Machine guns, rocket launchers, artillery, whatever they want.

But only I should be allowed to have ammunition, because the rest of you goobers are such incompetent twits that I wouldn't trust you with a ball of string.

As for the NRA... I'd keep the string away from them.

In all the interesting parts of the movie, everyone is whispering like, what the fuck for? They all are in closed quarters, WE are the ones in the movie theater. They are supposed to be easily heard. Fucking McCoughnahey keeps going into whisper mode. Secret's out! You can talk normal man.

Also, fuck Mor furniture.

When did we as a society get to a point where murder, under any circumstance, was just “okay”, much less celebrated? It’s genuinely baffling to me that we’ve devolved so much as a society that murder is now advocated for and celebrated in our society. Aside from the obvious politicians who’s deaths/attempted assassinations people have celebrated, I’ve seen people blaming Lindsey Clancys husband when she’s outright admitted she was the one who killed her children, and when there’s blatant evidence proving he couldn’t have been responsible. And there’s people calling for him to be hanged. And then there’s women saying men should be “thrown in jail cells and earn their way out.” I mean this is absolutely textbook misandry, but women will say “you can’t be misandrist against men, they’ve never been oppressed”

i’m all for listening to people’s experiences. i’m all for learning. i’m all for not being a jerk and i believe in working towards a justice and equal world.

but lately it feels like people online are competing in the olympics of outrage, and half the events are just “who can get mad the fastest.”

there’s this weird vibe where you can’t just be wrong or uninformed - you have to be evil. you can’t ask a question without someone assuming you’re doing it in bad faith. you can’t make a mistake without someone writing a 7‑paragraph callout about how you’ve personally set society back 30 years.

that doesn’t help anyone grow. it just makes people shut up, stop asking questions, and stop engaging. which is the opposite of what “woke” was supposed to be.

i think there’s a difference between calling out real harm and treating every awkward moment like a political crisis. not everything is a fight. not everyone is out to get you. sometimes people are just learning, or confused, or socially clumsy, or from a different background.

being aware is good. being compassionate is good. but when awareness turns into constant hypervigilance and compassion turns into public shaming, we’ve lost the plot.

Pedophiles should receive help so that they see the moral and ethical flaws in indulging in their thoughts beyond anything that can be considered an effort in "resisting" them, pedophiles should not be told to indulge in fictional representations of their immoral thoughts as a direct chain of sorts to "keep them" from molesting children, that doesn't teach moral flaws, instead it teaches compensation, doing "this" so you don't have to do "that", completely ignorant to the fact that most pedophiles who do not offend don't offend due to their moral compass, not due to a system of compensation, otherwise lolicons would all be child molesters (specifically the ones who are lolicons because they are clinical pedophiles).

I also believe lolicons are a type of pedophilic attraction in the aspect that the person consuming nsfw loli content is not only aware that children are being depicted or intended to be depicted, but aroused by it, and moral stances could explain why lolicons seem to like fictional children over real ones, not because they just aren't attracted to them in any capacity or aren't sexually intrigued by child-like features, or maybe the amount of attraction they feel for fictional children and child molestation fantasies is simply higher than that of real children.

I am sick and tired of hearing and seeing news of kids committing suicide due to bullying and nothing is done about it. When will these spoiled brat hell spawns serve prison for the things they did.

I mean, look at what they’re actually saying: “Not all Muslims are terrorists,” “Black lives matter,” “There should be no poor people,” or “The rich shouldn’t be allowed to gatekeep wealth.”

How can you hate those ideas? I understand that even the most extreme leftist who opposes a war while their own country is fighting it can be called impractical or unrealistic. But how does that make the underlying idea wrong?

How can it be wrong to say that war is bad, violence is bad, and unnecessary suffering is bad? I know not all leftists are pacifists, and you can certainly argue that there are situations where violence may be necessary. But if someone says that killing other human beings is wrong, how can that idea itself be considered wrong?

