Well all joking aside, he committed first degree murder so yeah. He should be prosecuted and sentenced to prison for several decades.

This should not be a difficult stance to make, and if you’re having trouble reaching this conclusion, you need to take a very hard look in the mirror and get off the internet.

The gunman continues firing, interrupted by a brief gun jam,

sucks when that happens

Yeah, Iran’s last democratically elected leader was Mohammed Mosaddegh, who upheld the most watered down and benign version of social democracy you can think of. He publicly opposed communism and really should’ve been an ally or at least a friend of the west.

CIA was out of their fucking minds when they fucked that one up.

To such a simple question I can offer a simple answer: Everything.

The real answer is not that simple of course. There’s some good ideas in socialism.

What most non-crazy people seem to mean by “socialism” is liberalism with a strong social safety net and public services (e.g. Nordic countries, “Democratic socialists” like Bernie Sanders, etc), which is a separate thing altogether.

Exactly, and specifically for this thread this is not quite the same socialism what Bashar al-Assad has been going for.

Extremely funny you say this in this situation since there is a group here fighting for freedom and democracy but they’re stinky reds, so you’ll hate them.

The other things you said can be accepted as opinions, but here I’ll have to correct you: In this conflict, Bashar al-Assad is the socialist (Ba’athist), and the group “fighting for freedom and democracy”, as you put it, is Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham. They are a far-right islamist religious fundamentalist terrorist organization.

So essentially nobody in Syria is fighting for any sensible definition of democracy or freedom.

The Islamist militant group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS)

Uh no thanks. It’s hard to be sympathetic towards any official side of that war because they’re all major assholes. Why do they only have socialists and islamists in those areas? Why hasn’t liberalism and freedom taken root in the Near East?

Yeah, I did certainly want to be able to do something that would’ve made my child not trans, but I couldn’t figure any way to do that so there was just nothing to even try. Also in the same vein on several occasions I wondered whether I had caused this by some action or inaction which is just pointless rumination.

Some of the more delusional churchgoers think they can change these things because they think they have a wizard on their side.

deleted by creator

I’m going to be an apologist for conservatives for a sec, just for the sake of giving out my theory of mind of these people.

I think this all happens mostly due to the stress trans people are inadvertently causing their parents. When your kid comes out of the closet, this will happen to a parent regardless of how liberal-minded they are. Even if you have no problem with the concept, your kid being trans brings about new kinds of threat scenarios you never had to think about before. If you’re a sensible, smart and handsome person like I truly fucking am, you can process it in a few years and come out as not being a 100% asshole towards the issue.

But if your reference group is republican church goers, there’s a high probability that such a person just simply does not have the mental or social toolset to process it in any sensible way. They will construct a toxic viewpoint for this issue, strengthen it from outside sources and then start to spread that toxicity.

No, of course I’m not being serious. Sovereign countries are sovereign and their borders should not be violated by anyone.

It’s not called conquering if somebody decides to join an alliance or a trade union.

USA should conquer Taiwan, Cuba and South America before somebody gives them nukes.

Opposing this would be blood thirsty war mongering, a direct cause of WW3.

Tankies: “Liberals are so blood-thirsty”

We would eventually crush Russia in a real war, the problem is that without going to actual war, we get to use only a small part of that.

Trump’s point about NATO countries needing to adhere to the funding that was agreed with mutually is a good one and I’m super confused why he was ridiculed about it when he said it. I mean, what’s the point of the alliance if we don’t do the things we agree to do?

because it’s all they have

I’m not quite sure you fully understand what you said here, given your surrounding arguments. Nintendo literally cannot exist if they allow emulators without becoming just another Sony/Microsoft. And they cannot realistically compete against those two.

I guess you’re referring to the part I edited out where I said that there doesn’t seem to be any evidence that life is supposed to be easy. I don’t think that contradicts humans trying to make life easy.

But it seems to me that a lot of meaning is derived from being at the limit of what is impossible and staying at the level of easy makes people depressed and unhappy.

You get to exist and understand that you do. That’s pretty huge already, as far as I can tell.

I see no evidence that life is supposed to be easy, even if it is for the majority of us commenting here.

insane that the bus gets its own lane \s

Have kids, kill your kids, check out cutlery, kill yourself, kill others, visit toilet. In this order.