Shoot them

We’re allowed to kill Abe Lincoln and JFK, why aren’t we allowed to kill these guys? Why does Reagan get plot armor out of all the presidents? Who wrote this shit?

To be fair JFK getting shot was pretty epic though. He almost caused nuclear holocaust (although a more rabidly anti-communist president may have definitely caused nuclear holocaust), war crimed the South Vietnamese a ton, and stabilized Israel. RFK getting assassinated was less epic because that gave us Nixon

I have plenty of WEBP and every image editing/viewing application I have installed can use it fine. Including, but not limited to:

pdn, GIMP, Krita, Aseprite, InkScape, OpenToonz, IrfanView

I think Apple users have issues with Webm & Webp? But the issue here is using Apple products in the first place. Losing 90% of basic functionality is what you expect when using one of those.

They are the strongest DRM on the market.

LMAO you have got to be shitting me. It is the bare minimum for DRM, it’s weak as fuck and games protected by Steamworks DRM are cracked almost immediately by casuals

🤝 Single gay guys with conservative parents

Not gonna be active on Discord tonight. I’m meeting a girl (a real one) in half an hour (wouldn’t expect a lot of you to understand anyway) so please don’t DM me asking me where I am (im with the girl, ok) you’ll most likely get aired because ill be with the girl (again I don’t expect you to understand) shes actually really interested in me and its not a situation i can pass up for some meaningless Discord degenerates (because ill be meeting a girl, not that you really are going to understand) this is my life now. Meeting women and not wasting my precious time online, I have to move on from such simple things and branch out (you wouldnt understand) @everyone

All that to say that taking the position that you have a right to tell others how to live is an asshole position.

Yeah no not at all when they literally only exist to endanger the lives of others. This is like saying it’s an “asshole position” that neo-Nazis and the KKK can’t rally and fire guns in public spaces because they have a right to live how they want. After all, they totally aren’t a danger to literally everyone who’s not a right-wing white guy, they’re just living how they want. Although you apparently listen to Joe Rogan so I wouldn’t be surprised if you are a neonazi collaborator.

“Science has its limits” is no reason to entertain seemingly schizophrenic beliefs in the divine. We have actual facts, they have their fake God.

If you think “communication devices can be used by pedophiles” is anywhere comparable to “this specific type of vehicle is literally killing thousands of children and polluting the environment and is one of the greatest threats to you in your everyday life” then you’re unable to be reasoned with. They have a choice to literally just use a sedan or even a van or something that isn’t superbly effective at murdering pedestrians, but they choose to blow a hundred thousand on a fancy orphan-crushing tank.

Also…

You can’t prove why two people in love… You can’t scientifically explain why.

YOU LITERALLY CAN DO EXACTLY THIS. This is a matter of technological advancement and the fact that human brains have an inconceivable amount of complex data in them for our current observation methods and have a lot of plasticity, not whether it’s possible. You can already use biochemistry/neurology to accurately predict this kind of stuff, even exact responses to environmental stimuli, in some simpler creatures. It is scientifically possible to do the same thing for humans, it is just physics/chemistry. You’re gonna need a lot better argument than “[obviously complex thing in science] isn’t solved yet so science and religion are equally as rational”. It’s like saying we shouldn’t trust mathematics because we haven’t solved the Riemann Hypothesis. We already have real, reproducable proof that physics, chemistry, and all that are objective and accurate to reality and can be used to accurately tell the future, even if we haven’t completely solved them. There is no such thing for religion.

You also can’t measure “consciousness” because “consciousness” doesn’t mean anything. It’s a completely subjective word that wildly changes based on who you ask. There is no “having consciousness” or “not having consciousness” or “having 50% consciousness” or something. It’s a ways we try to think of our perception/responses to the environment, which you can measure.

“Rationalism” doesn’t mean believing in shit some guys made up vaguely based on other shit guys made up a long time ago and saying it can’t be any more absurd than science. You wanna know what Rationalism is?

a belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response.

And you wanna know what empiricism is?

view that all concepts originate in experience, that all concepts are about or applicable to things that can be experienced, or that all rationally acceptable beliefs or propositions are justifiable or knowable only through experience.

Neither of these are fond of religious garbage. They are both ways of interpreting science, and they aren’t a complete dichotomy because scientists use both. Religion is just emotional, illogical, completely subjective, and not based in reality.