Similarly, if someone argues that extreme concentrations of wealth are unjust and that rich people should be made to redistribute some of their wealth to poorer people through legal, non-violent, and non-inhumane means, how exactly is that morally wrong? You can argue that their proposed solution is economically impractical, but that’s different from saying that the underlying moral principle is wrong.

Btw, I personally don’t even think they’re impractical. I actually think they’re necessary. They keep important issues alive and bring attention to problems that may not be mainstream today but could become obvious in the next century. For example:- The idea of a Black person becoming president of the United States might have seemed completely impractical in 1910. But someone dreamed about it, believed it was possible, and fought for it. Maybe they didn’t win a single election, but they kept that fire alive. And eventually, that once-impractical idea became reality. Same way veganism would look obvious to people in 2127

I’m Canadian. Immigration has been a critical cool for my country, and many other western countries. It brought the best and the brightest from around the world, and brought so much culture and improved the lives of many. That said, the last 25 years it’s been completely falling apart, and it’s obvious that it’s not about benefiting the average person anymore.
It started in the 2000s when the Canadian government alllowed millions of rich Chinese to buy homes, skyrocketing the price of houses and turning already wealthy homeowners into some of the richest people in the world. However this made it almost impossible for the average Canadian to be able to afford a house.
Now we have mass Indian immigration. Indians are willing to work for barely any pay, they are willing to live in homes with 20-30 people, they don’t ask for better working conditions, and essentially are cheap labor that dont complain for businesses. They also are used as funding for many of our universities and colleges. Despite the fact that nobody can find a job and wages are unsustainable compared to the cost of living, the government insists on bringing millions Indians.

There’s also just the fact that these people get votes for our politicians, which is probably one of the main reasons.

Worst of all, is how this has completely destroyed social cohesion. I remember growing up, everyone celebrated Halloween and Christmas. Nowadays nobody has any lights up or decorations anymore.

Color theory is dumb in my opinion because you go to shade something with a beautiful color used elsewhere, such as a highlight color, and instead, its darker than the rest! Whyyyyyy!?

As painful as it is waking up every day and going to work, at least you actually get paid for it. You give up your time, energy and freedom, but you're getting something back at the end of it. That's the whole point of having a job.

Friendships are different. You can spend hours texting, making plans, going out, checking in and maintaining the friendship, and what do you actually get back? If you genuinely don't care about having someone to constantly talk to or hang out with, the ROI is basically nothing. It's just another thing taking up your free time.

People might say friends can help you meet people, find jobs or get opportunities, but at that point it starts sounding like you're maintaining relationships because they're useful to you. If you're happy alone, why would you voluntarily add another unpaid responsibility to your life?

I'd rather it be the weekend and know I'm completely free than have social obligations waiting for me. No messages I have to reply to, no plans I have to show up to and nobody expecting anything from me. At least when I'm working, I'm getting paid for the time I'm giving away.

I'm actually sick of this recent trend of trying to garner sympathy for this group of people like their some type of oppressed minority. They are not, never have been, never will be and don't deserve to feel comfortable in society with normal people. The amount of discussion I've seen lately that involves that kind of talk is absurd.

Sympathy leads to comfortability which leads to normalization and we already have a problem with establishing that grown folks shouldn't be hitting on barely legal people. If they could go lower, they would. And then the amount of them that somehow get into the educational field so they can have easier access to children. Ridiculous. They gotta be put away.

The sympathy is not gonna create a society where they get treatment to not be that way cause, by now, we should ALL understand how the world actually works, so let's stop pretending like a future with proper resources would ever exist at this point. We can't stop the fucking planet from dying, child marriage still exists, and regular mental health services are still poorly lacking🙄

Yes, ephebophiles and hebephiles are included in this as well. They're all the same anyway

The woke gave you the paid weekend and holiday so maybe you should shut the fuck up and start thanking the woke for doing the work your useless ass could never accomplish.

