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

/townhall/ - Townhall

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


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.


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.8781[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

File: 1618291766226.png (503.67 KB, 586x906, 293:453, reddie.png) ImgOps Google

Well, I'm confined to this structure by state order, due to the social unrest and potential social unrest triggered by police killing of Daunte Wright.

I can't say I have opinions to express (aside from a desire for survival).  I do have the observation that the state appears to be deciding -- when officers kill a subject who is not posing an imminent threat, at least in the perspective of many, are these killings to be regarded as random accidents, non-random accidents -- racism of some kind, murder, or appropriate state executions.  I've seen many opinions expressed, it is hard to analyze them fully.  You may express yours if you like.  Maybe identify which faith community you are in, so I can group opinions.  But you don't have to.

Otherwise I hope you have a nice Tuesday.
118 posts and 21 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


What conspiracy are you referring to?


I am not so convinced, but I also have no idea what this conspiracy theory your talking about is anyway, so I don't know if this would really go anywhere anyhow


If the war on drugs comes to a complete end, would that mean that incidents such as Floyd's death wouldn't occur like... basically at all anymore? The underlying situations wouldn't even begin to set up? Maybe?

Or am I being naive to the point of stupidity here?

 No.8964[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

File: 1619062304639.jpg (32.71 KB, 500x375, 4:3, Forget-it-snoopy.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Modern America today appears to be rather cleanly divided between two strictly divided social groups that both act in such a way that they can not only be analogized to warrying tribes, akin to ancient Romans fighting ancient Celts, but are approaching that of utterly alien separate species, akin the xenomorphs fighting the humans in the famous Sigourney Weaver helmed 'Alien' franchise.

On the one hand, you have white Christians who identify as nationalists (or, at least, act as such). This folds neatly into the conservative movement and the Republican Party specifically in terms of both of those actively seeking these people out as supporters, although of course one can be both a conservative and also a Republican while having none of those traits (please do not view this thread as being based on the premise that all Republicans/conservatives are nationalists). They genuinely and sincerely believe (or, at least, act as such) that their ethnic bloodlines as transplanted Europeans of some stripe embodies them with a long, prestigious heritage of intellectual worth, with everything from architecture to artworks to musical pieces demonstrating this civilizational inheritance. Similarly, as Christians they genuinely and sincerely believe (or, at least, act as such) that their faith tradition makes them an elect class among the general mass of humanity, with their prudence and virtue not only setting them upon a pedestal of superiority among other faiths but giving them a clear understanding that they are the anointed who can guide a fallen world into the light. These tie completely to nationalism given that, as these strident political activists argue, the Founding Fathers created the U.S. to be a white Christian nation based on the idea of a 'shining city on a hill' in which human rights are respected for those who deserve such rights in contrast to the mobs who claim freedoms but do not deserve them due to their wickedness.

On the other hand, you have everybody else. This includes not just everybody who isn't perceived as white and perceived as Christian but also anyone who doesn't fully line up on board with nationalism. In definition terms, certain classes of people such as the LGBT and others also apply here regardless of whether or not they identify as Christian or white, white Christian nationalists not considering somebody to qualify as a 'real American' / 'real Christian' if they don't conform to a certain narrow understanding of whaPost too long. Click here to view the full text.
176 posts and 16 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


It's past 10pm now, and looking over my past behavior I appear to crossed something of a line into "This isn't just being too nice, it's being a complete fucking sucker, with you being a pathetic doormat who lets anybody else walk all over you... why do you do this to yourself... you turned depressive feelings in a morning into an entire day wasted". I'm genuinely sorry that I started this thread. I know that I've wasted everybody's time, especially my own, and that's unfortunate. Gonna have to close up shop.

Have a good night, everyone. I mean it. Be safe, there's still a pandemic going on.


The thread was fine, I liked the op, and agreed with much of the concept.
It was the generalizations that caused argument from me,   And the presumptions my arguments that caused deterioration further into fight territory

If you wake up and feel like explaining it, I still would like to understand why you thought I called you a monster and a subhuman.
As far as I can tell that never happened, yet you claimed I did anyway.


File: 1619148949296.png (174.34 KB, 1647x811, 1647:811, gf-left-because-lats.png) ImgOps Google

>As far as I can tell that never happened, yet you claimed I did anyway.
The only think I can think of is that Charitable Emu really horrifically misinterpreted what you said, like on the scale of pic related, due to radically different worldviews and faulty presuppositions of what your beliefs are.


