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

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Password (For file deletion.)


File: 1651629099427.jpeg (305.87 KB, 1400x584, 175:73, w.jpeg) ImgOps Google

What would be perfect society at the absolute pinnacle of advancement be like? Not the most perfect realizable civilization, but the actual best life imaginable for everyone?

Would it be completely free of pain and struggle, with all things we covet and pray for, all manner of sensual gratification, the deepest love and the greatest sense of achievement, absolute enlightenment, available at a mere thought or less?

If you could personally change and improve anything about life, society, technology, to the limits of your imagination, again and again to the unlimited future, what do you think your ultimate, final version of reality would be?
10 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


If you'll pardon the song form, I think this does a good job of exploring that notion;

War is not pleasant, to be sure, but conflict and violence are not inherently wrong.
There's a time and a place for such things. What we must always remember is the cost, that we don't act unduly.


Would you consider that a maximally progressed society, or would those people strive for progress themselves? Would you imagine such a civilization would remain indefinitely, unchanged for millions of years, or might they have their own ideas of advancement? I don't mean to suggest these are easy questions, but it bears putting forward the implications of a "perfect" utopia being reached.


I like the song.  It's a good point -- if you are building a utopia without war you have to ensure there aren't reasons people would want to go to war.  I suppose at the very least you'd have to say no war, and no oppressive police state.

In the end, I do believe violence is wrong.  Or maybe more generally trying to hurt people is wrong, as your song talks about starving people, which might not be violence exactly, but I think you have to count that as under the umbrella.  Or more generally still, trying to hurt people who are not credibly trying to hurt you is wrong and, even then the hurting should be at a minimum and preventative of harm.

And if my utopia starts at peace, nobody will have a reason to make war.  I have to assert there will be societal organizations and sufficient per capita resources to keep people reasonably content, so although there will be rivalries and conflict, things will be stable enough that groups will not desire the extermination of other groups.  Which I guess is utopian, but that's the tread.  :)


File: 1649553007574.jpeg (110.66 KB, 900x1163, 900:1163, 3FA790F6-02B9-448D-811A-7….jpeg) ImgOps Google

Will got banned for 10 years
7 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


In a just world, it would be up to Chris.


The wealthy rarely do anyway. In a practical sense, this may well be a stronger punishment.
Assuming he remains banned for the set time, anyway.



File: 1651260032666.png (711.45 KB, 959x616, 137:88, Disney-CEO-Bob-Chapek.png) ImgOps Google

Have you followed the Disney company losing its special legal status in Florida due to the corporation expressing opposition (especially in terms of CEO Bob Chapek's comments) to recent legal changes by the state's sitting Governor on children's education?

Context: https://www.wesh.com/article/desantis-reedy-creek-wakeup-call-disney/39859459#

Apparently, millions of dollars are at stake. It's not clear who will be left holding the bag. Disney's previous situation had both advantages and disadvantages in terms of taxpayers.

Do you fundamentally think that corporations should speak out about discrimination and prejudice against people who're Jewish, LGBT, and disabled, particularly when it comes to education?

If that does happen, should said company fairly receive pushback from Americans who hold to social traditionalist views against people who're Jewish, LGBT, and disabled, particularly parents who don't want inclusive views on minority rights taught to their children?

In this specific case, what will likely happen to local Floridians with the legal changes? Is it a fight worth having for Disney? For the Governor?
62 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


It's not an irrational fear. It's fact. Conservatives are engaged in bigotry in terms of political actions such as this Flordia measure, and people are dying as a result. It should all stop.


I've yet to see evidence that this particular bill is killing anyone.


i'm not even gonna bother linking all the violating posts, just yeah, you were asked to tone it down and completely ignored that warning. You have a history of this kind of posting on townhall and honestly i think the place is just bad for you and your mental health, so i'm issuing a permanent ban (townhall only). You are free to appeal if you want.

Also, locking the thread since we already gave it a chance to recover once.


I heard today trump in court told they judge abs other that he would tell his guards to be aggressive if protester through tomatoes at him appearanlty he is scared of friut And tomotoes
26 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>Fascists are antigovernment, though, that's why they organize as militias.
Fascists are authoritarians first and foremost.