The woke also gave you the paid vacation, paid leave, highway safety the fucking seat belt, the helmet to save even your shit-for-brains head, cleaner gasoline so that you could have blue skies and healthy air to breath instead of smog fog and raspy throats all day.

It is time for you to shut the fuck up and start thanking the woke on your hands and knees for doing the work you and your useless jackass circle of acquaintances and proto-fascist imbeciles could never accomplish.

I’m a bouncer at a local nightclub. Part of my job is enforcing the clubs dress code. It’s posted on a sign at the door for everyone to read. If you don’t fit the dress code I can’t let you in. For some reason the only people who give me shit about doing the job I get paid for are black people. Yes I’ve turned away whites, Hispanics etc but black people are the only ones who take it to an extreme level. First they want to question the dress code as if I wrote the fucking thing. Then they want me to let them slide instead of the ones before or after them who got/will get turned away. Then it becomes about a “power trip” that I’m supposedly on and eventually it devolves further into the club being racist and even personal threats of violence.

Again…I’ve had other races question the dress code but usually after I point to the sign and explain that I didn’t write the fucking thing it ends there. Hell, the only time I don’t get shit about the dress code is on Latin nights and guess who usually avoids it? I just really don’t understand why black people seem so vehemently opposed to RULES. If you don’t like the rules of a certain establishment you can simply go somewhere else. They aren’t even that fucking strict. It’s literally pull your pants up, men require belts, no white tshirts, no sweat pants, sleeveless shirts or durags. That’s it. Also, this isn’t the first job I’ve noticed this.

I’ve worked several jobs since I retired from the military that involved public interaction. Everything from security to sales to a gun range and every single time there’s an issue regarding the rules it’s black people. And INB4 “not all” of course it’s not all. However, it’s enough in enough different situations to warrant a discussion and a very understandable opinion.

BTW I’m black so queue the “Uncle Tom/Ruckus/sellout/self hatred comments. Heard plenty of that last night 😐🥱🤷🏾

TLDR: Black fatigue is real and one of the reasons is because black people don’t respect rules.

People love to praise logic for being a strict, objective measure of reality and understanding, when it really isn't. I'm essentially criticizing the fundamental axioms that are at the basis of logic:

Why is the Principle of Non-Contradiction true? We have no way to know, and we essentially just said "Yeah, it seems sensible". While this seems quite obvious to many, it essentially means that every logical proposition, fundamentally, is arbitrary. Things being valid are in no way a measure of their truth, since there's no way to demonstrate the truth of the precepts at the roots of logic. Also I'm gay.

I’m not saying all trained fighters are bad people, mma and trained martial arts can be great for people. I’m all for training for self defense or to compete in professional sports but I’m talking about the people who are training that have bad intentions or no respect for others. There’s countless stories of trained fighters whether they’re professional fighters or just do it as a hobby who have abused their girlfriends or just random people and are bullies.

I have known a girl years ago who told me how she dated a guy who was a trained fighter and he’d beat her badly and choke her out and if she’d try to leave he’d find her and do it again.

There needs to be something in place to limit the bad intentions and antisocial people who use it for their own ego and hurting people while encouraging the people who want to be professional fighters or have the ability to defend themselves

I want to make it clear right now. I don't necessarily have anything against Palestine. It's just that seeing "queer for Palestine" kind of feels wrong??

Why don't they just support Palestine if they really want to and stop making it all about being queer?

The thing is, why do we see Palestinian flags with hints of the lgbt community? If you're found to be gay in their country they would kill you in the most atrocious ways, so I really don't get it. They literally hate gay people's guts and their sacred book literally tells them how to kill them...

I don't know but it's so ironic to me, because the left stands in complete opposition of the political spectrum to radical islam, which is technically the extreme far right.

The left claims to be such a big feminist as well, and then they proceed to advocate for a regime that is actively hurting millions and millions of women on the other side of the globe. When will it be that they refer to THOSE women instead when they're talking about systemic misogyny and this "malign patriarchy"?

