle grinders, etc.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


 No.12922[Reply]

File: 1707911204224.jpeg (318.94 KB, 1170x1333, 1170:1333, GGLuEqrX0AANQmb.jpeg) ImgOps Google

Has AI gone too far?
6 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.13013

>>12940
>>12972
Yes. The exact word "craving" is important here. Generally speaking, having a "craving" is understandable but can work out pretty badly in the long-run, such as somebody constantly eating fatty fast food meals due to their personal habits. What instead should happen is a more complex and nuanced form of healing.

 No.13074

No. Because I've been turning to AI as well

 No.13075

>>12924
Not like its actually hurting you. There isn't a cooperate agent waiting outside of your door.


 No.13006[Reply]

File: 1710388687576.png (1.27 MB, 1080x1548, 30:43, Screenshot_20240313-233133.png) ImgOps Google

Isn't the US Navy supposed to be the best navy in the world?  Shouldn't it be very easy to deny entry to boats attempting to illegally enter US waters?  Is Biden just refusing to use force to protect the US?  Despite disliking Trump, I think he'd be doing much better here.  And I think there is a pattern of the political left abandoning the responsibility of the government to use force to protect ordinary middle-class folks from the depredations of the underclass.  Anyone else have thoughts on this?
49 posts and 24 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.13058

>>13041
>Look at the disaster that migration from Middle East countries has been for Europe.
Yeah, no
Far right fearmongering.
But even on the so called worse places where you supposedly get murdered for being native, you just see some dude sitting outside in his shorts and that's it.

 No.13059

>>13055
Do you want a discussion on this screenshot? Or are you just posting it randomly without context?

 No.13060

>>13058
>far right fearmongering
So to be clear, you believe that the mass migration into Europe has not had any problems for those nations?


 No.13002[Reply]

File: 1709948228521.png (427.95 KB, 1080x880, 27:22, Screenshot_20240308-131354.png) ImgOps Google

Currently, about 2% of babies in the US are conceived via IVF.  IVF offers some advantages over traditional fertilization, including polygenic embryo selection (PES).  In the near future, gene editing tech might be used to correct multiple undesirable mutations, such as mutations that increase risk of cancer, heart disease, and diabetes.

Do you expect the percent of babies conceived via IVF to rise significantly this century to take advantage of this beneficial technology?  I predict that it will be used for a majority of babies within 100 years, assuming we don't get paperclipped by AI or suffer civilizational collapse.
1 post omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.13004

Unless for some reason we will have a biological concern that fertility goes way down, or for some reason there is an alarming increase in birth defects or stillbirths, I don't see people choosing IVF just to make the designer babies.

I would expect people, given the choice would very much prefer to become pregnant the natural way and give birth the natural way.

IVF, however, is incredibly important for those who may not be able to give birth naturally or procreate naturally. (this may include people who are in same gender relationships)
Please don't put IVF as some sort of dystopian procedure to kill off natural pregnancies.

 No.13005

File: 1710113770104.jpeg (31.43 KB, 500x332, 125:83, GG961Ena0AAR06M.jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>13003
>It's entirely possible that not only do we hit 100% use within the next century, but also abandon it for something else that takes over before we hit 2124.
Oh yeah, there will probably be lots of advances that are hard to even imagine now.

>>13004
>I would expect people, given the choice would very much prefer to become pregnant the natural way and give birth the natural way.
Ceteris paribus, yes.  But if genetic testing reveals that you and your spouse are carriers of an autosomal recessive allele that would greatly increase risk of cancer if homozygous, then it might be worthwhile to use IVF tech to avoid that possibility.

 No.13012

The core problem here is that health care in the context of fertility is being managed by soulless and unethical corporate organizations operating under the worst kind of modern capitalist rules.

Science doesn't matter. Progress doesn't matter. Safety doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is the next few months of profit analyzed based on certain algorithms, and any other priorities will be squashed due to the free market controlling all.