>They're also against tyranny and oppressive states.
Definitely not.  No.  What is your definition of fascist, if it's not most simply first and foremost a totalitarian state?

>Hence why if you look up the Oath Keepers specifically you see them justly described as far right and fascists.
By who?

I can find sources calling Obama an Islamist. Didn't make it true


Are you really not able of understanding that Amercisn fascists claim to be patriotic, libertarian, antigovernment, and so on in opposition to the current U.S. government as a part and parcel of their agenda of replacing it with a right-wing state to benefit right-wing people?


It just appears downright contradictory and conspiratorial besides.

I've no cause to believe these groups want to replace the US with a fascist totalitarian government.


File: 1651259326518.jpg (157.64 KB, 999x575, 999:575, Chickens-Being-Studied.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Are you concerned about the proliferation of the H5N1 disease known as "bird influenza"?

Context: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/highly-contagious-bird-flu-detected-person-first-time-us-health-offici-rcna26581

Health experts in the U.S. state that the danger to humans from the afflictions rapidly spreading among avian species is minimal. Are they right? Maybe they're too cautious?
25 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


I agree. Shame you take such strong issue with it.
Pointing out the objective fact that the MSM has significant bias in pharmaceutical interests shouldn't be controversial.


Pointing out the objective fact that scientific reporting still exists that educates shouldn't be controversial.

Again, I hope to God you wake up at some point and put down the kool-aid.


I agree. It's a good thing I never said it didn't exist. You keep trying to make these gotcha's out of stuff I've never said nor ever stood against.

There's no Kool aid beam drunk here, you are jumping at ghosts


File: 1651087843551.png (211.78 KB, 1080x1115, 216:223, Screenshot_20220426-153655….png) ImgOps Google

I found this an interesting blog post.  Any thoughts on it?



This is a great argument, and it's well presented. Thank you.


I like it.


File: 1648154945520.png (655.39 KB, 1514x1220, 757:610, commentorsentiments.png) ImgOps Google

I get a sense of political sentiments on Facebook usually, as it's the site most regular folks seem to use to express these kinds of opinions.  So sometimes you click down to the comments section of news stories.  In these two news stories, I looked at about 30 comments and quickly put them in categories.  I believe they are roughly representative of what I see on Facebook on other stories.  Russia seems to have a fair amount of support.  I come from a little different perspective sentimentally, but perhaps I can ask some open ended questions here to try to understand better and overcome my biases.

Please, if you like, answer which best describes your sense of the Russo-Ukrainian War, especially as escalated a month ago.

a) There is no such war, or there is no reliable way of affirming any significant military force is being used, has been used since 2014, or will be used by Russians in Ukraine.

b) There is some conflict, but it's not significant because Western nations have done so much worse.

c) The conflict is real, but Ukraine is not a legitimate state, so it is really a conflict with Western forces that are attacking Russia through the Ukraine territory, attacking Russians in that territory, or hurting innocents in horrible ways.  The West's evil started this war, basically.

d) The conflict is real, Ukraine is a state, but Russia is responding in self defense to Ukrainian aggression or general evil.  (It is rare to see people believe Ukraine is sufficiently independent for this to be true, but I'll make it an option anyway.)

e) The conflict is real, Ukraine is real, and Russia is the instigator invading a sovereign nation.

What I'd like, if possible, is amplifying information as to why you have your opinion, since I can already access volumes of opinions elsewhere, but they are rather short and repetitive.
62 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


It's rather likely that mass use of advanced electronic technology in justice is such a new thing in terms of human nature that it can't be scientifically studied yet, even if we have ideas right now? We need more time? Maybe? I agree with you. I wonder how it all shakes out. All very interesting.


I guess I just think it's interesting because I've been trying to think of ways to use smartphones and other small devices to do science.  And you think about all that data that's out there, or could be out there.

The counter-arguments that come to my mind are: encryption and bottle-necks.

If the Nazi's had encrypted everything they recorded, they would have only needed to destroy the crypto keys.

