[ 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.14615[Reply]

File: 1730435075187.jpg (164.03 KB, 1080x767, 1080:767, Screenshot_20241031_231610….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Should people who aren't Chinese accept the fact that as a civilization and as an ethnicity / race their time to dominate the planet as a whole (or at least something like half of it) has come?

Has the model of multiracial, multiethnic, multireligious, etc democracy based on classical liberalism and the equality of opportunity failed, with countries such as the U.K. and the U.S. faltering? And is it time for traditionalist thinking based on authoritarian and community-centric ethical values of social order, family, purity, cultural cohesion, heritage, etc to rise, given the increasing strength of China, Iran, North Korea, and other such countries? Are the latter nations stronger due to their lack of feminism, homosexuality, ethnic mixing, minority religious rights, and other social values that the former nations fiercely defend?

To be specific, how great is Chinese naval power? What do you think it is going to be used for? And are you confident in your prediction? What is it based on?
15 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.14728

>>14720
Their government is trash and one of the biggest groups of people to suffer from that are the chinese people themselves. That's what happens when you get into the whole fucked up communism thing. It typically ends with people rising to power and forming dictatorships and military states.

 No.14756

>>14728
It's been eight fucking decades since Hitler, the Nazis, and the Holocaust.

A horrendously evil dictatorship exterminating the lives of countless innocent people, including children, due to psychotic militarism by those in charge? Why can't everybody of all political stripes view this as an immoral thing? Why can't everybody with a conscience want it stopped?

Why is humanity made up of such walking, talking shitbags, with no empathy?

I especially don't get why people on the right-wing side of the ideological spectrum don't like the idea of going up against the CCP: shouldn't you dudes really fucking hate communists? Like what would make them attractive to you in the slightest? Isn't it as easy as hating, say, alien rapist monsters from horror movies or something?

Why does literally anybody on Earth sincerely like the CCP... it's like rooting for AIDS... or for mosquitoes...

 No.14761

>>14756
It wasn't that bad


 No.14577[Reply]

File: 1729301722538.png (376.57 KB, 626x620, 313:310, Screenshot_20241018-213320.png) ImgOps Google

Was Kamala's latest interview really so bad, or are the prediction markets overreacting?
20 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.14610

>>14609
You said that gay people's rights don't matter because gun rights are more important (which is also annoying as hell because it's assuming that gay people don't own firearms in America, which is factually incorrect).

 No.14613

File: 1730420551054.jpeg (142.86 KB, 1280x1707, 1280:1707, Gaa7BLuWQAAHfRf.jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>14610
>You said that gay people's rights don't matter because gun rights are more important
You're hallucinating, I never said anything like that!  Where did I even talk about gay rights at all?

 No.14650

File: 1730873142916.png (15.87 KB, 481x172, 481:172, 1730868775070125.png) ImgOps Google

Is it all ogre for Kamala?


 No.14627[Reply]

File: 1730696771558.jpeg (527.42 KB, 1327x1179, 1327:1179, IMG_0139.jpeg) ImgOps Google

#Justice4Peanut

This wasn’t fair.
14 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.14647

File: 1730829695497.jpg (24.62 KB, 474x266, 237:133, equal.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>14645

they are using it as an example to promote the idea that government agencies are too big and have too much power, even though we don't have all the details on the reasons behind the happenings of this case.

if you want to go into deep psychology, of which hardly any of the hypothetical "mainly conservatives" would be aware, the squirrel represents a holy figure, perhaps even jesus christ themself - innocent and without blame, bringing happiness to all.

the nys dec represents the nonbelievers who put jesus to death.

so, the hypothetical conservatives are mad about the innocent squirrel (jesus) being killed, which may be ironic in some cases....

in addition, the name, "pnut," has connotations with peanut butter sandwiches, which many people associate with innocence and childhood.

further complicating matters, pnut was rescued, or "saved" by a loving family - only to have had nonbelievers (in their minds) stop them.

regardless of the psychology and emotional reactions behind it, however, the system failed the squirrel (and raccoon), as the department acted like automatons and didn't take into consideration the circumstances surrounding pnut's domicile. the department should have shown more care and consideration of the situation as soon as they found out they were a youtube rescue pet of 7 years (if they even asked). rip pnut.