Wanting to have infants and toddlers live healthy lives free of devastating diseases and other issues is a textbook case of a "public good", with broad benefits going to all of society, that a purely or mostly capitalist market will never, ever provide properly. The only way to establish sanity is to have large-scale public investment in using IVF and other processes of reproductive technology so that a random person plucked off of the street can utilize genetic advances. Instead of all of this being treated like owning your own private jet plane. If it were up to me, I'd have a new agency at the same level as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute of Health with an equal amount of wealth and prestige giving out the equivalent of college scholarships to applications across the country. Only instead of the new agency paying for university classes, it's paying for IVF related care and other forms of prenatal medicine.


 No.12987[Reply]

File: 1709794576467.png (773.86 KB, 1080x1465, 216:293, Screenshot_20240307-014124.png) ImgOps Google

Do you have any thoughts on crypto politics?  A crypto super PAC campaigned against Katie Porter and claims that her defeat was due in part to her opposition to crypto.

Personally, I'd like to get rid of AML/KYC regulations (both for crypto and for traditional fiat banks) and slap down the SEC from claiming that basically every new crypto token is a security.  Also there should be a better way of doing capital gains tax.  People who get rich from buying low and selling high should still pay their fair share of capital gains tax, but requiring ordinary folks to itemize each transaction where they buy a product/service with crypto is unwieldy.
11 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.12999

>>12997
The reason is: Base rates, combined with lack of any evidence that she knows anything about crypto.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate

Suppose 0.8% of women who get mammograms have breast cancer. In 90% of women with breast cancer, the mammogram will correctly detect it. However, among women without breast cancer, 7% will get a false positive reading on the mammogram. If you randomly pick a woman who gets a mammogram, and she gets a positive mammogram result, what is the probability that she has breast cancer?

 No.13000

>>12998
>it is my assumption that someone who understood it wouldn't want to restrict it in the same way as other traditional forms of finance
But why? What if experts agree?
I'm not anywhere near knowledgable about it either, but why trust the blockchain association over her?

>>12999
Okay, then you probably know just as little about crypto as she does. Probabilistically speaking.

 No.13001

>>13000
I'm a software engineer, not a politician.  Very different base rates.


 No.12823[Reply]

File: 1706246877377.jpg (220.5 KB, 1200x675, 16:9, EiyWn7-U0AAsBqg.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

What should be done to secure America's borders against illegal immigration?
44 posts and 14 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.12982

>>12980
The problem is that I didn't know the right keywords to Google.  ChatGPT is a lot more forgiving in that aspect.  If there is concern about the accuracy of the LLM's output, then it would be relatively easy to Google it for more information to confirm or refute it.

 No.12985

>>12982
This is honestly the most damning thing I've ever read about AI.

 No.12986

File: 1709793234565.jpg (11.43 KB, 370x300, 37:30, question mark 1.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>12985
Doushite?


 No.12720[Reply]

File: 1698844760802.jpg (90.78 KB, 1207x499, 1207:499, 2a690m.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Madman though he seemed, Thanos was right about the universe. It had grown overpopulated. There were starving people on every inhabited planet. Crime was becoming rampant. The galactic empire was struggling to keep the peace. There was pain everywhere, but only distributed amongst the poorest people. The rich and wealthy enjoyed a life of luxury on their plush and sparkling towers, glaring down with disgust on those simply less fortunate.

And after he defeated those who failed to see his vision, what did Thanos leave in his wake? Pain, oh yes. Wide spread pain, like the sting of an open wound which has been doused in disinfectant. Like the aches of a cut off gangrenous limb.

But it was fair. Thanos's purge was indiscriminate. The pain was spread and felt evenly across the galaxy, the universe. Everyone lost someone. Everyone became the same. And everyone helped each other. The people galvanized about the pain of their loss, and they grew together, rebuilding their world, now full of abundance.

Like the atomic bomb saved the people of WWII Japan, Thanos and the Infinity Stones saved the universe.
6 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.12974

It was fair, it was indiscriminate.
Now describe one way in which it helped...?

 No.12983

>>12821
Thing is, deer don't have FTL, and also their populations aren't fixed job done by one single action besides.

 No.12984

>>12983
I think that was supposed to be facetious.