File: 1618887416772.jpeg (95.93 KB, 640x871, 640:871, duke-of-sus.jpeg) ImgOps Google

Continuation from https://ponyville.us/pony/res/1080199.html of the discussion that started from >>>/pony/1080500 :
>certain prejudices in society are lessening (so statements like, say, "I'd never date a transgender person", ... et cetera are becoming highly unacceptable among regular people)
65 posts and 13 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Typically prejudice is formed from environmental upbringing and influence that shapes one's view. These perceptions people carry are all unique, though modern culture in recent years encourages wide acceptance among ethnic groups and beliefs. To the point where discrimination is frowned upon. It is irrational for one to hold to a belief that they insist upon being right, while going against general consensus. Though one should should have the self respect to hold to their view.


People are attracted to who they are attracted to. Trying to force people to date those they are not attracted to is going to be a recipe for disaster in most any circumstance. Mutual attraction among consenting adults seems to be the winning formula.

There's some situations where i don't think mutual attraction is strictly necessary, prostitution for instance, but that's still consenting adults where each party gets something out of it.

It's funny to me that people take grievance with trans people not being able to date who they want, when this has simply been the reality for the vast majority of straight men, and a fair number of folks from other quadrants, since time immemorial. Unless you're in the 1% of men in terms of attractiveness/social status/monetary assets, then you won't get your first choice of female partner, and there's a damn good chance you won't find one at all. That's just part of life, we don't always get what we want. People rightly laugh at straight male incels for making similar claims. Sorry, but the argument doesn't hold any more water just because it's woke now.

As far as prejudice/discrimination goes, sorry, but when it comes to how people pair bond, that person has final say. You can criticize them, sure, but you have to respect their final choice. Otherwise you run basically head-first into sex slavery, and that should be avoided unless all parties involved are into that sort of thing.


I don't think you understand what's been the topic of discussion.

It's not that people are advocating that prejudice in general be ended through force, or in the specific sense that prejudice in terms of refusing to be associated with certain groups in personal relationships be ended through force.

It's that people are saying that believing as much and acting as such can be reasonably seen as wrong and should be able to be criticized, with the understanding that freedom goes both ways... your liberty to be prejudiced is directly linked to my liberty to call out your prejudice because we both are free citizens who can express yourselves how we want.

You also appear to have some kind of particular animus against transgender people specifically or some larger group that we're a part of because you see us as engaged in whining and claim that we deserve to be laughed at due to our ignorant, "woke" nature... I would politely ask for you to reconsider this framing or at the least maybe hold off from expressing it when this disdain of yours doesn't really change the intellectual point discussed.

You are correct that cisgender heterosexual men have been subject to a great deal of prejudice both throughout history and in current times. I mean, statistically, most men are wired to be cisgender and heterosexual... thus, by definition, when we've seen women believe and act on stuff like "I'd never date/befriend/help/etc a guy that's black/Hispanic/blind/deaf/wheelchair-bound" that's involved the world becoming colder and crueler to such men specifically and the broader society as well. I believe that that's quite terrible.

As such, I really... don't get what your attempting to argue here. Why does more prejudice against other groups in the past and now mean that prejudice against some different group is fine? Human niceness is not like a cake or pie where more niceness for me means less niceness for you. The exact opposite appears to be the case for me. Niceness generally tends to cause more niceness, it being harder to act like a dick to somebody when you know that they won't be like to you.

You bring up incels... I don't understand. The type of person who identifies as an incel generally is viewed negatively by others because that self-label usually means that they are bigoted in a way that's not only sexist but homophobiPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1616900903239.jpg (67.16 KB, 1100x1100, 1:1, yankee-hill-machine-r9.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Is the $200 tax on mufflers unjust and/or unconstitutional?
16 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


I'm not familiar with either the FPC and GOA. Can you provide context?


The FPC is the Firearms Policy Coalition, which seems to, rather than do the typical thing, attempt to challenge laws in courts instead wherever possible, as well as more generally push specific laws and bills, and does a fair bit of cataloguing new changes.