 No.14648

>>14647
I am curious what kind of reasoning you think could exist that justified all this.
We know what happened. We know what they said they were there for.
Are you suggesting they were lying, using a false pretense to go in?

 No.14649

File: 1730836186747.jpg (12.74 KB, 300x168, 25:14, guards.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>14648

Perhaps I wasn't too clear, as I was entertaining viewpoints from both sides.

Unless new information comes out (or there is info I'm not aware of (haven't really been keeping up with the story)) there is currently no excuse for what happened. The NYS DEC shouldn't have rushed into things and should have allowed for the owner to provide an explanation before taking the animal. The ideal conversation might have gone something like this:

DEC: *knock knock*
Squirrel Owner: "Hello?"
DEC: "Hey, we received some suspect complaints coming from people about a wild squirrel with rabies being here, so we wanted to see if it was true."
Squirrel Owner: "Oh, yes, that is my squirrel. He is a famous YouTuber." *shows video* I rescued him and have had him for 7 years. No, he doesn't have rabies."
DEC: "Oh, OK. Those complaints must have been internet trolls, then, lol."
Squirrel Owner: "Yeah, lol. It happens all the time."
DEC: "Do you have a license for your squirrel?"
Squirrel Owner: "No, sorry. I don't."
DEC: "OK, well just get a license by next month. Have a nice day."
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


 No.14437[Reply]

File: 1725561653746.jpg (71.49 KB, 686x916, 343:458, FB_IMG_1724741359227.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

7 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.14612

Irrelevant.  The licensing deals made by the "Russians" have nothing to do with the content being generated.  If you make a video, and a "Russian" pays for it after the fact, that doesn't retroactively make the video Russian disinformation.  idiot.

 No.14616

>>14612
Suppose an Iranian company took random internet commentators from America, Canada, and Mexico and got them in contact with the government of Iran such that what those random guys would've said organically about the Holocaust supposedly not happening, the Iranian economy supposedly booming, and terrorist attacks killing Jews across the Middle East supposedly being morally justified... all suddenly became boosted by a huge amount of effort and gained a lot of steam throughout social media.

Would that be "Iranian disinformation" and "Iranian propaganda"? Retroactively?

I can honestly see both sides a bit. On the one hand, people in the West organically think such things. On the other hand, an evil dictatorship bent on killing lots of people is actively using huge amounts of money to push specific political claims that those Western citizens parrot. I'm inclined to take the latter position.

 No.14631

>>14586
Considering the level of propaganda regurgitated by the mainstream western media, I'm not so convinced.
Though then again, what you're saying here applies to them tenfold anyways.

It seems to me the Russians would benefit from truth at this stage, that simply runs counter to the current establishment propaganda we've got.


 No.14624[Reply]

File: 1730618978939.jpg (134.2 KB, 797x729, 797:729, Untitled.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

It seems the racist (And probably sexist too) Tory part of the UK have done it again!

After having previously elected the first Indian party leader the UK has ever had they've now elected the first black party any political leader has had.

 No.14626

File: 1730624886975.png (110.83 KB, 300x195, 20:13, Ukraine-visit-photo.png) ImgOps Google

>>14624
I'm going to say that I'm (initially) feeling glad about this.

It appears that she's one of the British politicians of the Winston Churchill type who is pro-democracy, pro-NATO, pro-Anglo-American-alliance, pro-free-trade, pro-rule-of-law, pro-Israeli, and pro-Ukrainian, and pro-multilateralism.

There's this and this:

> https://www.gov.uk/government/news/faith-minister-joins-london-church-leaders-to-show-support-for-ukrainians

> https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-827230

And in a time in which hatred of women and hatred of black people as well as hatred of immigrants are all, alas, relatively common problems given the state of global affairs (although, of course, it's far better in places such as the U.K. and the U.S. than in someplace such as Saudi Arabia)... it's truly a magnificent moment of social and cultural progress to see somebody like her achieve success regardless of her specific opinions.

And as somebody who's not a fan of the 'fuck NATO, fuck Israelis, fuck Ukrainians, fuck free trade, fuck democracy, etc' political tribes in the U.K. and the U.S., I confess to having a gigantic sense of satisfaction to seeing them lose and lose hard.