 No.12960[Reply]

File: 1708880090699.jpg (295.49 KB, 1080x1109, 1080:1109, Screenshot_20240225_104453….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Do you drive an electric car or some other type of vehicle regarded as advanced and cutting-edge in today's automobile markets?

Do you follow the business and science of automobiles enough to have any opinions given the chaotic environment happening now?
8 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.12969

https://people.com/kim-kardashian-goes-back-to-platinum-blonde-8599675

I don't understand why human beings consider vehicles such as (particularly the the one in the OP) these to be emotionally attractive such that owning one makes people more likely to date you and have sex with you, but this appears to be the case.

{This is probably related to me being on the autism spectrum and simply not understanding how most people emotionally feel desire in a lot of ways, if I'm really honest.}

 No.12970

>>12969

I think it first has to do with the vehicle being aesthetically-pleasing, which is a natural human attraction. In our culture, lower and even moderately-priced items won't be particularly aesthetically-pleasing, with quality and functionality being the most important. As you go up in price, aesthetics gradually become more important, while quality and functionality become less so. There is a medium to medium-high price-point where something is both good quality with good aesthetics. But even then, aesthetic choice is limited due to the market not particularly valuing aesthetics to begin with. Only at the highest price points can the aesthetic of something be truly customized for a person. If you own an object such as this, you implicitly have a lot of money. Many people think money gives status. The emotional component comes in, due to people's greed, anger, and delusion, thinking that money and status are important and need to be attained. Sexual appeal intermingles with this, as a means to strengthen and promote the illusion.

[See: MLP razzle dazzle glitz and glam episode]

(In addition, the rust aspect is funny because it reveals the superficiality of it all, as a lack of regard for quality (and possibly functionality) is apparent almost directly within the aesthetic (just give it a few days) (i.e.: rust ruins quality, functionality (over time - most believe rust leads to holes), and aesthetic all at once.)

 No.12971

I'm already bitter enough about effectively having no choice but own a car in an un-walkable city, why would I waste money on an industry that has a long history of suppressing public transportation and which has led America into this ponzi scheme where we pay for the upkeep of older suburban housing developments with new suburban housing development revenues while increasing future cost of upkeeping an increasingly inefficient infrastructure?

Obviously cars and trucks and such are very useful for people in certain areas (like rural communities) but not necessary everywhere (like a city), yet are still effectively forced on everyone by the very design of the infrastructure.


 No.12942[Reply]

File: 1708451442023.png (565.09 KB, 1221x737, 111:67, Alexei-Navalny's-message-i….png) ImgOps Google

What's the argument to be made that it was ethically justified for the Russian government to arrest anti-corruption and anti-war activist Alexei Navalny?

What's the argument to be made that it was morally correct to have him killed?

I'm interested in stepping out of my subconscious desire to be in a personal bubble, one in which his killing is seen as obviously terrible, and see what the general populace of America and Europe think, to be honest, given the extremely positive views held of the Chinese state, the Russian state, and so on held by half or so of regular peoples out there as well as the widespread popularity of Chinese and Russian efforts to crush dissident activists.

I realize that there are a lot of online locations in which I can see random comments on Navalny, but I'd much rather take in the attitudes here than out on 4chan, Facebook, Reddit, et cetera since trying to communicate on those platforms is kind of like trying to pick up melted ice cream with a fork.
3 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.12956

I don't watch the news anymore or heard of this guy, but based on the situation as described, I would apply the following rules:

1. Killing is wrong.
2. Killing may be justified (as in, mostly (at least), I think - one may choose to justify it) but it is still wrong.
3. Justification is the worldly method of attempted atonement for wrong. Instead of seeking forgiveness (as in Western traditions) or Wisdom/Understanding (Eastern), justification is given in order to maintain one's position.
4. Justification may be given to either oneself or to others.
5. Justification does not make a wrong a right.

 No.12958

>>12950
I don't imagine the average European will defend this.
Granted, aside from a group of pro Russian folks.

Now US Republicans, they probably think it was Russia's perogative to do.
Or I hear there's a call to not let Asange be the next Navalny for Americans.
Or Trump tweeting he's just like Navalny and the government is trying to murder him for speaking the truth.