The GOA is the Gun Owners Of America, with the tagline "the only no-compromise gun lobby in washington". They're a more traditional type of rights lobbyist group, with the main distinction that they oppose any new violations of rights, regardless of if it's called a 'compromise' or not.
Their stuff is more the general lobbying type function, which is why I'm starting to lean more to the FPC, as it seems while lobbying certainly has an affect, the FPC is able to do a lot more with a lot less.


Thank you.

My general viewpoint is that the primary threat to gun rights in the long run isn't government actions to restrict freedoms but a general change in the culture such that social attitudes keep evolving, with possibly gun ownership might eventually be seen akin to ownership of cartoon child pornography in the sense of being de jure legally defended but de facto broadly hated (please don't misinterpret this as me making the moral comparison myself as I'm only saying that others believe it).

I admit that while I see this as possibly happening... I don't really know how to respond.


File: 1616711591297.jpeg (235.06 KB, 1280x960, 4:3, large.jpeg) ImgOps Google

Argument Summary: Raising the minimum wage hurts workers.

Supporting reasons:

- in the short term raising the wage makes jobs scarcer since fewer workers may be hired on a firm's labor budget.  This also encourages automation and process efficiency measures to reduce jobs, which might effect employment even if the minimum wage were lowered again.

- in the long term, raising the wage also reduces the number of jobs by forcing some businesses to close due to higher labor cost.

- in the long term, inflation proportional to the minimum wage increase causes no increase in buying power even for those workers privileged with a nominal increase in earnings.

Amplifying Rational:
Since an unemployed worker can be less expected to survive, at least appropriately, granting as many as possible a wage to live on, or as close as can be expected, requires minimum wage be abolished to maximize employment.


You are welcome to agree or disagree with portions or all of the argument, preferably with further discussion as to why.
2 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1616890555350.jpg (155.76 KB, 1024x1024, 1:1, large.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Ok, well, rebutting my own argument, I guess.  Rushing a bit because I have to get to work (for the ever-necessary OT).


>higher labor cost.
>inflation proportional to the minimum wage increase

This seems to make the assumption all wage is payed at the minimum wage.  A quick Google search gives me 1.5% of workers in 2020 made minimum wage, and their proportion of labor cost must be much lower.  Roughly speaking, it's a drop in the bucket, which explains why inflation has been increasing in excess of minimum wage for decades.

>encourages automation and process efficiency measures

Maybe, but why can't we create economic systems where that's a win?  Or in short, why is it better to exploit low wage workers than to automate?

Yes, you may have a point, J. Griffon, some businesses that rely heavily on low wage work, and can't automate, might struggle.  On the other hand, as the wage increase occurs across America, if the product or service is really necessary, people will be willing to pay more.  That's the basic idea of paying what something costs.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


>There's also the argument that renters will just raise the rent with wage, meaning the only people who actually benefit are the renters.
"Renter" denotes a person who pays rent.  "Landlord" denotes the person who receives the money.


Raising the minimum wage, as far as research has found, tends to either not decrease employment or have a modest reduction in terms of those with jobs, in comparison to a widely substantial improvement in conditions for a large number of individuals.

An interesting article on this is at: https://journalistsresource.org/economics/federal-minimum-wage-research/

Ultimately, though, this gets into a moral question that's outside of traditional economics. Accepting that a significant hike is well understand to mean some harm in terms of lost jobs, how much negativity is acceptable in comparison to the total of those lifted out of poverty (as well as those of better life station more generally)? The counter-factual is also important. What if wage subsidies were enacted? Or additional stimulus checks to people? Or expansions in health care coverage for the poor? Or changes to the food stamp program?

It's rather unclear what changes to U.S. government policy would precisely benefit the working poor the most. In my personal opinion, raising the minimum wage isn't necessarily a horrible idea but in comparison terms seems like a worse option than expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit or sweeting Obamacare exchanges or other measures that involve spending money on the downtrodden without, I believe, hurting jobs as much (or maybe even at all).


File: 1592455046944.jpg (14.26 KB, 254x254, 1:1, Uncle-Ben.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

So apparently racists on 4chan /pol/ have started a campaign to erase famous images of black people from popular products.  And the sad part is that they're actually succeeding, and major companies are doing this!  It started with Aunt Jemima, and now Uncle Ben is getting targeted.  What is wrong with our country???
7 posts omitted. Click reply to view.



