Lurker > Gaawa_chan

Revelation34 posted...

There's no reason to get the covid test if you're fully vaccinated.

Wrong.
I get tested once a week at work, along with everyone else in my workplace despite the fact that over 90% of us are vaccinated. Lo and behold, we caught wind of an outbreak just the other day. 14 people in the building with the Delta variant, thanks to ONE stupid, selfish, anti-vax, anti-mask, murdering motherfucker. We've had to convert part of the building into a fucking quarantine ward.

Blighboy posted...

This is the future Liberals want

Wait 'til they send your family the bill for ventilating your dead ass.

---

Hi

I don't even have enough money to go to the doctor, so no.

---

Hi

I mean, "Suicide Squad" is inextricably linked with "sucking ass" at this point, so... It doesn't help that Covid is STILL a big issue, what with people refusing to get vaccinated+the new strains.

---

Hi

Jen0125 posted...

God can we please dispel the theory that those in education has to be some chaste high moral sexual example to children?

While we're at it, why don't we police how parents interact with each other around their children, just to make sure they're setting a proper example? You made out with your wife in front of your kids? Degenerate CRT pushers!

---

Hi

OhhhJa posted...

Idk I think that probably is what it was about but racism is more fun I guess

Some parents accused him of pushing critical race theory and programs that ensured equality and diversity of which they say is harmful and is itself racist on white people

Oh, yeah, they clearly were bothered by how sexy the photos are and not the races of the people in the photos.

---

Hi

Is Chess part of the Olympics?

No?

That's my answer then.

---

Hi

Carter-A259 posted...

Like wtf is the point of the movie then?

Depends on the individual movie. Some of them are making social commentary, for example, like Night of the Living Dead. Really obvious example, where the black hero survives the zombies only to be gunned down by a bunch of trigger happy white people.

There's cautionary tales, as mentioned. Frankenstein isn't killed on-screen, but it's implied he's going to die going after his creation by the end as I recall, and the whole story of Frankenstein is a sort of sci-fi cautionary tale.

There's also playing into the ideas of either a twist ending (lots of slashers) or using the theme of powerlessness/hopelessness/fate/etc (Hereditary), or genre tradition, even.

But it's like... you have to choose the tone of your ending. You want it hopeful? Hopeless? Bittersweet? Ambiguous? Shocking? Whether or not your protag survives/escapes and how they survive/die/escape (and also, whether or not they are corrupted by the end) is useful for setting the final tone of the piece.

---

Hi

Yes, please. Bonus points if you start just slightly away from famous landmarks but you're too small and out of the way to notice at first.

---

Hi

Pro monarchy propaganda.

---

Hi

Thought of another one:
Skip to 5:37 for Nazis Without Aptitude's We Hate Everyone (no seriously CW on this one because they're making fun of Nazis).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOjFmOJs6BI

---

Hi

Full Throttle posted...

Some parents accused him of pushing critical race theory and programs that ensured equality and diversity of which they say is harmful and is itself racist on white people

What scum.

---

Hi

Ah, you'll be mailing ReturnofFa your crown, then.

---

Hi

Sycophant posted...

It would solve homelessness if there were sweatshops in the USA but even they pay

I think you're confusing sweatshops with company towns maybe? We have done both in the USA and both were utter disasters.

---

Hi

Yes, that's what this country needs. Literal slave wages.

---

Hi

Before there was Cardi B, there was Lords of Acid... and I'm actually not sure if I'm allowed to link their stuff, lol. Bloodhound Gang has some fun ones, too.

Edit: Eh, why not?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkOHDoEkPW0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xat1GVnl8-k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTexKDn1bu0

---

Hi

I've played very few FPS, Fighter, and Sports games (so no COD/Battlefield/Halo/Dead Space, Mortal Kombat/Street Fighter, FIFA/Forza/etc).
Guitar Hero (my cousin has them but I've never played them)
Assassin's Creed
Overwatch/League of Legends
PUBG/Fortnite
Rocket League

I've sometimes watched other people play these games, but never played them myself.

---

Hi

adjl posted...

