CynAq

I can’t believe in this day and age marijuana is still an object of political influence.

Just legalize the shit, period. What’s with all the conditionals attached to it? You just have to marginalize users one way or the other because god forbid we have fewer things “those people” do to point fingers at.

Right? Both the Israeli and Qatari governments suck ass

Hua long dong 6 is a hell of a name tho

What is that, unholy water?

there’s always that one bootlicker

What in the actual fuck?

This is like a physical embodiment of Poe’s law.

Xitting, pronounced “shitting”

I, too, agree with the scientists that we’re all well and truly fucked.

Yes. That’s why who said what, and in what context, matters.

You’re misunderstanding NYT’s position and intention on this when they call it “strict new ethics rules”. They are a neoliberal organization who’ll side with republicans more often than they do with progressives. They are trying to paint it in a bad, big government kinda sentiment when they call it “strict”.

Who told you western teenagers were too dumb to understand this fact and would fail to include the remedies to their ideology when they rile up against capitalism?

TIL I didn’t know the meaning of normies.

It’s not a word I use but when I saw it first, I thought it meant neurotypical, then after a while I saw it in a more political context and thought it meant centrist. Turns out, it just means mainstream. I think.

What exactly does this word mean?

Or conversely, a Christian apologist coming to an atheist community and saying “if god isn’t real why do good things” as if declaring you are a poorly educated sociopath is a good way to challenge people’s well formed ideas.

I’ve spent quite a bit of time trying to explain to some people why “woke leftists” are so quick to shut them up that they feel like they aren’t given a right to speak their minds. “Woke” ideas are generally more developed and complex than “common sense” ideas, which requires some thought being put into them while they evolve from basic to their current level, so when you challenge a person’s developed idea with a superficial, usually knee jerk level question or critique, you’re most likely engaging in a line of thinking they were done with quite early in their evolution of the idea you’re trying to challenge.

Agreed.

With the submarine story, it’s like a film scenario. Every detail is something unusual, and not tragic in itself. Well, depends on who you ask. There are many people who think billionaires existing is a very real tragedy, and rightly so, but I digress.

With billionaires in a comic-book-supervillain submarine lost on their way to see the Titanic wreck, you can laugh at the $30 controller, or wonder where their brains were, or if anybody looked at their financials because this also would work as a movie scenario where 4 billionaires pay someone to disappear them because they didn’t pay taxes or something.

Refugee boat sinking is actual tragedy, with the added bonus of the entire western world having some level of guilt in creating. When the average, empathy having person hears about it, they feel complex emotions from sadness to guilty conscience for casually hearing about it from the comfort of their couch… It’s difficult to deal with.

I think it’s whispering “kill me” over and over, in a barely audible rasp.

You might have accidentally a word there

Good faith is the key here. I’m all for disagreements leading to lengthy discussions and even some controversy as long as everyone is arguing in good faith.

I can’t stand trolling, outright bigotry, and the normalization of literal fascist opinions as a mere “disagreement”. If a “disagreement” (you know which ones I mean) will lead to people dying if enabled, I’m pretty happy keeping those ideas out.