>implying this is a bad thing


>What did 4chan hope to gain from doing this

Back when i was a /b/ native, the answer would have been obvious. For the lols. We did things like that because it was funny. These days, that pure ideology has largely been muddled by douchebag racist neo-nazis, so now things are a lot less clear.

I do see a certain level of very cynical humor in getting companies to go whitewashing using social justice rhetoric to effectively work against social justice ideology, or at least, to work against classical-liberalism-style multiculturalism, but i think that sort of scorched-earth social justice is very toxic. I think recognizing that characters like uncle ben and aunt jemima were important first steps in the long staircase towards racial equality is important, and that those steps, while by our current standards can be a bit jarring, are positive ones in the right direction, and that we should celebrate that moving forward, not damn them because we want to forget about the racial tones of the past. I also happen to find the white nationalists who push this sort of thing to be edgy idiots who wouldn't last 2 days without the comforts of classical liberalism they so decry. I think it takes a real special kind of idiot to bite the hand that feeds them like that.


Can't common sense apply here?

As somebody who's LGBT, I would find it cool if there was, say, Neal Patrick Harris cereal. Maybe it's marshmallow bits mixed in wit little corn-type things and on the cover is NPH riding a horse through a ring of fire. Sounds sweet.

I would be horrified if there was, I don't know, dead gay boy prostitute cereal. Suppose there's a corpse of somebody in a fishnet shirt on the cover, their body next to broken bottles of alcohol and used condoms. I suppose the foodstuff itself would be like... cocaine flavored?

I'm being a bit glib and extreme there, but come on... can't we accept that having a successful, well-dressed, attractive, and otherwise positively portrayed black person on a product is fundamentally different in a night-versus-day sense than having a stereotypical cartoon-ish character that looks as if a Klansman trying to promote the 'happy slave' myth did it?


File: 1611788318856.png (37.59 KB, 811x793, 811:793, 2535967.png) ImgOps Google

People wish to protect children from transgendering; they wish not to have children sexualized or exposed to adult issues too early.  I can not argue against protecting children, no one can ague for sexual expression in children who can neither understand nor consent to that sort of thing.  And I can't figure that 'trans' or 'cis' is the issue, we are not to be prejudiced in that way.  What remains is that gender is inappropriate.  I know it is conventional to use gender for children, but sometimes convention is wrong.  Does ethics require all children be referred to as 'it' until they reach the age of consent when they may choose an appropriate gender?
29 posts and 13 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1613654978630.png (292.63 KB, 441x583, 441:583, Screenshot from 2021-02-18….png) ImgOps Google

>so your kid is a girl, so you dress her in that shit.

Right, there's various studies showing how people treat infants, even varies by assigned gender.

>is there a shirt for "daddy's boy"? sounds kinda weird right?

People get called a mama's boy, but I'm not sure it's flattering.  A quick image search shows it's less common as a shirt.  And yes, it's weirder in any way but daddy's girl.

>so you think the primary people that society should be accommodating is people who sexually fetishize kids?

The idea would be...not to enable them or make it easier.  The response depends a bit on whether you see gender as imposed from without.  If so, you'd ask why should we expose children to the unnecessary thing, when it will in some cases be problematic or tempting.  We all know the only cause of a theft is a robber; no one else is responsible for the crime, yet people lock doors.

>many of them get off on cis kids, so like... do we just cancel kids altogether or what?  

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


I'm generally torn on this issue. On one hand, i think society places way too much emphasis on gender, and that has and does create very real problems in society, from voting rights to domestic abuse to law enforcement to custody battles; De-emphasizing gender would be, therefore, a good thing across the board, imho.

On the other hand, kids are going to gravitate to and figure out these ideas on their own, anyway. Technology only makes it more difficult to insulate children from anything, and kids are going to try and find their place in the world and emulate adults regardless of how much we try to de-emphasize things. Kids are also shitty by their very nature. It takes a lot less time and effort to acclimatize to a social environment than it does to painstakingly develop your own meaningful sense of morality, and this is doubly true for children who must cater to the whims of a hodgepodge of conflicting authority figures in order to get by on a day-to-day basis. Kids are shitty, and it's not their fault, and there's nothing to be done about it except to make the tools for moral development readily available and trying to establish a proper balance between crushed quiet and spoiled rotten, a daunting feat for the best of people.