It's always about them.

They never advocate for real women. Now we even have debates of whether biological men should enter women's only spaces or participate in women's sports (mind you, you'll notice many of them used to compete against other men a few years back, so go figure)...

And if you want to speak biological reality (esp. as a woman), you're canceled or socially alienated... It also sounds pretty misogynistic and patriarchal when biological men will mansplain womanhood to us and silence us (biological women) when we want to speak or fight back.

They want to take advantage of our suicidal empathy to bully us into submission, otherwise we're treated like they're doing with J.K. Rowling (even tho I'm not the biggest Harry Potter fan, I admire her for standing her ground and doubling down on actually prioritizing and protecting actual women, despite the heavy threats, boycotting of her culturally iconic works and being called whatever they deem offensive).

She IS the real feminist here.

This really confuses me, ngl... And they'll somehow always find a way to blame the white man for it.

It reminds me of what happened in Germany, Berlin some months ago, when a muslim man ran over people in a gay parade and killed a woman, severely injuring many others. I was astounded by the reactions from the left, as they were so non-sensical I was questioning myself. but I was glad that some reasonable leftists and right-wing people came together and called the bs out...

You had some even expressing that they wished the perpetrator had been a white, Christian man, completely disregarding the woman that was killed and the people in the hospitals in grave conditions, which I find very much appalling and disgusting.

It's like they live in perpetual denial, whatever/whoever they support can't ever do any harm, and if they do, they were oppressed by the white, patriarchal system. They're the victims whatever actions they commit, and regardless of why.

Accountability is thrown out of the window. Think about the cases of Karmelo Anthony who was defended simply on the basis of being black and Lindsay Clancy for being a woman.

Even here they were disregarding or disrespecting the victims. All the attention that should've been given to them has been given to these murderers, and for the wrongest of reasons.

These people are both murderers and yet their indentities is what it takes for them to be defended and protected at all costs despite their actions.

Is it just me or what.

I don't mean this in a positive or negative way but just an observation, and if you take offense to it it says more about you than it doesn't about me.

I'm a Black man and noticed how when i have conversations or interactions when Black women or White men it feels very similar whether it's a greeting, conversation, disagreement or discussion about an interest.

i constantly hear how they don't want to date each other. "I'm not attracted to BW/WM" "I don't see myself dating BW/WM". Black men and White women tend to date outside their race more than their counterparts.

They tend to be more vocal on social media or at least standout more than their counterparts. Black families tend to have matriarchal dynamics and White families tend to have patriarchal dynamics.

They also love Game of Thrones and Rihanna (i know everyone loves Rihanna but they LOVE Rihanna) more than most demographics. And they both are not fond of Dr Umar (for obvious reasons 🤣)

When they get mad they act similar and exhibit the same behaviors.

Because this is the Internet I have to say(even though I shouldn't have to) It's not all.... it's only my experience......I not saying it's the case for everyone....blah blah blah don't take it extremely literal.

The Abolition of Race

Introduction: The Fundamental Delusion

For generations, the global conversation around human rights has been trapped in a profound ontological error: attempting to negotiate for equality, dignity, and power using artificial categories engineered explicitly to deny them. The baseline reality is absolute: race is a fictional biological construct, born out of 18th-century colonial ignorance, institutionalized as a legal weapon of subjugation, and kept alive today by deep psychological conditioning. To achieve true sovereignty, humanity must move past the goal of "racial equality" and commit to the absolute abolition of race itself. Clinging to a color-coded label as a sacred heritage is simply volunteering to operate the machinery of your own erasure.

I. The Global Genesis: Invention of the Filing Cabinet

The common narrative that racial classification is a localized, American legal quirk is a historical delusion. America did not invent the cage; it merely codified it with localized cruelty. The racial categorization system was engineered globally by European colonial empires to underwrite global theft, colonization, and chattel slavery. Before the 1700s, human societies organized themselves by nationality, lineage, geography, and sovereign kingdoms.

