Skates @ Skates @feddit.nl

Posts

0

Comments

337

Joined

2 yr. ago

So if you get to vote for president again, you'd vote with the cunts who lied that you'll never vote again?

Stockholm syndrome is a thing, and democrats have it. I fucking hate Republicans and Trump, but seeing a dem try to pretend the other side is hell incarnate and that Trump is gonna remove elections, and in the same breath try to convince you to vote for them in the future SUPPOSEDLY REMOVED FUCKING ELECTIONS? Jesus fucking christ what a disgusting bag of hypocritical chodes your party can be. Go pardon a criminal just like your political opponent is running from justice, and then come back to the table in 4 years to say you're not the same.

Anyone voting for Republicans or democrats is fully fucking retarded.

Defund the police, shit on the thin blue line. This is always an option.

ACAB

To my mind, Ban has always meant permanent.

Then explain perma-ban

Joke aside though - ban is a toggle. You can toggle something on or off, but it usually implies something temporary. You can then manually unban someone at a later date, or have the unban be automated in some cases.

"I turned the lights on" - there is no expectation that you never turn them off again

"It is snowing outside" - at some point it will stop snowing

"I'm banned from my local book club for repeatedly asking if they made a movie for that one" - this too shall pass. Maybe in 4 years when I go back they'll forgive me and let me back in, and by that time I'll have watched Moby Dick - manual toggle of the ban back to 'off' is expected here.

"I was banned from Day9's stream for backseating" - here the ban would have an automatic limit, maybe something like a million seconds.

advertising them somewhere else, Tumblr, throwaway eBay listings, Spotify playlists,... here.

You missed a great opportunity to have 'here' be a link to an emulator.

Nintendo goes on to claim that this subreddit has played a central role in fostering Switch piracy,

Piracy has been long ago defined to be a service problem. Nintendo should be suing themselves. I hope the lawyers eat it all up.

I know, right? You can just get something else he's interested in. Like OP, maybe the kid likes antiquities, you could get him some from Benito Mussolini's 12000 piece collection in the Colonial Museum. Or maybe he likes art, you could buy him one of Hitler's paintings.

I'm just gonna keep your initial claim here for visibility

Vigilante justice is always wrong

Now, where did I claim that it's never wrong? Because that's what you seem to argue. You won't find such a claim from me though, because I agree with your implied point, which is more like "vigilante justice is usually wrong because an emotional mob doesn't weigh facts or proportional response, it just acts based on feeling". So yeah, that one seems great. But not ALWAYS wrong though.

I'll just give another example, since you gave one as well. Kid1 gets his bike stolen by kid2. He sees it happening and while he doesn't know the thief personally, he (with his parents help) contacts the police and provides a very detailed description of the bike and a decent visual description of the thief. Because this isn't really a top prio case, nothing happens for about 6 months. Then kid1 sees kid2 riding the bike around town, and he lucks into kid2 parking it in front of a small shop and going inside. Kid1 walks up to the bike, makes sure it's his, and rides off into the sunset with it.

So I ask - was it really always wrong for me to go and get my bike back?

He said that even after he couldn't get an erection, he would still imagine killing and having sex with people because it made him feel alive.

"I know exactly what you mean. You know what's better? When they're old and lonely and can't fight back or don't have anyone who'll believe them. I once shoved a kitchen knife in a 90 year old's ass cause he wouldn't stop whining when I fucked him. He loosened up real good after that."

Worst case scenario, you creeped out an old man with a bad sense of humor. Best case scenario, for the last days of his life a twisted psycho murderer who's been hiding his true nature behind good deeds gets to feel a tinge of fear whenever he's not sure he locked his door.

Vigilante justice is always wrong.

You keep saying this, but I don't understand why. Hear me out.

So, vigilante justice is justice outside the legal system. If you say it is always wrong, you implicitly say that the legal system is the only way to resolve things. In an ideal society, I would grant you that. But you're aware that even our laws today are imperfect, let alone the laws from tens or hundreds of years ago. So how can you stand by that claim? Surely if we allow for the system to be imperfect, it must mean that vigilante justice is sometimes the only possible way to achieve justice, and therefore right?