My long-winded point being, i think trying to dictate what gender should or should not be for a child is a loosing battle, though i am largely of the opinion that until you hit puberty, you might as well be a genderless blob who is still trying to figure out how to be a person. They'll experiment with social concepts regardless of what we do, because that's likely hardwiring that keeps us alive, especially in our current socially-driven society, entirely too ingrained and vital to remove, or to want to remove.


At a fundamental level, we as Americans need to turn gender identity into something like eye color, hair color, height, shoe size, and the like. Children aren't beaten black and blue for being seen as too tall. Apartment dwellers aren't kicked out by their landlords for having the wrong hairstyle. Nobody gets sexually assaulted walking home at night as a result of how their eyes look.

While I don't necessarily think that the concept of 'gender' and the related labels should be abolished, clearly the notions of 'gender requirements', 'gender roles', 'gender stereotypes', and the like should fade away. Getting rid of the pseudoscientific and disproven concept of the inherent 'gender binary' in the first place and recognizing that since every human being is unique that they express themselves in varying ways, with gender as an identity being more akin to spirituality, political ideologies, personality types, and the rest... complex shades of colors rather than black versus white? That change would also be fantastic.

Thankfully, in my opinion, this is happening. Younger generations are less prejudiced. Children are, as the cliché goes, the future. They should and often are get to have more freedom to be themselves.

I agree with this.

This is also getting at something important.

I don't think this mindset makes sense. The vast majority of Americans are Christian. However, we don't structure laws and general rules under the assumption that everybody has to be a religious person at all, let alone narrowly a devout Christian. For example, public schools don't have public Christian prayers for students to learn and religious nonprofits don't receive taxpayer funding to promote devotional causes. Similarly, few Americans are physically disabled. Yet all manner of facilities are created due to government mandate in order to help, say, blind individuals. As a matter of law, blind folks can pay their taxes, attend public colleges, apply for welfare assistance, start small businesses, and otherwise do everything in society that sighted people can due to that latter group being mandated to provide reasonable accommodation. When it comes to gender rolPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1616539894917.png (390.22 KB, 1024x1024, 1:1, large.png) ImgOps Google

This site is slow and sometimes I want to make a thread, but it's hard to know what people want to talk about.  Personally I'm mostly concerned with things related to science and software engineering (but most people don't really care about that).  So, maybe I'll let people pick from some ideas based on me watching Facebook.

1) Should the past acceptance of something guarantee future acceptance?  For example, is it inappropriate to cancel or revisit publications?  If not, how will such impulses be resisted?

2) America has had an odd quiet during the COVID-19 pandemic, but now we can ask again: are weekly mass shootings just the cost of living in a free republic?

3) Something about immigration.  Too many angles in this one, maybe you can help narrow it down.

I don't know.  I got a new lens (which is almost the same as my old one) and protective camera cases.  I'll be working a lot.  I don't have a clear idea how to estimate a point spread function but will generally work on it.  My scientific society is moving along.

Well, hope you all have a nice day.
9 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


I'm meaning in recent eras.
But, yes, ultimately I think if the argument is moral responsibility to foreign citizens, then the greater moral improvement would come from taking over those places and incorporating them fully as part of the United States.

I think this would hurt Americans, in all likelihood, but a 'greater good' would be served.
I, personally, do not really like 'greater good' systems as a whole, however.


>greater good
Yes, the main flaw is people don't much agree on what's good.  Suppose your argument would be something like: republican government is good in the long run, America is the most experienced extant Republic, forcing others to conform to the American standard might be rough in the short term, but will be best for everyone in the end.


>Automation is big issue here. Lots of workers are going to be automated out of jobs in the near future. This can be a huge disaster. I have a belief (epistemic status: quite uncertain) that humans have a psychological need to engage in productive work for their tribe/society. Going the "bread and circuses" route (i.e., a large percentage of the population on welfare) might cause the downfall of society.

I believe that this is absolutely factually correct. However, with 100% certainty we can predict that it won't happen like that. Most Americans currently refuse to even allow disadvantaged workers engaged in the labor force full time to experience the standard human rights guaranteed in other Western nations, such as the right to not be discriminated against due to identity status and the right to access to reliable health care. There will never, ever be a situation in the U.S. in which the state as well as the people agree to allow the downtrodden who might potentially survive if given enough support to get that support.