More accurately:

Basically this. People heavily underestimate how much replacement hormones affect the body, btw. If people were actually interested in learning about this topic instead of just using it as an excuse to bash trans people, I'd recommend looking up the subject of trans people in sports on Riley Grace Roshong's youtube channel, but... *shrug*

The way we structure sports right now really sucks for intersex people, btw.

---

Hi

I'd like to point out that the cramped quarters we keep livestock in help facilitate the spread and mutation of diseases that transfer to humans. With all the health problems the meat industry causes, cutting into their profits by forcing them to stop squeezing so many animals into such little space might actually save us all money overall.

Anyway, just something to think about since most people don't give af about abusing animals so long as that abuse isn't sexual.

---

Hi

KodyKeir posted...

I'm going to go with J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings: Volume 1

This is actually a pretty good pick, having played the game myself. I would like to point out, though, that the game's OST has some of the best songs I've ever heard on the SNES. The title theme and Hobbiton are amazing tracks; they still sound excellent.
But that is not enough to save the game. Pretty much everything else in the game is a total mess. Oh, one other thing I'll say in its favor is that it is multiplayer, and it actually does benefit a lot from being so because it reduces the impact of the atrocious AI.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMRS1ace7lY

---

Hi

"People are all the same if you peel away their skin... Just like bananas. It's no exaggeration to say that all humanity is bananas."

"'I can hear the voices of those I killed.' That's what he said, fearfully. Even though the dead have no mouths."

"I'm scared of what I don't know... so I'm afraid of others' hearts, and very afraid even of myself."

"Your guilt, just beginning to walk, is coming to kill you."

There are lots of good quotes from End Roll, but those are a handful.

---

Hi

@ poll, it really depends on the circumstances, imo. Such things aren't always that simple or easy.

---

Hi

What little I've heard about Chris Chan indicates that institutionalization is probably something that would have been appropriate years ago. Sad. It would probably also be a good idea, considering the apparent stalking and harassment, to give Chris Chan a different identity, not to shield from the consequences of criminality, but to shut off what is clearly only doing damage.

---

Hi

I would be curious to know what restraints are permitted and under what circumstances for those cops and the logic behind it.

---

Hi

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It's not a matter of recognition, but willingness to make sacrifices for the "lower classes". There's no return for them on such a decision, they just lose out.

Even if we all assumed you are correct about property values for the sake of argument (you're not)...

You've already admitted yourself that leaving people out on the streets had a negative impact on the non-homeless population in a given area. If property values are going to be affected both by the existence of homelessness AND by eradicating homelessness, the logical choice is to eradicate homelessness, because EVERYONE benefits from that in a variety of ways, not just the short-term value of property.

Bitching about property values dropping if we help the homeless while simultaneously bitching about drug paraphernalia and hygiene problems also dropping property values AND making a place less safe when homelessness exists is absolutely absurd. You either care about solving these problems or you don't... unless...

You want homelessness to exist because property owners profit off of it, but you don't want to deal with any of the other consequences of homelessness (such as the presence of homeless people affecting those same property values). The logical conclusion to draw from your position is that you want poor people to become homeless so that people can profit off of that, and then you want homeless people to die so that you don't have to worry about their existence cutting into that profit.

You know, people talk a lot about wealth redistribution and how horrible it is when the "Left" does it, but what the fuck is this exactly except a demand that we consolidate wealth for the already wealthy to the point where it KILLS people? How is that not an obscene sort of wealth redistribution?

Funnily enough, this attitude of yours ends up destroying locales far more effectively than reduced property values from ending homelessness ever would. It's the attitude that is ravaging the town I grew up in, where non-tribal property owners blocked construction of a rehabilitation center and disposal resources on tribal land for a year and a half. Because they did this, efforts to clean up the drug paraphernalia in the region were severely delayed and now you cannot go into any of the parks or wilderness outside the town for the needles all over the place. Gee, I wonder what that did to their property values?

Krazy_Kirby posted...

I guess you are fine with junkies shooting up in your neighborhood and leaving their paraphernalia around then.

