PoliticalAgitator @ PoliticalAgitator @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

793

Joined

2 yr. ago

The user agent is in the request header, so it's known before any response is sent from YouTube.

I don't know if that's what they're doing, because it's not possible to know what their server code is doing, making it a far better place to hide sleazy code.

Then they promised billions of dollars of orphan killing aid to Israel, because they just can't resist being neoliberals.

Yes, they're better than a party full of fascists and fundamentalists, but so is a suit full of roadkill and excrement.

That doesn't mean people need to enthusiastically cheer as we hurtle towards oblivion.

Do the plot twists never end? You finally get the evidence you demanded and it's immediately disregarded without comment because it doesn't say what you want.

Yep, what a surprise, you can't find any organisations that agree with you, even though your clearly the expert.

Even more fascinating is when you finally start pulling out extracts, you struggle to not contradict yourself.

higher rate of suicide among Australian males are that males tend to choose more lethal methods of suicide such as hanging

So you're adamant that guns have nothing to do with the suicide rate, then immediately paste a quote about how lethality of method increases the suicide rate?

Do you think guns are more or less lethal than hanging you fucking dunce?

Don't bother answering, just repeat "b-b-bhut Australia" over and over again, pointing at a policy that didn't target suicide prevention.

Maybe you can follow it up with throwing a tantrum because people aren't discussing exactly what's in the title, even as you gloss over the "U.S" part so that you can use an island with 14 guns per capita to a country with 120 guns per capita.

You don't need to look to the military either.

Coca-cola experimented with subliminal advertising to see if they could mind control people into buying their products but for some reason we think they wouldn't stoop to manipulating social media, the Clockwork Orange reprogramming system that we pin our own eyelids open for.

It'll go like shit, the way it always does when people vote right-wing.

But for a bit of fun, be sure to ask any right-wing reactionaries what conservative leader actually made their country a better place -- they all have an answer they want to give, but they know they can't say it out loud.

Then why isn't America the safest country in the world?

You're not repeating some deep wisdom to enlighten poor oppressed idiots who just don't know how cool guns are, you're repeating marketing slogans for a gun lobby who worked out they can sell hero fantasies to leftists too.

To preface for others, I have placed some of the more triggering parts of this discussion behind the spoiler tags

As you argue against proven suicide prevention strategies. How very compassionate of you.

Clearly you can't even be bothered reading the statistics, not a study, statistics.

It makes sense that you'd focus on numbers without any greater context, because it makes it far easier to manipulate them. I've already addressed your bullshit arguments in your other comment.

Alternatively, people can just click the link above and get the opinions of an institute dedicated to suicide prevention and the studies they've based it on, then decide if they're likely to know more or less about suicide prevention than this random guy on social media.

Not means; intent. Absolutely men have far more intent then women. Pick any study, the conclusion is the same: intent.

So you're saying that women are just doing it for attention and thats why their suicide rate is lower and why they don't use guns?

That's the opinion of a complete cunt, but I cant figure out any other reason for you to even mention it.

For some strange reason, I highly doubt you read anything at all

Okay then, lets do it this way: find me three suicide prevention organizations that don't support means reduction or explain to us how you're more qualified than the literally hundreds that do.

This shouldn't be a problem right? After all, you're definitely correct and trawling through hundreds of studies, statistics and statements to individually link them on social media is a trivial thing that it's not dishonest to demand.

Ill help you out since you cant read. The title of this post is

The gendering in the title has nothing to do with anything I said in any of my posts. I was discussing prevention strategies that apply to people regardless of gender, and your response was "but what about men?".

The article title also mentions "elderly", but you havent been nearly upset by people failing to laser focus on that adjective.

The only "evidence" you have provided is baseless claims.

You can easily search for "suicide means reduction study" and find a mountain of evidence without me spoonfeeding each result to you.

The fact that you're insisting that means reduction doesn't work either means you never have, or you think that guns are a magical exception to that.

The facts I have provided are clear an unambiguous. Banning guns in Australia made no difference to suicide.

The facts you've provided are intentionally misleading but sure, since we're talking about Australia, here is what one of their leading suicide prevention groups thinks about means reduction, complete with the studies they've based it on.

And what's that at number 4? A study that doesn't say "banning guns (something Australia didn't actually do) made no difference", it says that it's not possible to determine if the reduction in suicides by firearms was because of the new restrictions on gun ownership, or part of a general trend downward.

Of course, you would have found that instantly had you have actually searched, but we both know your goal wasn't to keep the discussion factually accurate, it was to sea-lion as much as you could to make it a grind to respond to you.

eclipsed by hangings

You have an idiots idea of of what means reduction means. We've repeatedly shown that reducing access to popular, accessible "jump points" results in fewer suicides by any method.

It doesn't completely stop that method, nor did anybody suggest banning any structure more then 12ft high.

The increased firearm restrictions didn't have a detectable impact on the suicide rate on Australia because guns were not a common method of suicide in Australia to begin with.

What happened when means reduction wed implemented for more common methods like jumping? Oh look, the suicide rate went down, just like every study always says.