>And of course having millions of people starve to death due to being economically obsolete is also highly undesirable and would likely precipitate violent revolution.

This is half likely what will happen. America is a capitalist nation. America is a consumerist nation. America is a materialist nation. As trends continue, mass suffering is inevtiable. The advantaged will not share the benefits of progress with the general bottom half (or third or whatever) of society. That's just how it is.

I doubt that violent revolution would change a thing. Those in power would just slaughter the disadvantaged. It would be like gnats making war against semi trucks.

There's also a half likely chance that America stops being America. That some radical social advancement takes place that raises the ethical level of the general populace as well as the morals of the powerful. Moral awakenings are a thing. They have occurred. Because I want to be an idealist, I will hope for this.


File: 1613738903946.png (201.41 KB, 896x1024, 7:8, large.png) ImgOps Google

We might imagine three communities:

1. Thomasites:

A religious organization with Scripture saying, "Those named Thomas are evil and need punishments, says the Lord.  Let you not suffer a Thomas to live."

2. Anti-Thomas Political Party

It's about time people named Thomas are moved to the lowest positions in society, if they even deserve to exist.

3. Nation of No-Thomas

It's a crime to have the name Thomas.  Even people named Tony or Tim may get roughed up by cops in this nation.  Nation of No-Thomas prides itself on being tough on crime.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
38 posts and 15 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Thomas needs some damn self-respect. In every instance, he puts his own personal worth behind everything else. In trying to be respectful, he doesn't even aim for fairness, instead just giving himself the short end of the stick by default. Ideas like "Countering a political party will be seen as against free speech" make it clear he doesn't value himself as much as others' opinions. Respect, kindness, and love mean little without self-respect.


Thomas could create his own political party.  But to engage another party without sharing their goals will be unwelcome.


Thomas' parents are dicks. They should have named him something that wouldn't screw him over, and he should just change his name. That's what i would do. Any parent that names their kid Thomas in this scenario is a dick who is unfit to be a parent.


File: 1614473854819.png (492.52 KB, 1280x1415, 256:283, request__alovnek_s_bitcoin….png) ImgOps Google

2 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1614583772282.jpg (65.77 KB, 772x646, 386:323, dash99.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>Who would you want to find it?
Whoever can solve the riddle first. If I'd set it up I'd hope someone would solve it and I'd want to see it being solved and enjoy the thrill.


File: 1614595523066.png (1.26 MB, 1094x1200, 547:600, 2996.png) ImgOps Google

It's always interesting reading the original sources to see what was omitted.

Best regards, Sergio.

EDIT: It looks that Eyal0 got it right. His explanation of the probability distribution is the most convincing: it’s not a probability distribution at all! He suggested that Satoshi had access to 58 machines for mining, so to avoid checking the same nonce twice he gave each machine a different id, which was stamped in the LSB of the nonce. I think the reason the machines 10-18 are missing is because they belonged to the next Computer Lab in Satoshi’s faculty, but at the last time he was forgiven access to that Lab.

This explanation could be proved/disproved by checking the frequency of ExtraNonces going back in time. If too many computers are mining together (started at the same time) then one would expect one to be slightly faster than the other, so ExtraNonces are not synchronized. Then a machine with a lower ExtraNonce can solve a block just after a machine with a higher ExtraNonce, and time seams to go back.

EDIT2: Still another theory is that there were only 6 computers, each running a limited range of 10 LSB nonces. One of them broke, and was not used at the last moment. But I don’t buy it, since 58 is not divisible by 6.


File: 1614608842970.png (348.04 KB, 781x786, 781:786, Screenshot from 2021-03-01….png) ImgOps Google

Sadly that makes some sense.  58 PC's...hmm...hope Nakamoto was not mining Bitcoin at work, that would be naughty.

>what was omitted
Thanks for checking, yes.

 No.8465[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

File: 1609971316784.png (897.06 KB, 929x952, 929:952, 4654677.png) ImgOps Google

This will be the thread for any discussions concerning today's events at the capitol.

Please keep it civil.
107 posts and 51 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>The justification for shooting her was that she was illegally breaking-and-entering into a restricted government area
I do not think this should be all that is required.
It should never be acceptable to gun down unarmed civilians, just because the area that they are in is "restricted".