Safe disposal of drug paraphernalia would be a non-issue of drug use was not criminalized and we invested more in disposal and rehabilitation infrastructure. I would like to point out that the same people fixated on "MUH PROPERTY VALUE!" also oppose efforts to invest in removing drug paraphernalia off the streets and create more rehab centers, also because of "MUH PROPERTY VALUE!" See my response above.

This is all irrelevant, however, because:

adjl posted...

Actually, Medicine Hat saved money with this program. It was costing them 2-3 times more per homeless person to police and otherwise manage them while homeless than it is costing to house and support them. There was no need to increase taxes at all, as crazy as that seems.

Decriminalizing and ending homelessness SAVES MONEY. Study after study after study have proven this to be the case. Programs designed to end homelessness, dispose of drug paraphernalia, and rehabilitate users instead of jailing them SAVE MONEY. You're all working off of the false premise that getting people off the streets will cost more, but it doesn't.

---

Hi

bshwalker posted...

Native Americans are treated no worse than any other citizen of the US which is a rather low bar to start with.

Who said that?

Okay, let's put aside the fact that the last of those genocidal schools ended in 1978. Yes. Less than fifty years ago, the US government was still committing active genocide against indigenous Americans.

Refer to this document and scroll down to point 5:
https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/249815.pdf
This source is a great example of the sort of violence pretty much every indigenous American group faces across both the USA and Canada. This is not even mentioning what happens to them in Central and South America; the current leader of Brazil is a fucking genocidal lunatic and he is quite open about it.

To this day the US government and various corporations continue to create new violations of the already grossly violated treaties formed with the tribal nations. I would have expected that the outright mixed reaction to the discovery of mass graves of children in Canada prompting calls to look for the same in the USA would have woken you up to the fact that US institutions were brutalizing little children up until 1978... and have been sitting on evidence of doing so ever since to avoid the consequences, and DO NOT want people going to look for it. There's nothing equitable about any of this.

God, this isn't even going into local stuff. The destruction of rivers on tribal land, the constant abductions of indigenous women... in the town where I used to live, currently run by a Q-anon mayor, the local government is blocking the local tribe from building an important social service center on property that THE TRIBE OWNS and, yes, they are using racist conspiracy theories to justify doing so. That's just a tiny glimpse of the absolute bullshit they have to put up with every day, and yes, it IS racially motivated. The US government still wants that land, and racists still want to brutalize indigenous people with impunity (and there are laws and supreme court rulings on the books TODAY that help them get away with doing so). Edit: It's worth pointing out that the Violence Against Women Act actually has sections that are supposed to help mitigate some of those aforementioned rulings (and yes, that means that the people who do not vote to renew the Violence Against Women Act are literally pushing to allow for more legal immunity to non-indigenous rapists of indigenous people) but it is hideously insufficient.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...
I would prefer that most people don't show me their genitals. I'm not looking to do anything with them.
From the description it doesn't sound like I would find this person physically attractive. Their sex is irrelevant.

Thank you very much for illustrating my point for me. You are not interested in the topic at hand; you just care about talking points peddled to you from ideologues. You aren't asking questions to learn- you're asking questions in the hopes that someone will have some sort of "hole" that you can insert some hack's snarky one-liner into, and when you don't find any, you just disengage and wave it off with a sort of limp-wristed one-liner. Sad.

---

Hi

wydrah posted...

On point.

Too dumb to realize he's dumb.

That's not quite fair; I understand that people get confused if this isn't something they've been educated on, but the problem is that:

1. They claim to want answers about the nature of such things, but refuse to actually engage with it to learn; they could easily look all of this up on their own and save everyone time (and find themselves far better worded explanations than anything they could get on freaking video game boards) but instead of learning about the topic at hand, they get all their information off of people who misrepresent stuff for ideological reasons. They don't have to do that. They could go straight to the source to learn what CRT is instead of going off of social media posts and partisan corporate media sensationalism, but they don't. It suggests that they don't actually want to learn what something is; they just want to learn the talking points to reject it out of hand. Why? Well...
2. They are weirdly emotionally attached to outdated methods of categorization. Maybe it's my autism but I just don't understand it at all.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Originally, it was determined by where a person's reproductive organs were located. There's nothing superficial or nebulous about that. It was purely utilitarian in regard to the method for passing on of genes. The modern day definition is far more nebulous.