Looking at her and then looking at Donald Trump is like... looking at a marble statue of a Greek goddess and then at a large pile of musky horse manure vaguely in the shape of a person.


 No.14622[Reply]

File: 1730512569042.png (252.81 KB, 414x313, 414:313, Candies.png) ImgOps Google

If buying little candies or even bigger candies gets more and more expensive relative to most things that you can snack on, is there really a good reason to get them throughout the year? When it's not Halloween?

A lot of people across the U.S. have observed that the relative costs of getting candy seems less worth it compared to brownies, cookies, sweet nut bars, or basically anything else that you can munch on that's easy to pack into a backpack, or a purse, or whatever else. Of course, it depends on where you live. Maybe a lot of formerly popular candies aren't that tasty anymore, anyways. Everybody has their own favorite X or Y treat to get.

What're your favorite candies? Are they tasting the same now as they were years ago? Have they changed? And what's happened to the prices? What snacks are the absolute best for when you're going on some kind of trip?

{Please don't respond to this post with something like "Snickers makes you gay" or "Brownies are for assholes", or otherwise acting in a 4chan kind of way.}

 No.14623

No an American. hough I have grown up ith going around singing on New Year's or Three King's day.
An nowadays, I do hand out treats for Halloween.

I prefer o hand out gummies from these kg tubs they have a stores.

Groceries have become pricier for sure. Halloween candy usually goes between 10 to 25 euros per kilogram.

But groceries are like boiling frogs nowaays. Like, nothing seems outrageously expensive, but he total tab does grow month by month.

 No.14625

>>14623
>"Groceries have become pricier for sure."
Yeah. And candies are getting more expensive either in tandem with everything else or maybe some of them just aren't worth it anymore. Of course, yeah, this depends on what specific snack that you want to get. You're making a lot of sense.


 No.14591[Reply]

File: 1729994315736.png (859.84 KB, 995x1038, 995:1038, Screenshot_20241026-214001.png) ImgOps Google

If you are American, who are you planning to vote for?
3 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.14598

>>14591

unfortunately, the only candidate running

 No.14611

I'm voting against the scatterbrained Communist who can't answer a single question in a straightforward manner.

 No.14614

>>14611
It bothers me a lot that that description doesn't narrow it down.


 No.14589[Reply]

File: 1729838047915.jpg (282.3 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Armstrong chilling.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google


 No.14595

>>14589
Armstrong isn't really "chilling" in that image. He looks constipated. Like he needs some vitamin supplements for his nanonmachines.


 No.14568[Reply]

File: 1728563604939.jpeg (855.32 KB, 1422x2112, 237:352, IMG_0420.jpeg) ImgOps Google

Cultural enrichment helps fight slavery and that’s why the Union was pro black people



So slaughter and eat the rich for the crime of slavery

 No.14569

File: 1728564363399.png (153.22 KB, 1800x1200, 3:2, Black nazi.png) ImgOps Google

>cultural enrichment helps fight slavery

 No.14570

File: 1728857009730.png (289.19 KB, 1080x1057, 1080:1057, Screenshot_20241004-214955.png) ImgOps Google


 No.14575

>>14570
>they failed to progress
I'm sure no outside force ever had any say in this matter.

(Let's just ignore the entire US occupation of Haiti, apparently)


 No.14500[Reply]

File: 1727199582311.jpeg (48.1 KB, 405x720, 9:16, Rigby super crown.jpeg) ImgOps Google

Most transgendered people I've met in my life have displayed severe mental illness and/or trauma that will often focus around their transgenderism in one way or another.

Is there a correlation? Is it simply because of the hardships that they might face, or are mentally ill people inclined to transition because they are mentally vulnerable and easily influenced that it might improve their lives? A little column A and B? Maybe some other reason.

Let's talk about it.
36 posts and 13 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.14545

File: 1727398943934.jpg (426.12 KB, 1286x2046, 643:1023, Screenshot_20201230-124950….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>14541

That's a bit hyperbolic.

Sure, a fear or disgust for abnormality is certainly associated with anxiety but not to the extremes of OCD. The fear of abnormalities is an extention of the intolerance for uncertainty. The fear of exceptions is rooted in fear of unreliability of one's assumptions when assessing reality, and an intolerance for the cognitive complexity of general rules over the simplicity of absolute rules.