And then, although there are countless cameras to record war-crimes, assuming you plan to take control of the region and take possession of all digital storage what matters is the data getting out before then.  And that data is mostly going to go through cell towers or broadband internet.  If your fist move severs those connections, you may be able to render the region just as information-dark as if you were marauding a village in medieval times.


It's certainly possible that all that could happen, agreed. Not sure what future post-2000s/post-2010s military conflicts will look like.


File: 1651591560393.png (1.5 MB, 1259x885, 1259:885, Politico.png) ImgOps Google

Have you followed the harlots losing their ability to terminate lives at will due to a leaked SCOTUS ruling indicating the impending overturning of Roe v. Wade?

Context: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473

Do you fundamentally think that people should speak out about this restriction of previously liberated sexuality among irresponsible females, pedophiles, and terrorists, when it comes to the inevitable consequences of careless promiscuity?

Should the Supreme Court receive preemptive pushback from left wing individuals in the form of "fiery but mostly peaceful protests" to force the Supreme Court to overturn its impending decision, in what would be another legitimate use of "the unlawful use of violence or threats to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or government, with the goal of furthering political, social, or ideological objectives", and thereby defend the inalienable rights of harlots, pedophiles, and terrorists?

In this specific case, what will likely happen to the harlots following these legal changes?  Is it a fight worth having for Leftist pedos?

This thread is a demonstration of how manipulative framing both poisons the well and is a ridiculous basis for debate/discussion.  If you notice, no arguments are presented.  Things are merely implied.  It is intended to be absurd and demonstrate the point that this is not useful.


File: 1651593863206.png (236.14 KB, 730x720, 73:72, 2797815.png) ImgOps Google

This thread blatantly violates rule #2 (ad hominem and straw man arguments), locking.


File: 1651367963707.jpg (197.99 KB, 1024x834, 512:417, Édouard_Manet_-_Le_Suicidé….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Under what circumstances do you feel that suicide is a moral good and/or ethical?  What are the factors that determine which cases qualify?

from https://www.mdis.edu.sg/blog/four-types-of-suicides/

According to Emile Durkheim, the term suicide is applied to all cases of death resulting directly or indirectly from a positive or negative act of the victim, which he/she knows will produce this result (Pickering & Walford, 2011). Durkheim identifies four different types of suicide which are egoistic suicide, altruistic suicide, anomic suicide and fatalistic suicide.

Egoistic suicide is seen as stemming from the absence of social integration. It is committed by individuals who are social outcast and see themselves as being alone or an outsider. These individuals are unable to find their own place in society and have problems adjusting to groups. They received little and no social care. Suicide is seen as a solution for them to free themselves from loneliness or excessive individuation.

Altruistic suicide occurs when social group involvement is too high. Individuals are so well integrated into the group that they are willing to sacrifice their own life in order to fulfil some obligation for the group. Individuals kill themselves for the collective benefit of the group or for the cause that the group believes in.

Anomic suicide is caused by the lack of social regulation and it occurs during high levels of stress and frustration. Anomic suicide stems from sudden and unexpected changes in situations. For example, when individuals suffer extreme financial loss, the disappointment and stress that individuals face may drive them towards committing suicide as a means of escape.

Fatalistic suicide occurs when individuals are kept under tight regulation. These individuals are placed under extreme rules or high expectations are set upon them, which removes a person’s sense of self or individuality. Slavery and persecution are examples of fatalistic suicide where individuals may feel that they are destined by fate to be in such conditions and choose suicide as the only means of escaping such conditions.

I expect there are substantial overlaps, and the categories are not as cut and dry as they might initially seem.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


>Under what circumstances do you feel that suicide is a moral good and/or ethical?
When the individual who is suiciding so chooses.
If you cannot determine when your life is to end, you've no autonomy.
That is solely the purview of the individual involved.


I feel like both ethically and legally individuals should have the right to end their own lives.

At the same time, though, suicide being one of the leading causes of death for young Americans is a sign right now of a fundamentally diseased culture, and it probably can't be denied if everybody started acting like Mister Rogers from Mister Rogers' Neighborhood that said suicide rate would plummet.

Ultimately, basic human niceness should be more common.