... No, we never decide whether the person we just met is a man or a woman based on their genitals, because people don't walk around naked all the time... unless you live in a nudist colony, I guess. You've never had anyone pull down their pants to help you determine their sex, nor demanded a chromosome test. If you're referring to doctors estimating a child's sex based upon their outer characteristics, you should have said THAT, but even then it's inaccurate due to sex characteristics that only arise during puberty and the existence of intersex people.

What you and others throughout human history have done is taken a bunch of characteristics, plotted them on two points*, and then when you observe a person, you tally up those observed sex characteristics and make a subjective estimation of a person's sex based upon the sum total of those characteristics. Most people don't know their chromosomes. And you have never seen the genitals of 99% of the people you interact with, but I am willing to bet that you think you know their sexes. You don't.
Edit: * This is me being inaccurate for the sake of brevity. Many cultures have recognized the existence of people who do not fit into one of the two extremes, and this applies both to sex and gender (though we're just talking about sex atm). It's just that the modern dominant cultures have historically not done so.

A thought experiment to illustrate my point: A person walks up to you. This person has quite a bit of body hair, wide shoulders, but also appears to have breasts and small hands. What is this person's sex? Is this person a cis male with delicate hands who has lost a lot of weight rapidly? Is this person a cis woman with a hormonal disorder? Is this an intersex person? Is this a trans woman or a trans man?

You don't know, because this person could easily fit into any of these categories based upon your metrics. ALL of these categories can possess ALL of these traits. So what's going on? Answer: your categorization system is flawed. These metrics exist, but are completely arbitrary; it is true that they do gravitate towards general extreme trends, but a 2 point system (binary) is clearly insufficient. It's excluding all exceptions save for the most extreme examples. it is therefore far more accurate to instead use a bimodal scale. With a bimodal system, medical treatment of patients becomes more accurate and scientific studies benefit more, and culturally, people who do not plot into the stereotypical extremes are not treated like absolute shit.

Just look at how people bend over backwards to justify how intersex people don't even need to be categorized because they're... what? Defects? They exist but the system people want us to keep using doesn't account for them at all! And people make excuses for a system that is obviously inferior and is NOT working as well as the alternative, but they don't have to! This is like making excuses for the failures of Linaean taxonomy for classifying mammals! Why are you bothering to emotionally defend a less accurate category method? Because you're comfortable with it? The bimodal system accounts for intersex people completely; it's literally more accurate AND more useful, both to scientists and medical practitioners, but people won't accept it because it offends them for some reason, it's ridiculous. These categories only exist for us to get utility out of them, and the bimodal system offers more accuracy and utility, ergo, if we're going to make categories based upon sex characteristics at all, the bimodal system is unambiguously superior to the binary system.

Much like the traits we use to describe mammals in Linaean Taxonomy do exist; they are factual traits, but the CATEGORY is arbitrary and flawed. It outright excludes examples of animals that should by all rights be categorized as mammals, but do not possess the arbitrary cluster of traits required to fit into that category. It's not that these traits don't exist; it's that the methodology of categorization is in and of itself both flawed and a statement in and of itself about what you prioritize and value. Outdated methods of categorization should be discarded when we have better ones; it really is that simple.

Perhaps I am not phrasing this well... *sigh* uh, watch this then. I looked it up while at work. Basically what I'm saying, but better phrased. She uses a hypothetical using heights:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koud7hgGyQ8

Oddly, I think the issue of social constructs was easy for me to get a grasp on and accept in great part because I already knew about the mess of categorization that was Linaean taxonomy years and years ago. The platypus thing is a great example of why Linaean taxonomy is just... not a good social construct for categorizing organisms; it's just too inaccurate. And there was pushback on changing that system as well, btw. If you're even just mildly into the history of taxonomy, seeing old examples of people rigorously trying to defense Linnaeus' work is, um... pretty pathetic, tbh.