 No.12959

>>12956
>>12958
These are solid points.

Yeah, I'd say that the average European wouldn't defend this assassination. It's more that it feels shocking that any European would. Let alone some small yet incredibly public faction of activists.

It seems almost like people marching in support of the seasonal flu or in support of car accidents plus bad breath in terms of "bad things are bad" as a clear moral rule being ignored.


 No.12951[Reply]

File: 1708579411253.jpg (56.97 KB, 960x879, 320:293, ufo-caught-on-tape.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

What do you think about the Roswell crash?  The US Gov't now claims it was the top-secret Project Mogul Flight #4, but the records indicate that Flight #4 was cancelled due to weather conditions.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13029881/roswell-crash-theories-ufo.html

 No.12952

If we're willing to believe a government organization is lying, which I think is neither farfetched nor particularly conspiratorial, then I don't think it's too crazy to say that they were lying about the flight being cancelled due to weather conditions.

 No.12954

Does intelligent life exist on other Milky Way planets? This appears to be the case, logically, given the nature of evolution and the extremely large number of locations that scientifically support life extremely well.

Have they visited Earth before? This is far more tricky given that, yes, on the one hand a large number of credible witnesses from American commercial pilots to Navy personnel in the U.S. have not just seen strange craft but engaged with them (such as have had unusual objects jam our radar systems). I'm inclined to see this as credible evidence although so much more research is needed.

Did this one really specific incident in Roswell involve aliens? That's a far more spurious claim. The lack of eyewitness evidence either way makes me think both that the U.S. government is lying and also that extraterrestrial escapes cannot be at all proven.

This interview is neat in that, while, yes, Rogan is always a goofball as a literal stand-up comedian, his guest is extremely credible to me:

>

 No.12955

>>12951

I think that if extraterrestrials wanted to visit an uncivilized and technologically-primitive planet like Earth for whatever reason, they could do so easily without us knowing, and UFO conspiracy theories are more a product of our species, rather than reality. Furthermore, if extraterrestrials could visit Earth without anyone knowing, it must follow that they are good because for technology to advance that far in a society would require the perfection of compassion.

...and if extraterrestrials were present, then the proof would be indisputable by now, given nearly everyone on Earth has a cellphone with a high-quality camera now, yet no troves of pictures are coming in. Lastly, the military can't keep secrets, either. So, in conclusion, there are either no aliens visiting Earth, or there are and we don't need to concern ourselves with it.


 No.12899[Reply]

File: 1707740358684.png (67.82 KB, 498x281, 498:281, tadc-why-are-you-like-this.png) ImgOps Google

> Taylor Swift then
> Tells people to vote on a concert once

< Taylor Swift now
< A traitor to the USA
< Is a pawn for the corrupt government
< Runs an underground business trafficking children for sexual exploitation and organ trade
< is probably a lizard person
< needs to be arrested and put up for execution ASAP

Why are you like this, USA?
30 posts and 13 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.12948

>>12947
"If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins. I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted." (Leviticus 26:21-22)

"Cursed be he who does the Lord's work remissly, cursed he who holds back his sword from blood." (Jeremiah 48:10)

How many statements from the Lord, from Jesus Christ, would you like me to quote to you?

I'd like to point out that you and I are mere creatures of flesh and blood, not that different from ants and such, while these are holy proclamations from the God who created the Universe and such that cannot be revised, opposed, or interpreted away: not a single comma or such of this holy writing can be ignored. Granted, I'm personally not a Christian and thus these words have no individual power over me. Yet if I was, then, well, obviously they would.

 No.12949

>>12948
No amount of irrelevant cherrypicked quotes would sway me into believing your claims of "large amounts" of "deranged religious fanatics who enjoy lying cheating and stealing".
So, zero, really.
I'd much prefer you stay on task.

 No.12953

File: 1708606140452.png (3.4 MB, 1335x1263, 445:421, zxczc.png) ImgOps Google

>>12948
Most of the religious people I know don't read the bible that much. Do you have any actual statistics?