Do you went to argue that suicide by firearm isn't a significant of percentage of suicides in America? You might as well, since it would be just as self-serving and factually inaccurate as everything else you've argued.

I don't know, nor am I speculating. The person I was replying to said they didn't see a browser check in the code, which isn't enough to dismiss it.

They don't need to put incriminating "if Firefox" statements in their code -- the initial page request would have included the user agent and it would be trivial to serve different JavaScript based on what it said.

Because he lets them say slurs.

The most direct and effective strategy to inspire reform in their practices is to stop using of their platforms.

The whole "the free market could fix it" is just neoliberal bullshit. The most hated companies in the world continue to bring in record profits and its not because people prefer their chocolate is harvested by child slaves.

They're fully aware that it never works, but they just keep suggesting it over and over again, growing richer with successive failure, all the while blaming consumers for not preventing them doing sleazy, greedy things.

The actual most direct and effective strategy is regulations. That's why they hate them and why there are so many of them in politics.

A quick glance at his profile should be all you need to know that facts aren't going to change his opinions.

Not because he's one of the usual fascists, reactionaries, or idiots, but because chances are he's a neoliberal, groomed from birth to defend the rich.

It's unlikely he'll actually admit it, because the piss-covered graves of Thatcher and Reagan made it clear it was best to stay mask on. Instead they communicate through dog-whistles, flashing just enough of their bullshit theories like "trickle down economics" and "deregulation is better for everyone" to let other neoliberals know the feeding trough will soon open and filled with other people's money.

The giveaway is that whenever he decides to be critical of other peoples opinions, they're almost always opinions that are a threat to someones profits.

People upset about the spiralling cost of living while the executives of the companies milking them for every cent get multi-million dollar bonuses? They just don't understand economics.

Whistleblowers exposing the horrific animal abuse thats rife within the multi-billion dollar meat industry? They're just petty criminals.

It's the game they've all been taught to play. You're allowed to tussle for market share (such as the "left wing" and "right wing" media empires and political parties) but you're never, ever to tolerate a genuine threat to the systems they've built.

The moment a politician suggests making the rich pay their share, all of these "competitors" suddenly unify with a class solidarity we can only dream of.

Which is a lot of words to call out a single person living in his greedy little bubble, but it's important that people are able to identity neoliberalism in the wild, because its well on its way to killing us all.

That is completely relevant to the conversation. If you can't even manage a token "trickle down is bullshit" then we know the "knowledge" you're about to bless us poor idiots with is just self-serving garbage.

Then maybe after that, we could get the pedophiles to write the statutory rape laws, because after all, they're the experts.

This is what the founding fathers wanted, otherwise they would have given all Americans (except the black ones they owned as property) the right to jog without being shot at by yet another legal gun owner who couldn't control his emotions.

And do you have any criticism for the rampant misinformation being spread by major politicial parties, for-profit media empires, exclusive schools and giant corporations the world over, as they promise "this time, neoliberalism is really going to work", even as they stake their fortunes on it failing yet again?

• The alternative to current model of game launch + DLCs/features added over the year is that the game is not launched at all until ready and full featured.

I haven't seen significant numbers of people complaining that their drip feed of content isn't coming fast enough. I've seen people complaining about spending a non-trivial amount of money on a visibly broken game that clearly had plenty of developer resources for microtransactions and loot boxes.

Gamer audience is privileged, consumerist and impatient. And most of the audience is either autistic or neurodivergent with impulsive and/or compulsive disorders, and have unstable hyperfocus and obsession issues.

Being a game developer had its moments but was still easily the worst job I've ever had, predominantly due to the community.

That said, I still wouldn't go diagnosing millions of people with some bullshit I just made up.

What I mean is a 6foot 250 lb muscle builder is just as deadly as a 90 year old grand ma.

Sure, in some bizarre labratory conditions that don't reflect reality, the body builder and the grandma have equal capacity to murder anyone they want.

But that's almost never how it plays out. Do you know who actually wins in that matchup? Whoever is the shittest person.

Is the grandma deeply racist and the body builder black? Then all my money is on the grandma. Is the body builder far-right and opening fire on a family having a day out with grandma? Then all my money is on the Nazi.

But of course, we don't have to talk about convoluted hypothetical scenarios. The pro-gun community had dictated the gun laws for 25 years, promising shit like "a level playing field" the entire time, despite it been a deeply fucked way of describing people fighting for their lives.

So why are none of these promises coming true? Why are women and minorities less safe in America compared to other wealthy countries? Why are the crime rates in America basically the same despite tolerating children being executed en masse every few months?

If these gun laws keep us safe from tyranny, why are there fascists preparing for an election, enthusiastically cheered on by the the pro-gun community?

When they inevitably lose and arrange their next attack on the Capitol, puffing their chests out with pro-gun pride and executing anyone who stands in their way, are you going tell us just how level the playing field was?

The second is is you are wildly wrong about having access to drugs. I'm surprised you are suggesting that the average American household doesn't have a lethal dose in their medicine cabinet.

Most of then also have a lethal amount of bleach too but believe it or not, most suicidal people would rather not torture themselves to death.

Just because something is theoretically fatal doesn't mean it's a suicide risk.