---

Hi

Unbridled9 posted...

That is an unacceptable definition.

I agree. It's ridiculous to frame colonialism as if only European nations have committed it. Historically European nations have done it the most, sure, but China is a colonizing imperial power as well.

And let me guess 'real communism hasn't been tried' as well?

... What the fuck does that have to do with anything I said?

No one is disputing that America's history with racial relations has been... strained... at best.

That also has nothing to do with what I said. A unique situation requires unique analysis to get the most out of said analysis. In terms of racial history, you're going to miss out on things if you use a one size fits all framework; Brazil's racial history is very different from the USA's, which is very different from China's, which is very different from New Zealand's, etc, etc...

Did you say this just because you have no rebuttal to the fact that everyone accepts the writings of Frederick Douglass, but you're fearmongering about the framework of analysis based off of his work and the work of those like him?

I mean the civil rights act only happened in the 1960's, we had a civil war over it, and the south basically rebelled against England because they were afraid that increasing English influence would result in their slaves being freed.

You're just making my point for me.

However the solution to that isn't to cram all white people (some of which have some VERY strongly negative feelings about each other due to their histories) into a single homogenous group, proclaim they have all the power when many of them have ancestors who came to America specifically because they had NO power, claim they all engage in a racist system, and then redefine words and change history to non-sense meanings whenever someone points out that they don't make sense.

There is an exception to outlawing slavery still enshrined in the Constitution, but you don't believe in systemic racism. Okay.

I mean, you guys haven't even defined what 'white' even IS yet. Just said that society defines that.

Because we would have to give you like five or six different ones in succession. It's easier to explain the history of whiteness than a definition, because, it being a social construct, the definition has shifted repeatedly over the course of history. Originally "white" simply referred to the English. Now it includes Germans (er...), Greeks, Slavs, Italians, the Irish (some people include Egyptians in it but that's rare), etc, etc... but no one wants to type out thousands of words worth of information about the history of whiteness when you could just get up off your ass and google it yourself, since you probably wouldn't even read it anyway.

Look, an easier example. What originally defined a woman vs a man? We usually use superficial sex characteristics to do that, but these are nebulous- even going by those categories, there is a lot of overlap between both sexes among cis people. Once we learned about chromosomes, we changed the definition of the sexes, but it was insufficient because it didn't take into account that all of these traits wind up on a bimodal chart rather than a binary one. And this method of categorization boils down to a lazy shorthand for what our society finds useful to group up- sex as a category, even though it's based upon factual attributes, is a social construct.

To people who know anything about the history of taxonomy, this shifting of categories is nothing new. Linnaean Taxonomy (you know "Mammals produce milk, give birth to live young, etc") is a highly flawed form of categorization, because you keep running into evolutionary exceptions (like the platypus) that don't fit into the category but are, undeniably, mammals. This is why we use Phylogenetic Taxonomy now, and that works far better... now imagine you have a bunch of people screaming about how Phylogenetic Taxonomy is a communist plot that is changing the meaning of the word "mammal." That is what you sound like to us. :-/

I'd say more in a less lazy and more polite way but I have to go to work so just... yeah that's all I have to go crap.

---

Hi

Metalsonic66 posted...

Ohshit David Attenborough is a PotDer

It's like middle school biology.

---

Hi

Unbridled9 posted...

Because a viewpoint like CRT can't function if it acknowledges that Europeans aren't the only colonial power in the world and similar, identical, and even worse colonial powers have existed; including among the very same groups that they are claiming are oppressed.

... but it's literally designed to specifically examine American law and history, because America's relationship to the trans-atlantic slave trade and its race relations are unique (same goes for a lot of countries, but the point is that a more generic framework would not give the same insight).

It's always so telling when people who have no idea what CRT is start whining about it. It's literally related to the work of American heroes like Frederick Douglass, but people keep acting as though it's some sort of communist revisionist plot. It's not.

---

Hi

Highly specialized organisms are particularly vulnerable to sudden, severe environmental changes, such that the thing that made them best equipped to survive, their specialization, can become their collective death sentence. Hunting, and then deforestation and climate change have absolutely devastated that species.