File: 1650476756361.jpg (93.43 KB, 666x666, 1:1, Border-Image-From-AP.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

The Biden administration has expressed bipartisan opposition, both in Congress and among the general public, in terms of a recent decision that would ease the ability for individuals to seek asylum in the U.S. by crossing the territorial borders.

Context: https://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/npr/1093529387/as-biden-plans-to-lift-title-42-democrats-want-details-on-how-he-ll-address-influx

My personal opinion is that the legal process of immigration for people who've "stood in line", metaphorically, ought to be streamlined and made more logical. At the same time, I'm concerned about illegal immigration, especially with the rise of organized crime in the context of drug smuggling and other issues. Sending up a "Migrants (Maybe) Welcome!" mat in rhetorical terms, even if practically what's happening is complicated, doesn't strike me as a good idea.

What do you think? Do you oppose the Biden administration on this? Do you have mixed feelings?

<Yes, I did intentionally crop this image to make it 666X666, not that it matters... I just... felt like it for a reason I don't know...>
2 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


Don't you usually seek asylum by going to an embassy? Assuming you 1st cross over to the nearest neighborhood neighboring country as is required by International law as I understand it.

I don't think I quite understand the question.
Shouldn't asylum come before entry?


A lot in the U.S. will argue that asylum seekers tend to be inherently flawed people (such as being uneducated, being susceptible to health problems, being impoverished, being unable intellectually to learn sufficient English, and so on) such that shouldn't be able to even start the process in the first place.

I don't agree personally, but I see such a belief as being kind of popular.


I should be clear that I've seen this only from social media and not from actual elected people, so I genuinely don't know how widespread this anti-refugee viewpoint is.

I would think that given circumstances right now most Republicans and Democrats in actual office are kind of generally alright with refugees? They're (the refugees) getting a lot of positive news coverage now? I guess?


File: 1650668905588.jpg (56.09 KB, 601x347, 601:347, 239668.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

This is either a big question in the books I've been reading recently, or it is an important side question.

As I always need to be precise, I will ask -- is a state where important decisions are made by the direct vote of voters and/or by representatives selected by the voters superior to other forms of state organization?  Voters here mean humans subject to state authority, generally residents of the state, and legally mature, however not restricted based on other criteria such as race, sex, formal education, wealth, or political affiliation.  Representatives, where used, are to represent a wide range of political options and be rotated frequently enough to be able to minimize the differential between their actions and what the majority wants.  Representative options should not be vetted by some minority prior to being exposed for potential selection.  The state may operate as practical, as millions of decisions have to be made by state agents, but practical administration won't be dedicated to thwarting majority rule.

The problems with majority rule can be summarized, I think:

a) politics is toxic to society
b) elites can better operate a state (each category of elite will have their own argument for why this is so)
c) the majority will oppress minorities, or in libertarian thought, will oppress themselves as well
d) the majority will make irrational reactionary decisions, perhaps making war for a trifle

Where do you stand on this fairly fundamental question in politics?
7 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


I know a better form of government, but I can assure you many would be inclined to disagree heheh.


"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time..." - Winston S. Churchill, 11 November 1947 ( https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/quotes/the-worst-form-of-government/ )

I can't agree more.


No, but it's better than most alternatives.

Either way, a raw democracy, one vote for every issue, would be terrible, which is why we have the system we do.
Especially in regards to the separation of powers. Local matters ought be controlled by the people it affects.

The biggest thing of all, and one I think is mostly overlooked these days; Democracy is not inherently right, nor does something being voted in by the people make it good.
Whether it's a dictator, a king, a president, or just a law passed by the mob, your rights are absolute. A violation of them is a violation of them. It's wrong, regardless of what created that break.


File: 1650343355038.jpeg (182.76 KB, 1249x1659, 1249:1659, 49EA0656-C9B1-4F94-993E-2….jpeg) ImgOps Google

the government has ruled if you aren't insured you have to pay for testing now


Isn't that more like the government unruling that they had to pay for testing?


File: 1650387839370.png (203.19 KB, 600x450, 4:3, derpy shy 3.png) ImgOps Google

i have, a big stack of free tests c: you can get some, in the mail!