 No.12184[Reply]

File: 1688195047447.jpg (690.06 KB, 1859x1948, 1859:1948, FrogandToad1.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Do you feel safe here?
66 posts and 19 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.12937


 No.12938

>>12937
I'm seeing three news stories about militant subgroups of right-wing conservative Americans going into Palestine to commit acts of violence against innocents of various races, religions, nationalities, and so on due to their reactionary political beliefs.

Which is horrible, of course, but you're making an incredible buttload of assumptions in order to move this from:
A)Certain factions of far-right extremist American political activists want to commit violence in a foreign nation (against a large variety of victims).
To:
B)All far-right extremist Americans are trying to colonize Palestine, specifically.
And then:
C)All Americans who're of the right-leaning side of the political spectrum are just inherently terrible people who want to do evil acts, including colonizing Palestine on behalf of America.
Before going to:
D)Even the majority of Americans who're apolitical (or who have some interest in politics that's either centrist, libertarian, socialistic, communistic, or anything else that's not right-wing conservative) are at moral fault for what the minority does.
And finally ending up with:
E)Americans are an evil group of monsters who want to take over Palestine.

To be blunt, you're almost exactly the same as somebody who sees a rapist criminal who happens to have dark skin attacking a random woman and then claims that this proves "all black people have crime in their DNA".
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

 No.12939

>>12937
>>12938
I'd also like to point out the fact that geographic and political community known as "Palestine" that has been named as such going back hundreds upon hundreds of years to areas controlled by the Ottoman Empire, by the Roman Empire, by disorganized tribes of farmers, and so on has always, always been a multiracial, multireligious, multiethnic, and otherwise highly diverse place in which people who look and sound nothing alike have, at least sometimes, gotten along as neighbors peacefully.

So, the popular idea that these lands must only be owned and occupied by an incredibly specific regional subset of brown-skinned peoples who're practicing a very narrow subset of Islam and advocating for a very narrow subset of economic and financial organization through nationalist militarism (i.e. these lands "must belong to the real Palestinians only" and not the "other Palestinians" or anybody who's not Palestinian in the first place) is rather bonkers to me.

Granted, it's equally bonkers to mirror this and state that only an extremely small minority of certain types of Jews can live in this land either, but two wrongs are two wrongs and not a right.

If a clique of people named Bob living on some random island decide to form a political party based on the oppression of everybody not named Bob, then they ought to be mocked for being insane. If a group of Steves does the same, then mock them just as much. Same for a group of Johns. Or a group of Mikes. Or Wills. And so on.


 No.12878[Reply]

File: 1707437774236.png (437.77 KB, 1080x1433, 1080:1433, Screenshot_20240208-190743.png) ImgOps Google

How did we end up with two elderly people in cognitive decline as the frontrunners for the 2024 presidential election???

:aj6: :shy4: :twi5: :bon2:
6 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.12931

>>12930

Or at least those who have easiest access to voting.

There are plenty of places in America where voting comes at the sacrifice of being able to earn enough to eat for the day, and if not that, then a threat to one's continued employment given how much free time the process eats up, and how many employers in those states will not allow many of their lower class employees to take the day off to stand in line for hours just to vote. It gives an enormous amount of power to a smaller upper middle to upper class elite to determine the party nominees.

 No.12932

File: 1708142466634.png (262.88 KB, 589x728, 589:728, Eyebrows175.png) ImgOps Google

Because things changing isn't in the interests of those in political power.

 No.12934

People don't like hearing this, but a large part of various popular religious and political beliefs in America are based on mental illness. Not just dementia. But depression. Anxiety. Paranoia. Schizophrenia. And so on.

If you're a normal straight person going about your life in some standard American town being paralyzed with sincere fear that, say, gay men are out to get you and your family, such as gay dudes hiding in public places to molest your children everyplace potentially, well, that's textbook mental illness. You can label it as a political statement. Yet it's a clear-cut medical case of somebody's brain chemistry being diseased and past psychological events having impacts now.

You don't need to go vote. You need therapy. And pills.

[The exact principle much applies if you're psychologically deranged about Catholics, people with red hair, Jews, Hispanic people, bisexual people, left-handed people, or any other random small group of whomever.]


[]
Previous [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]