---

Hi

OhhhJa posted...

You make lots of good points but I think this point can't be minimized. It is the single most important factor in terms of quality of life. Modern medicine has saved countless lives of people that would've never survived birth or infancy as well as people with conditions or diseases that are easily treatable now that were a death sentence then. Hell, I possibly may not have survived as a baby back then because I had jaundice

I think it's a fair and reasonable position to choose the modern era for the existence of modern medicine.

---

Hi

OhhhJa posted...

Yeah it was good times back then. Ya know, dying of diseases that would be easily treatable now as well periods of famine. Women dying during childbirth. Children dying of things that would be easily treatable now. Barbaric warfare and massive amounts of unchecked rape

Pandemics were not as common in pre-Columbian USA because civilization in the western hemisphere was not organized the same way it was in the east (lower population densities + large distances between civilizations = slower spread, and they also did not have chickens/cows/pigs, so the western hemisphere had fewer infectious diseases- syphilis is the most famous one). Modern medicine aside (as it is definitely a large point in favor of the modern era being best), it's ridiculous that you think the modern era is somehow significantly better in terms of war/rape, particularly when it comes to the Americas (the history of post-Columbus Americas is just a non-stop onslaught of genocide and war, be it on this soil or shipping our folks out to butcher people overseas), and particularly when it comes to the indigenous peoples, who even today have some of the worst statistics in terms of being victims of violence in the country in great part owing to a Supreme Court ruling that made it impossible for tribes to prosecute non-tribe members who committed crimes against them *googles* Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe (1978).

But to be honest, I was not thinking in those terms; my chosen metric was that indigenous Americans utilized resources more sustainably, and as we teeter on the cusp of irreversible climate damage and a non-stop barrage of global superbug pandemics, it seems a bit silly to act as though this is some sort of inarguable truth that the modern day was better than the pre-Columbus Americas. After that time, the western hemisphere's history can be summarized thusly: genocide -> colonialism -> non-sustainable industrialization -> climate change + global pandemics with highly resilient superbugs + unending waves of multi-nation wars and economic crashes.

None of that leads to long-term stability/sustainability, and I do tend to prioritize that over modern conveniences, though that's definitely a YMMV thing. It's really not a matter of any era being particularly great. While they all have their ups and downs, you're basically trying to pick out which is the "least shit."

You also completely ignored the part where I said that it's basically either pre-columbian era... OR today. Any spot between those two points means that you're compromising both of the best aspects those two points offer- sustainability and fewer pandemics vs modern medicine and conveniences.

---

Hi

Yes, I don't want children.

---

Hi

You know what's cowardly? Pressuring athletes into making decisions that result in the premature ending of their careers, like what Kerri Strug's coach did to her. It is not laudable to break yourself for the short-term entertainment of others.

---

Hi

Reigning_King posted...

You're completely missing the point of that post btw.

You really are incapable of responding to a single thing people actually say, aren't you?

---

Hi

zebatov posted...

People who are vaccinated are probably the most complacent and dangerous. If Im not vaccinated, Ill be more cautious in touching things/my face. Meanwhile people who are vaccinated, truly believe theyre fully protected and cant be carriers or pass it on to others. They will naturally, due to MSM, blame the unvaccinated in any spike in cases.

This hasn't been my experience, but then again, I work at a facility that takes vaccination and PPE standards very seriously. We have over a 90% vaccination rate of our employees (lower in the general population, though, sub 45%), we get tested regularly for free, and we all mask up and sanitize and distance; that sort of routine precaution is easy enough to extend outside of the workplace. Here, the anti-vaxxers in town are the ones that are running around without masks because they consider it a virtue signal that they don't, rather than a matter of health.

---

Hi

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It's as though it's fine to judge people for what they do, not who they are.

Homelessness is not something that someone does. Being a victim of domestic violence or being kicked out of your home by your family is not a choice. Being laid off is not a choice. Being mentally ill is not a choice. Housing prices going up while wages stagnate is not a choice. Economic crashes are not a choice.