Schizophrenic people may often believe the delusions in their head are real. It’s excusable because it’s not really their fault, but I can’t excuse religious people for the same thing because they choose to believe this garbage, sometimes even well into adulthood. It is irrelevant that you think it is real or that schizophrenic people and people with dementia think their delusions are real. Or that children think the tooth fairy and santa are real. That doesn’t make it any more up for consideration to actually rational people. The logical conclusions from data are far more important than the make-believe of the Pope.

Religious beliefs aren’t real, they’re delusions, and being gay or some other random “sin” isn’t at all comparable to what I’m speaking of. Cars are the #1 cause of death in the US other than health complications, most of those SUVs, they are demonstratably extremely harmful to society even if you don’t consider how their dominance destroys our infrastructure design, increases stress, and how they pollute the Earth a ton.

It’s silly to cater to people who believe in Christianity or something similar when we have actual problems that we have proven solutions for, like getting rid of car-dependent infrastructure. Compared to say, being gay or uttering the words “oh my God”, which according to Christian belief are equally as bad as murder, slavery, and rape or even worse than it on the sin scale. If a religion believes in a hell, especially when believing in an omniscient and omnipotent future-seeing God, it’s worth immediately disregarding everything from.

Even entertaining the idea that the Christian ideas of morality have any basis in reality, especially putting it on the same level as actual science, is unbelievable.

Generally when tires are deflated it’s people who are in ultra expensive and dangerous SUVs which are basically just killing machines and nothing else. But people deflating tires is a very small amount in the community regardless, although I could see people deflating the tires of those who endanger others very realistic.

Yank tanks (unreasonably gigantic and dangerous SUVs which are almost always American, named so because other countries have started being infected by them and now the rest of the world is mad at us) are just bad. Owning one is bad, using one is especially bad, they only exist to be the bigger vehicle so they can “win” car crashes and crush pedestrians like a tank (and because they cna bypass emissions regulations). It isn’t a matter of “I want to live this way so you have to live this way”, it’s “you’re endangering the lives of everyone around you beyond a tolerable amount”. So no, it’s not relevant at all.

Honestly your argument kind of sounds like someone against no-smoking zones because “let people smoke, just because you don’t want to doesn’t mean they can’t”. Second hand smoke endangers the health of a lot of people around you, it has nothing to do with other peoples’ not wanting to smoke – same goes with SUVs, they’re one of the largest causes of death that isn’t a chronic health problem, they are a danger. If smoking at, say, a middle school were legal, and someone did it with kids around, I’d have no issue with stealing their smokes and chucking them into a trash can, even if what they were doing wasn’t illegal it’s still immoral. Even if it caused them serious issues and withdrawal and stuff, what they’re doing endangers others and I’m fine if someone takes it into their own hands to put a stop to it. You can apply that same logic to yank tanks.

car-centric infrastructure destroys cities and residential areas, you’re stupid if you think r/fuckcars is relevant to this meme. most people on r/fuckcars have a car

… people just send SMS to random phone numbers?

most C programs are just C++ programs with extra steps if you look at them close enough

snake case for everything, pascal case for struct/enum/class/trait names, and screaming snake case for constexpr identifiers is the superior method of naming. FUCK camel case, java/c# naming conventions are dumb and stupid and cringe, rust did it right

i’m in pain every time i use scala/f# or something and i have to actually interact with those HEATHEN java/c#-conformist identifiers

English phonology, American English dialects’ (and other dialects’) /r/ is usually pronounced retracted, post-alveolar/pre-palatal (usually bunched/molar), transcribed something like [ɹ̠ᶹ], so it causes alveolar consonants in the same cluster to retract/palatalize, usually into a post-alveolar affricate ([d͡ʒ] – the “j” sound for voiced stop /d/, [t͡ʃ] – the “ch” sound for voiceless stop /t/, [ʃ] – the “sh” sound for voiceless fricative /s/). The term would be assimilation (of place of articulation).

“Dragon” /dræ.gən/ -> [dɹ̠æ.ɡɪ̈n] -> [d̠ʒɹ̠æ.ɡ(ɪ̈)n]

You can see the same thing with words like “tree” /tri/ -> [t̠ʃɹ̠i] or even “street” /strit/ -> [ʃt̠ɹ̠it]

Would explain simpler but can’t, break ends now, just know its because consonant pronounced in different place in mouth is conforming to being pronounced in the same place in mouth as other consonant that is right beside it (like with “in-” vs “im-”, “impractical”, which notably isn’t “inpractical”, or “incandescent” which notably isn’t “imcandascent”, or “indecisive” etc. etc.)