Coronavirus testing should've been more easily available due to large-scale government action months and months ago, but I still appreciate whatever public actions are still being attempted now.


File: 1649550432325.png (16.77 KB, 90x68, 45:34, 35E84AD5-BFDE-459B-9270-49….png) ImgOps Google

I am kinda staying away from due Fedi wars abd drana


Are we

discussing the coding language?


File: 1649631965013.png (462.86 KB, 1280x791, 1280:791, large.png) ImgOps Google

Most of my projects start in Python.

When I get the data structures and algorithms sorted out, they might migrate to fit in to an existing environment or run faster.  I guess I have mixed feelings about Python as a production language.


File: 1649186645678.png (125.14 KB, 750x600, 5:4, medium.png) ImgOps Google

It's a cute picture.  So I've been reading (well, listening to) some books that talk about Charles Koch and David Koch.  These are American business people who also engage in political activism.  I *think* they desire a kind of libertarian state, but if that seems wrong to you I'll take the assertion back.  They seek a kind of government where, for example, a bill of rights would have one item: The Right to Own Private Property.

I think it's easy to create a caricature of this government, which I will try to avoid.  The basic moral idea is that people can currently be grouped into 'makers' and 'takers'.  Makers produce in excess of their government entitlements, takers get more from the government than they produce, so they are net unproductive citizens.  If we remove government entitlements, we remove the incentive to stagnate in state dependency.  If the Koch state became real, there would be a growing period for the takers, certainly, but eventually everyone would be spurred toward individual productivity, and the rising tide of economic activity would raise all to greater wellbeing.

I think through most of American history property supremacy has been either a fringe idea or one carried by people who would not today be viewed as moral authorities, but its appeal has been growing in the past decades.  

Do you think this is a good kind of state, or no?  What is good and/or bad about the idea?
10 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


I suppose what it all boils down to for me is that organizations such as the Koch Industries empire want to be able to takeover state and federal governments in a hostile manner the same way that they take over enemy companies, and this cannot be allowed in terms of basic ethics.

This is beyond mere capitalism, I think, but is about being able to live under the objective rule of law under a responsible government rather than being in an absolute dictatorship with a corporate façade.


File: 1649294341049.jpg (744.26 KB, 1536x1644, 128:137, towers.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>May I ask which book?
So far.  I tend to do sets of books to get my head around a concept.  I suppose I should read a modern Koch production, but books I mostly don't agree with are more effortful, and these are things I listen to as I walk about exploring the neighborhood and relaxing (pic: radioantenna array from my last walk).


>the Koch Industries empire want to be able to takeover state and federal governments in a hostile manner

Large swaths of the government would become private.  I suppose it's very possible that the Koch brothers would make a bid when those parts went up for sale.

>This is beyond mere capitalism,

I take it you don't trust the Koch people to stick to any objective set of rules, even rules they might write.

>an absolute dictatorship with a corporate façade.
It might not be dictatorship, but the Koch state is not a democracy.  I think it's a republic that is constitutionally restricted from collectivist action, meaning anything that restricts the power of corporations and property owners.

I'm not sure if your mistrust is more for the system or for the people.  Maybe it's all the same, I guess, you need both.


File: 1648835798319.jpg (172.72 KB, 999x535, 999:535, Authoritarianism-in-a-nuts….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

What do you think are the odds that a libertarian dictatorship takes place either in the U.S. or another major nation? A government in which you have property rights (so, for example, a regular person is free to start a small business) but no social or political rights (so, for example, a regular person handing out flyers against the state will be put in either the hospital or the morgue by government thugs)?

I'm asking because of the unusual situations that seem to keep coming about in Western nations whereby defenses of capitalism and general economic rights are powerful and widely popular yet defenses of social and political rights are weak and helpless by comparison. A lot of this appears to be the case because major corporations fight in favor of liberty in some cases (such as being against, for instance, unfair tariffs and other anti-competitive trade laws) while being completely blasé about liberty in other cases (such as being uncaring, for instance, about the principle of free speech). I'm not too sure, though.