Of course you think that everyone who is homeless just refuses to work or some nonsense like that. Most of the homeless people I have known DO work, including underage homeless people. You're just relying on stereotypes to do your arguing for you. In recent years, the homeless people I've met? They were my coworkers, usually either using the temporary rooms our workplace has or living out of their cars. Most of them were victims of domestic violence, though one had struggled with homelessness ever since his family had kicked him out at age 12.

---

Hi

OhhhJa posted...

It's great money for pfizer

If you have a problem with a company making money off of the health care needs of the population, there's a solution to that. Like... if you're going to peddle a conspiracy, at least have the decency to offer a solution. Letting diseases spread unchecked is obviously not an option, so the alternative to companies profiting off of health crises is universal non-profit health care. Correct me if I am wrong, but you do not support such a thing, yes? So what's your solution, since you're apparently so horrified at the prospect of a company making money off of a functional product it has produced?

---

Hi

Reigning_King posted...

For one there is no way to verify the account as described and even if it was completely true it is merely anecdotal and not at all the norm.

You demanded people meet standards you don't hold yourself to... and of course the moment someone meets your standards, this is your best counter?

The account is true, and it's not self-congratulatory in the slightest; my parents offered that shelter to those people, not me. Homelessness is far less common in the place I currently live, and the place I work at has guest rooms that people can use in case of emergencies, so on the occasion that someone does need temporary housing, they are usually given shelter there (it's much nicer than staying at my current residence anyway, lol).

My point in telling that story was not to brag, but to illustrate that nothing negative came about sheltering those people. You just assume that homeless people are somehow inherently dangerous or expensive to shelter, that it's a massive imposition to help keep a person off the streets, but that's just one more way that people demonize the homeless in order to justify inaction; it's not true.

If you want more details, I can elaborate. I admit my memory of my years living there is a bit hazy; I experienced some trauma as a child (not relevant to the topic at hand) and deliberately avoided thinking about those years for a long time. With the exception of the girl mentioned earlier, most of the underage people who stayed with us were either from our town or the town about 30 minutes away. My older sisters were highly social and I think they were the ones who made it clear to them that they could come to us if they needed to. Those towns still have a lot of problems... by all accounts, it's worse than ever over there. A real shame.

a denial of common sense and reality by doing things like implying it isn't the norm to be selfish or that something like homelessness can just be solved the same way one would a math problem.

A denial of common sense and reality, how exactly? It seems to me like turning a blind eye to people in need out of selfishness is more a denial of reality than anything you're suggesting.

No, it isn't the norm to be selfish. Humans are by their very nature social animals that, with few exceptions, have emotions, expressions, and behaviors that facilitate empathy and mutual aid. You just claim that that it is the norm to be selfish in order to justify your own selfishness; now THAT is the logic of a child, one who was apparently taught to reject their social nature. Ironic that you get it all so backwards.

Offering people shelter is not naive or childish... it isn't even selfless; there is mutual benefit to it, as I indicated. There are pragmatic and logical reasons to want to prevent people from ending up on the streets, both on a personal level and on one as a member of a society.

You don't get to piss and moan about the existence of homeless people, then fail to do anything to reduce homelessness, and then scoff at people who are willing to do what you aren't just because it hurts your ego. Either choose to be a better person, or at the very least have the decency to stay out of the way of people who are actually willing to do the work to make the world a better place. No serious person peddles Atlas Shrugged nonsense in the 21st century; her poorly thought-out tripe was outdated before it was even put to paper.

I wouldn't be surprised if that poster was a wannabe communist for similar ideological reasons, a chaser of pipe dreams that is to say.

I think it says a lot about you that you think that low-effort charity+advocacy for fixing systemic problems = communist pipe dreamer. If homelessness is a problem that cannot be fixed, then why is it that there are countries that have, for all intents and purposes, eliminated homelessness? You make some pretty strong statements about the nature of humanity, the world, etc... but honestly, just a few google searches will show people that you're full of it.