Aside from this: even if the system was perfect, laws are society's convention. They are not natural, they are man-made. That means man can also change them (and we do, constantly - parliament/congress/senate/whatever form it takes). But even if they weren't in constant change and they would reach a stability - is it still not the case that society must agree to obey them? If you give me hammurabi's code and tell me to live my life by it, I may agree and do it or I may think you're a fool and not do it. Same here - just because a vocal minority has decided the law that should govern everyone (even if that law is just and fair and impartial and righteous and by all means perfect) - it doesn't guarantee that it will be followed by the majority. So there will be situations where each of us will be a vigilante, outside the system of laws imposed by a third party. Is that really ALWAYS wrong to do? Because I can personally think of very many situations where it's not wrong.

So a country's internal politics don't matter unless they fall to Russia - that's what you said, right?

But wouldn't you agree that the country's internal politics are what decides if it falls to Russia or not? If education is not a subject they invest in, if its population isn't happy with the status quo, if they exhibit corruption, if their healthcare system is so bad that the middle class emigrates and leaves behind only the oligarchs and the poor, if their justice system doesn't work and they don't feel safe... All these internal politics have a huge impact on if a country can be influenced by Russia or any other nefarious agent.

I don't get what you're saying. You keep saying "yeah but we don't care about X", while X seems to be the direct cause of some of your problems that you DO care about. Are you trying to say Romania should take care of its shit internally so we don't have to deal with it, and not let it grow to the point where it's a problem for the rest of the EU?

Does this election not matter?

Briefly? No.

1. This is the first round of elections. It's not a FPTP system. Yes, he has a good shot at winning. But now he has to earn the votes which went to the "third party", so to speak. Which is difficult for both of the current candidates.
2. Romania's president has limited power and responsibilities. He's there as a a dignitary and usually handles foreign affairs more than internal ones. He's also powerless - the government and the parliament are where the power is.
3. Both these people are corrupt fucks. There is no winning this election. Yes, one's worse than the other. I'd struggle to say which, although the pro-russian seems to be just a tad more evil.
4. Human nature. Sure, the guy is pro Russia. Great. But how much time will he have to actually bring Romania closer to Russia if he has to split that time between trying to get the country out of NATO and trying to steal enough to retire comfortably? He won't get anything done, he's too greedy for it.

Edit: Seems like the number 2 spot in the election may be taken by a less corrupt candidate than initially thought - this invalidates my 3rd point a bit. I stand by the rest though.

You think that's somehow more likely than:

1. Fucker with full access to your bags while you're nowhere near them looks through your shit
2. When they find a bag full of money, said fucker gets to legally take a percentage by just tipping off the DEA, instead of just robbing you and risking being caught

?

It's the same low-to-medium quality crap that you can usually find on Amazon at a slightly higher price.

Including the restriction on bombing Israel?

Holy shit i just realized vegans can't even have noodles made with eggs. No wonder they have to make separate communities and offer each other support, life must be horrible when food tastes like cement.

And some people argue against the death penalty. Argh.

I think I heard it put like this once (paraphrasing):

Ads aren't to make you buy the product. Few people are gonna see a regular commercial about chocolate and go out and buy it. That's not their intent. They're meant for brand recognition. They're about that moment in the supermarket when you have 50 choices of what soda to get. 40 of them are noname and store brands. You'll almost never try them unless you want to save some money and/or aren't interested in what you're buying. But then you have your coke and pepsi. The old reliables - the names that are stuck in your head since forever. And sometimes you'll want to check out the new mountain dew or dr pepper flavors, cause you're curious. But when you're not in the mood for new, when you just want a soda and don't wanna think about it, you'll get a coke or a pepsi or one of the few brands whose name you recognize.

After 1000 raid shadow legends ads, guess what you're gonna feel like trying in 3 months when you get bored of your current mobile game and are scrolling through their top picks for games? "Hmm, Raid shadow legends? I've heard about this before, maybe I give it a try"

Sure, it backfires sometimes - for example, I always make it a point to not try out a game if I feel it's been in too many ads - I don't wanna waste time in something that blew its entire budget on marketing. But with most people this doesn't happen. And I'm pretty sure even I tried some item from an ad that I said I'd never get - the name probably just got stuck in my head and I got it without even realizing it.

Marketers make a shit load of money based on human psychology. They wouldn't be doing it if it didn't work.

There comes a point where being right doesn't matter more than the fact that they're cunts.

Sounds like a them problem. Nintendo are assholes.