In specific terms, I'm curious what individuals here think of this article from Reason.com (a libertarian news-magazine service) criticizing the very concept of a 'libertarian dictatorship':

> https://reason.com/2012/07/17/the-mad-dream-of-a-libertarian-dictator/

(In summary, the report basically says 'the very notion is hypocritical and inconsistent to where you can't believe in it without acting bonkers', with historical citations, but there are important details worth reading too.)
7 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


An America with no social or political rights seems disturbingly possible to me in the future, especially given how the U.S. federal administration in a lot of fields has grown ever more totalitarian over the past two decades over different Presidents in an unbroken pro-government fashion. Imagine telling somebody in 1999, say, that it would considered truly normal among political circles for 24/7 spying of every single American citizen's e-mails, phone calls, and personal letters. They'd have called you a paranoid loon. And yet, boom, Patriot Act and more.



There's plenty of aspects of the US government, like the Patriot Act, that are very pro-government, yes.  That's generally to be expected.  But it is a big leap from what we have now to having no social or political rights.  The OP mentions stuff about free speech and handing out anti-government fliers as things that might hypothetically be outlawed, but as it is almost no one would support that.  Nearly the entire country exercises its right to say the government sucks every single day.  I won't say there aren't any government thugs hospitalizing people, but it hasn't happened to anyone that actually holds any kind of influence, and for them to attempt that would only martyr their target and incite the group further.  It wasn't more than a year or so ago that there was a whole insurrection staged and they can barely even contain those guys, god forbid there was an actual cause for armed conflict.

To go back to the Patriot Act, people were pretty quick to allow it for two reasons.  The first is that the government's been spying on its own citizens since spying was feasible.  The second was sometimes there's legitimate threats within the country that are trying to make it worse, perhaps by turning it into a libertarian dictatorship or something.  The second is mostly trumped up nothingness that spooks people just long enough to pass stupid laws like the Patriot Act.  But the first is something we've gotten very used to for the sole reason that it's largely unnoticeable because the legal right to spy on your citizens doesn't make it easy to do.  I can barely read all of my emails, I can't even imagine the kind of manpower it would take to actually read every single email sent in or out of this country.  What I can imagine is what a colossal waste of time that would be.  God, even 90% of our phone calls these days are automated spam centers, and the other 10% sure isn't terrorist organization.  The only thing the Patriot Act actually did was let the state bring the spying it was already doing into court as evidence, where you're still subject to a jury of peers, at least hypothetically.

We are just so so far away from anything as fantPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


I see what you're saying, but I'm thinking more about directions and patterns longer term than tyranny happening overnight.

What concerns me is that U.S. government power has been on a trajectory of ever greater expansion to the detriment of the real economy: with more debt, more deficits, and more regulations coming about. The U.S. is like an airplane flying in a straight line that will eventually hit a gigantic mountain. Yet seemingly nobody seems to care about these socio-economic trends who's actually in office.

To me, in contrast, personal liberty has been on a trajectory of ever greater decline: with everything from book banning due to the violation of "Christian family values" to campaigns to fire individuals from their jobs both inside of government positions and out due to said "Christian family values" being at risk with certain types of people having too many rights. Every single day brings additional news about the screws being tightened on individuals who happen to be Jewish, gay, disabled, transgender, Muslim, or otherwise "offensive" in some way by their very nature to the hardline Christian principles that the mainstream U.S. populace demands everybody obey. It's suffocating.

The pandemic has been especially scary because wholesale, state-heavy measures such as outright banning large public gatherings happened relatively quickly and without much in the way of factual support. Governments just saw the chance to stamp on freedoms and took it without question. Now, of course, I'm no denialist about the coronavirus. Certain state measures made perfect sense and still do, such as massive public investment in treatments that boost the immune systems of those coming down with the disease. Pro-vaccine efforts can be reasonable; I'm fully vaccinated myself. I'm more just scared about the paradigm shift, you know? A few experts say basically "Let's put social life into the freezer for a while", and without really thinking things through that had to happen? Maybe I'm overly paranoid? Not sure. I wish more evidence could be provided in terms of a lot of the heavy-handed measures, at least.

Hopefully, though, I do see a possible turnaround in the future. Yet I worry about the recent past. And present.

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