Homelessness is something that can be all but eliminated; we know this because places have actually done it. Society only stands to gain by doing so, and only stands to lose by not doing so; putting aside all ethical concerns, we waste time, money, and effort shitting all over these people (cops will often destroy or steal their property, for example; it's a monumental waste) when we could instead prevent their falling of the grid to begin with and keep them contributing to society. There is no reason to oppose replicating efforts made in other nations to eliminate homelessness here... well, not unless you're in the housing industry, I suppose.

---

Hi

Yes. There are too many anti-vaxxers in the area where I live and I work in a place with vulnerable adults. Even though I'm vaccinated, the vaccine does not offer much protection against the Delta strain, so I have to be careful not to put those people, as well as my asthmatic nephew, at risk. I also don't have insurance, so if I get very sick, I could lose what little money I have.

---

Hi

In b4 the typical gang on this board show up to downplay the foulness of the work environment.
What will it be this time?
"That didn't happen because I don't want to consider the fact that this is a common thing."
"That's not that bad because I frame victimization as if it can be tiered/ranked so I can dismiss it when it makes me uncomfortable."
"That's just a one-off incident because I don't want to believe in systemic/cultural problems."
"Why aren't we talking about how scary false accusations are instead, since that's the only thing I think is relevant to me?"
Etc...

---

Hi

Yes. Untreated, of course, because I'm an American.

---

Hi

Pre-invasion from Europe, probably, so like... 1480s or earlier? Other than that, I guess it's today, but that says less about how great today is and more about how godawful it's been in the past. From the poll, maybe either the 60s or 90s. Still a ton of bullshit going on then, but... eh... I'll give a vote to 60s just because Fa said no one has voted for that yet.

---

Hi

Reigning_King posted...

There are so many sympathetic people on this board it brings a tear to my eye. I'm sure all of you would be happy to let some homeless people camp in your yard or even move into your home with you. At the very least I'm sure you donate plenty of your extra money and possessions to those less fortunate than you and you aren't just saying things because they "feel" right without actually thinking them through.

This is not the own you think it is for so, so many reasons. This is a self-report.

My family has sheltered multiple homeless people through my life. Most of them were underage- victims of child abuse. I remember one year, we deliberately kept a window open so that a boy could come in at night in case of emergencies. Sometimes they only stayed for a day or two, but we did have two noteworthy long-term guests; a man, who I think had trouble with mental illness that interfered with his ability to keep a job (and obviously he couldn't afford treatment, so he was stuck in a loop), and a teenage girl who had been kicked out of her home for having the audacity to, I shit you not, wear pants instead of full-length skirts (we also think her parents murdered her cat, because they threatened to do so and the cat did go missing).

It was never a problem. Every single person under our roof was kind and respectful and we brought mutual joy into each other's lives, and it was a great privilege to help people in need. Even the ones I can barely remember, I have only fondness for. I just wish it hadn't been necessary.

This attitude yours, which many share, is proof enough that the charity of individuals like that which my family offers is no substitute for systemic solutions, and speaks volumes about your own nature, not that of others; you projecting your own selfishness onto everyone around you and while simultaneously turning up your nose and properly solving this problem speaks volumes about you and no one else.

Much like medical bankruptcy, this is a problem that doesn't have to exist. We know what needs to be done to fix this, but so long as people like you fearmonger and demonize victims of extreme poverty for no goddamn reason, systemic solutions to homelessness will not gain sufficient public support. It literally costs you nothing to stop being an impediment to making the world a better place. Try to grow up, please.

---

Hi

https://kotaku.com/inside-blizzard-developers-infamous-bill-cosby-suite-1847378762
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vM4j9Soyt9A
Yeah, if people on here still have doubts about how bad the work environment is there...

---

Hi

Trayvon was the one standing his ground against a murderous stalker.

---

Hi

I'm pretty sure one of my cats has that mark.

---

Hi

Krazy_Kirby posted...

those have years of data

This is a non-argument; how long a vaccine has existed has no bearing on its efficacy. We already have sufficient data to prove that the vaccines worked against the strains they were designed to combat. Try again.
I am a COVID 19 screener. You're just baselessly fearmongering about hypotheticals instead of working off of existing information.

---

Hi