> If the government is the one breaking into your home, then there is no similar justification for the government shooting you.
What is the moral difference between a government killing you because it declared the area you are in as "restricted", and the government just killing you?
What constitutes the use of lethal force to murder an unarmed woman whom objectively, as a simple matter of fact, does not pose an immediate threat, just because of where they are?
Why is it acceptable to murder an unarmed civilian in a restricted area, but not in a non-restricted area?

>And, e.g., a rioter who is trying to hit a retreating 17-year-old over the head with a skateboard also may be shot in self-defense.
The difference is, unlike this thug, Kyle Rittenhouse waited until they were an IMMEDIATE threat, as is required to constitute self defense.

He did not just start opening up into the BLM crowd, because they could be a threat.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1611515343898.jpg (42.75 KB, 527x496, 17:16, 1505359329805.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>What is the moral difference between a government killing you because it declared the area you are in as "restricted", and the government just killing you?
In the first case, you have clear notice that what you're doing is liable to get you killed, yet you deliberately disobeyed the law anyway.  In the second case, you have no notice and haven't deliberately disobeyed the law.

At common law, the rule was that deadly force was lawful to stop any fleeing felon.  (I recognize that Ashli wasn't exactly a fleeing felon, but I'm just pointing out 'immediate danger' traditionally hasn't been considered necessary for the use of deadly force.)  The Supreme Court modified the 'fleeing felon' rule in Tennessee v. Garner (1985) to restrict the circumstances in which the government may use deadly force.  I take it that you would restrict it even further.

>We had an investigation.
>We have not had an investigation in this case.
Do you have a source for that?  My understanding is that the 2016 investigations were not timed or intended for being able to alter the outcome of the election.

>They tried. They held an investigation. That investigation came up with nothing.
This year they don't have any evidence of massive fraud either.  So what would be your thoughts if Obama had done what Trump did, alleging without proof that Hillary was the true winner?
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


>In the first case, you have clear notice that what you're doing is liable to get you killed, yet you deliberately disobeyed the law anyway.  In the second case, you have no notice and haven't deliberately disobeyed the law.
Law is not inherently just.  Whether or not someone breaks the law ought have no basis when it comes to whether they ought live or die.  Legality has no moral basis in and of itself.

>At common law, the rule was that deadly force was lawful to stop any fleeing felon.  (I recognize that Ashli wasn't exactly a fleeing felon, but I'm just pointing out 'immediate danger' traditionally hasn't been considered necessary for the use of deadly force.
If that is the case, I would say common law in that regard is immoral.
A felon does not necessitate someone is violent, let alone an immediate threat.

>My understanding is that the 2016 investigations were not timed or intended for being able to alter the outcome of the election.
They literally tried to impeach him because of this nonsense conspiracy theory.

This said, wouldn't that be reasonable, if we were to presume that Trump won through cheating with the Russians, we ought reverse that illegitimate process, or at least redo the vote?
As far as I understand, we do the same for athletic competition, so why not for things like this?
Again, what's the moral reasoning at play here?

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


File: 1612122247290.jpg (267.36 KB, 720x1520, 9:19, IMG_20210131_154040.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google



You didn't include a link, but I did a Google search and found it here: https://rockymountainoyster.com/google-maps-update-introduces-new-show-republicans-feature-to-protect-users-feelings/

Rocky Mountain Oyster is a satire site, like The Onion.


File: 1612171801182.jpeg (530.93 KB, 1000x664, 125:83, 111116_.jpeg) ImgOps Google

...back in my day...


File: 1612158433670.jpg (987.61 KB, 1414x2000, 707:1000, 1537045147285.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

 No.8234[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

File: 1607374133054.jpg (93.58 KB, 889x1024, 889:1024, 130743680_1022122736378675….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Saw this picture on social media today with a shit-ton of likes and I'm pretty down with memes and all.

But is this supposed to be humorous?
116 posts and 20 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.




As opposed to people like Strong Hippogriff, who want people to be locked away unable to provide the necessities they need to survive, in order to gain some ten years at best to people who didn't even ask you to.


Currently in the Netherlands groups of people are flocking in the street and they're targeting hospitals and Covid test/treatment posts.

Reactions on social media are still laughing about how this virus is a hoax to keep the people down and we need to rise up and take back our society.
While hospitals are taking yet another flood of patients.

I am deeply ashamed of how things are happening in our "civilised" Western part of the world.

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