Well since we’re apparently debating civil rights, I suggest we put YOURS up for debate. To start, anyone with your opinions obviously shouldn’t be allowed around children. You seem predisposed to commit hate crimes. So you shouldn’t be allowed to work as a teacher or caregiver for children, you shouldn’t be allowed within 500’ of a park or playground, and you shouldn’t be allowed in public bathrooms where children are present. Sorry, but your bigotry simply makes you too dangerous to be allowed near children. Some kids are born queer, and you would probably try to hurt them. We need to restrict your civil rights for the sake of the children.

Kamala will keep saying “I’ll follow the law” on trans people, as she enforces the law sending us all to camps.

I have never seen one media person ask a blue state representative: “how far would you let things go, specifically, before you would use state law enforcement to directly resist federal agents to protect your own citizens? How bad would things have to get before you were willing to start shooting people?”

Perhaps the original sin of the Obama Administration was that they never dismantled the post 9/11 surveillance state. It was almost a perfect Tolkien allegory. They had this great, terrible, and Constitutionally dubious power they inherited from the prior administration. They could choose to use it or destroy it. Unfortunately our leaders are not as noble as hobbits, so Obama chose to keep the power for himself.

They can inspect the drives if they want. The key is they can’t access anything, as it’s encrypted, and they don’t have control over your physical person.

Why not keep your data remotely accessible and then go through customs with a blank device? If you’re only out for a few days, then download files as you need them. If you’re out for weeks or months, transfer a few TBs if need be. If you’re worried about internet transfer speeds, encrypt the files, put them on an external hard drive, and mail them to someone at your destination ahead of time.

Good old-fashioned robbery. Then when charged argue a defense of necessity.

To make such a defense, you have to show that the harm you sought to avoid exceeds the harmed caused by the crime you admit to performing. Robbing $40 from a random store obviously meets this threshold if the alternative is multiple people dying.

There are many cases where you can’t argue a defense of necessity. For example, if someone threatens to kill your family unless you kill some other person, you can’t argue a defense of necessity at your murder trial. You can’t sacrifice one life to save another. But if the crime you commit is obviously orders of magnitude less destructive than the alternative? Then yes, simply robbing a store for $40 to prevent multiple deaths could easily be argued as a necessity.

Hell, even if you’re not able to make that defense; it’s 40 bucks. What are the odds I’ll face anything other than probation for such a minor crime?

It’s the obvious answer, but sometimes the simplest answers are best. If I simply have to make 40 dollars within the next 3 hours, or people die? Yeah I’m just straight-up robbing somewhere.

And yet we are the only conscious beings on any of these heavenly bodies that are aware enough to give their existence any meaning at all.

The toxicity is the weird incel framing around the whole thing. It leans heavily into incel tropes about how women sleep around with physically attractive asshole men when younger and then look for a more stable “nice guy” men when older. The trope is that women will reproduce with asshole gym bro types and then seek relationships with nerds to obtain resources to raise the children they’ve given birth to. It’s the classic cuckhold meme.

The “backup option” part is the toxic thing. It frames women as farm animals looking for a mate, rather than actual complex human beings with different desires and changing personalities through their whole lives. Aka, just like men. People change, and they want different things at different points in their life.

It’s not that the woman in the story fucked a bunch of guys and then, as a last resort, settled for OP. I mean, just think of how absurd that idea is. It is literally not possible to run out of people to sleep with. They don’t think OP is beneath them and have always felt that way, only settling for them now. Why would she need to? There’s no shortage of other men out there if she thinks OP is beneath her.

Rather, people just want different things at different points in their lives. OP didn’t tick that box years earlier, but now maybe he does. She wasn’t attracted to him then, but she is now. The heart just works that way sometimes. There’s no need to add a bunch of incel bullshit to what is easily explainable as the complexities of human emotion.

The reason this is so toxic is that it’s applying this weird bizarre manipulative behavior to the woman in the story - aka parroting incel themes. It accuses her of this deliberate years-long plot, working through a long list of men she finds superior until finally settling for OP. This isn’t how human beings actually behave. Instead, she just happened to not be attracted to OP before, but happens to be now. You don’t need to go into it any deeper than that. People are complex and their hearts change.

This “backup option” framing is just really toxic and creepy.

This is some really disgusting co-option of LGBT identities to justify incel logic. Being gay is an intrinsic thing about someone. Judging someone for their number of past partners isn’t. One is innate, the other is cultural. You can instantly tell if you have an attraction to someone just by looking at them. A gay man looking at another man will instantly feel attraction if he’s his type. But number of partners? That’s something you can only learn by talking to someone. And there’s nothing innate about a person with more partners that makes them physically less attractive. Unless they have an STD, their body isn’t changed in any way.

People aren’t born with judgmental incel beliefs about the number of sexual partners other people have. Those are cultural practices, not innate aspects of a person’s physical being, like being gay or trans is. We have no evidence of such judgments existing among wild animals, while we have numerous examples of same-sex attraction in nature.

We should pass a law making it legal that whenever someone deflects an argument with a non-sequitur appeal to “free speech” that they be hauled up on top of a giant pyramid and have their beating heart ripped out with an obsidian knife, their life a sacrifice to the great Sun god.

If you have any objections to my batshit insane proposal, you hate free speech and are a traitor to America… and Huītzilōpōchtli.

Fucking clankers.

The thing I’ve been repeating? We literally hanged people exactly like Charlie Kirk for crimes against humanity at Nuremberg. If Kirk were alive in 1930s Germany, he would have been challenging people to debate him about “the Jewish question.”

If the shooter turns themselves in, do they get the money? OwO

Watching the media cow tow to white nationalism has been a really dark moment the last few days. The context everyone needs to know about Kirk is that we literally executed people like him at Nuremberg for doing the exact same type of thing he did. Except back then the debate bros were holding vigorous discussions about “the Jewish question.”

Why were they kangaroo courts? They were established by an International Charter.. You can point out that the Nazi’s crimes weren’t illegal under German law, but who cares? Multiple jurisdictions can exist simultaneously. Sure there’s an element of ex post facto in making crimes against humanity a legal charge after the fact, but the ex post facto protections are something we democratically agreed to adopt. And maybe we can just agree to not let genocide be subject to ex post facto protections under international treaty. Yes, this was all just made up by people, but ultimately all laws and legal systems were first dreamed up by people doing a lot of improvisation.

Sure. But that doesn’t mean he didn’t deserve it. In a just world he would be tried and hanged. Unfortunately we do not live in a just world. Best we get is “those who live by the sword will die by the sword.”

Of course it was deserved. We hanged people at Nuremberg for doing the exact same thing Kirk spent his whole life doing.

Kirk didn’t deserve to be shot. In a just world, he would have been tried and hanged for incitement to genocide, just like we did to men like him at Nuremberg.

As a reminder, we hanged people at Nuremberg for doing exactly what Charlie Kirk spent his whole career doing.