 No.14547

>>14545
The rule-of-thumb test between mental illness and regular moods works well here, like I think it does basically everywhere.

<"Does your psychological fear of [X] prevent you from happily living your life otherwise?">

Finding spiders gross isn't a problem. Being pathologically incapable of driving a car because you once had a spider crawl on you while you were starting a car years ago is a problem. Thinking that cats are weird isn't a problem. Getting so paralyzed with anxiety about cats that you can't visit a sibling's apartment complex because cats constantly walk around the parking lot is a problem. And so on.

If a fixation on "I must make everything... normal... at all costs" directly keeps you from actually going through a day's plans, then that's an issue.

 No.14567

File: 1728418803749.jpg (48.1 KB, 1200x623, 1200:623, Nagatoro smug lazy eyes.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>14547
I find you gross.


 No.14546[Reply]

File: 1727401516948.jpg (73.45 KB, 626x424, 313:212, The-Human-Physiology.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Fixing four inherent flaws with human biology would cause world peace:

1. Make the most healthy foods that're the most easily produced taste the best.

2. Make women enjoy having sex equally as much as men enjoy having sex.

3. Make men get pregnant as easily as women get pregnant.

4. Make everybody have a physical switch on their bodies that both instantly puts them to sleep and also instantly wakes them up.

I'm only partially joking. What do you think? Being honest?
2 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.14555


 No.14559

File: 1727554522069.jpg (384.82 KB, 1448x2048, 181:256, E3GikS9UYAAmj9g.jpg large.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

None of these things would solve imperialism, irredentism, bigotry, or the desire of all people to be solely recognised internationally as having the largest penis.

 No.14566

1. They are, you just are shit at cooking.

2. Libido is on a spectrum for everyone and is subject to change.

3. This does nothing to create peace.

4. This is retarded.

I don't expect any level of thought from anyone on this hellsite, but you are stupid.


 No.14539[Reply]

File: 1727396649335.jpg (6.15 KB, 275x183, 275:183, Image-of-Puff-Daddy.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Should celebrity figures such as P. Diddy who're accused by multiple individuals of sexual assault and/or sexual harassment be "cancelled" by the broader culture? Is, then, "cancel culture" a good thing for us?

Is "cancel culture" targeting those accused of sexual crimes a generally positive sign of progress, looking at the changes in traditional values, or is the rise of the trend moving us backwards? Actually making us worse?

With P. Diddy, there's many stories on the accusations such as: https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/diddy-sexual-assault-allegation-doc-50-cent-netflix-1236012610/

Generally: if an actor or actress, say, is alleged to have abused certain younger women, then should people stop buying their products such as picking up copies of their merchandising?

Or maybe this is all "Marxism", "socialism", "wokism", and such? Maybe we live in an age such that accusations of sexual crimes are an unethical tool of the left-wing, with "cancel culture" needing to be stopped? Is that what you think, instead? Or do you take the pro-cancel-culture side?
13 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.14563

File: 1727892443503.jpeg (111.65 KB, 811x811, 1:1, Chaos beastmen.jpeg) ImgOps Google

P Diddy did nothing wrong.

 No.14564

>>14561
>>14562
Cancel culture is a good thing in this case. I think.

 No.14565

If and when Mr. Combs is convicted I vote for woodchipper.


 No.14450[Reply]

File: 1726643694957.jpg (36.75 KB, 203x250, 203:250, _42642151_manbitesdog.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

What're your thoughts about the current social controversy in the U.S. about many American politicians arguing that roving gangs of black people are allegedly eating the cats and dogs of others in the country?

There are countless articles on this set of claims by politicians, such as: https://www.nydailynews.com/2024/09/11/trump-haitian-immigrants-eating-pet-dogs-and-cats/

In broader context, details about what it's like to eat them can be seen here (note that this is not a story about America and/or Americans as well as doesn't involve politics at all): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6419041.stm
40 posts and 13 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.14496

>>14495
>maybe
lol

 No.14501

File: 1727199862311.jpg (72.34 KB, 1392x781, 1392:781, Become evil.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google


 No.14542

>>14491
Alright. Look. If I applied your ""logic"" to my own life, then I'd be a part of a militia that just murders all of the straight white cisgender able-bodied Christians in America to prevent them from successfully wiping out the Jews, the LGBTs, the disabled, and so on. A preventative genocide to prevent them from setting forth their genocide on us. So, everybody who's a Donald Trump or like him would be dead.

Would you view that as a good idea? As morally justified? Would you really support me in doing that?

After all, I'd just be putting down a ""breed"" of human beings that can't peaceful coexist with the ""breeds"" that I and my friends plus family are a part of it? Right? After all?


 No.14466[Reply]

I'll just leave this here.

(It's based off the classic, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Otbml6WIQPo.)
2 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.14506

>>14466
Left once again proving they've never matured...

>>14498 has the right idea.
I just don't give a crap about this '2025' fearmongering.
The more it's put forward everywhere I look, the more I'm convinced it's another fake.

 No.14509

>>14506

In the original video, the kid is portrayed the same. The difference is in Bill. In the original, Bill is portrayed as a humble Christian who prays that he might one day become a law. In the satirical version, Bill is portrayed like someone on a power trip, as he is no longer a humble bill hoping for the approval of independent branches of government representing the will of the people, but rather someone on a power-trip who doesn't care what anyone else thinks, with his 800+ pages and eager, empty expression. It's the difference between real Christianity, which is about loving your neighbor and fake Christianity, where you ignore (or worse) your neighbor.

 No.14511

>>14466
Donald Trump's voters base their opinions on their hatreds, particularly racial and religious prejudice, and this is exactly what they want.

As the saying goes, "the cruelty is the point".

If you're disabled, if you're Jewish, if you're Muslim, if you're gay, or whatever else, then you're inferior to Trump and his supporters, in their eyes, and they demand that you heel to them by force. That's just life. That's just where it is.

There's almost no difference between politics in America during the 1930s and the 1940s and politics now: the same scapegoats believed by the past right-wing to have destroyed the economy and harmed American civilization then (particularly Jews and gay people as well as the handicapped) are STILL the targeted groups of disdain now. This is why Donald Trump told his nephew that disabled people should be all ideally euthanized because we're a drain on capitalist resources.


 No.14467[Reply]

File: 1726794562364.jpg (16.15 KB, 404x323, 404:323, Freedom-of-Speech-Versus-D….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Let's suppose that you live in a nation with a legal system like the U.S. with freedom of speech beyond what currently exists as a logical extreme, with no restrictions of any sort being set up at all in this new place.

For example, all websites would legally be able to advertise videos of real child abuse of sale, to post public plans of assassination, to share theories of how to use victim's stolen bank records, and all that.

Does there reach a clear-cut point in which too much freedom of speech damages other basic civic rights?

Suppose I, a hypothetical businessman named Bob Smith, get mad that my bank account data has been stolen and shared online. And I decide to fight for a "Government Censorship Act" that would legally prohibit the doxxing of people's sensitive information online, particularly by posting here-and-there credit card numbers. I proclaim "Americans should have less liberties and freedoms" because their speech has destroyed my "private property rights" in my activism.

Am I "evil"? Am I "bad"? Am I "wrong"? Am I "social-justice-warrior"? Am I "woke"? Am I "far left"? How far from the logical extreme is acceptable to go before people like me would become damned?

 No.14468

The short answer is no.

The long answer: Basic civil rights have to be defined, and any freedom of communication would have to be compared to civil rights as defined by its own system and therefore could absolutely not infringe upon them.

Now, how do we define civil rights, and how should we define civil rights?  That question is always up in the air.  Like surely we agree that you shouldn't be able to murder someone, but like you mentioned, does that mean you shouldn't be able to talk about murdering someone?  Is it your right to not be murdered?  And if so, is the state required to stop murder in every way possible, including arrest people who merely mention murder?  It's a tough question, because every step of freedom given up is a loss, and that isn't worth it until you witness enough murders to change your mind.

In more realistic and less theoretical terms, freedom of speech seems like it was originally intended to mean "the government we're forming won't imprison or assassinate you because you tell people you don't like us", which was and in some places still is a common problem.  That people have taken it to mean "I can literally say whatever I want and no one can do anything about it" leads to really weird situations, not the least of which is people going to websites that are technically private, pissing everyone off, and then saying they can't be removed because it violates their freedom of speech.


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