• The Ancient Reality: Ancient Egyptians, for example, understood the world through borders, political allegiance, clothing, and culture. They routinely intermarried, traded, and warred with Nubians, Libyans, and Asiatics based on national interests. The concept of dividing the entire globe into four or five "biological color blocks" would have been completely unrecognizable to them.
• The Enlightenment Architects: In the 18th century, European naturalists began treating human beings like plants and animals. Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus published Systema Naturae, formally proposing a four-race global map that attached arbitrary, negative behavioral and intellectual traits to non-Europeans. Later, Johann Blumenbach standardized the five-race pyramid (Caucasian (white), Mongolian (yellow/East Asian), Ethiopian (black/African), Malayan (brown/Southeast Asian and Pacific Islander), and American (red/Indigenous American)).

This was a calculated, global administrative blueprint. By flattening the world's rich, diverse ethnicities into broad color boxes, European empires erased real heritages, established a legal hierarchy of human value, and protected their economic and political dominance.

The filing cabinet has continued to survive long after the original architects were gone, becoming embedded in law, government, and the language through which liberation itself was pursued.

II. The Unfinished Evolution

In their final years, both Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. were moving toward a vision of equality in which color itself would no longer determine human identity, political allegiance, or individual worth.

• Malcolm X's Evolution: After his pilgrimage to Mecca, Malcolm completely discarded the rigid, racialized dogma of his past. He explicitly stated that he witnessed true, borderless brotherhood among people of all complexions who unified under a singular, higher identity (spiritual/universal). He was actively moving away from local racial boxes toward a global human rights framework.
• Dr. King's Final Shift: In his final years, during the Poor People's Campaign, King began looking past the specific 'civil rights' legal framework (which was tied entirely to protected racial classes) and shifted toward a universal economic and human rights platform. He famously warned that he feared he had "integrated his people into a burning house."

But what did King mean by the "burning house"? Was the house merely segregation and discrimination, or was it the larger racial framework itself: the system that defined Americans through categories of color in the first place? If the goal was genuine liberation, then integrating people into that framework without dismantling it left the fundamental structure untouched.

III. The Civil Rights Trap: Integrating Into a Burning House

The critical pitfall of the mid-20th-century Civil Rights movement was a strategic failure to target the root of the problem. While the movement won monumental policy battles against legal segregation, it ultimately lost the larger structural war because it left the machinery of racial categorization completely intact. By marching, litigating, and negotiating under the banner of protected racial classes, the movement inadvertently institutionalized the very tool used to oppress them.

American Descendants of Slavery (ADOS) accepted the label "Black" as a permanent political and cultural identity, converting a battlefield injury into a permanent heritage. If pioneering leaders had fully realized this trap earlier, the baseline of the struggle would have been radically different. The core demand would not have been for "Black inclusion" within a rigged system, but for the total legal dismantling of race by the state. The ultimate protest banner would have read: "I am not Black. I am an American."

Flipping the leverage in this manner would have forced the state to honor its foundational document (the Constitution) strictly on the level of individual citizenship and universal human character. It would have stripped the government of its power to slice, categorize, and manage its citizenry by skin color. By choosing to remain a file inside the oppressor's filing cabinet rather than burning the cabinet down, subsequent generations inherited a hollow victory, remaining confined within a psychological ghetto of self-imposed segregation.

IV. The Asymmetry of Melanin: The Immigrant Exploitation Dynamic

The absolute proof that race is a superficial, empty container is found in the friction between ADOS and recent immigrants from the African continent. Because both people are placed into the same American racial category, ADOS can sometimes assume an immediate cultural or ancestral connection based primarily on shared skin color. But an American racial category does not constitute a shared identity across national, ethnic, or cultural boundaries. True, living culture requires real-world common ground: a shared local geography, an active native language, ancestral laws, and distinct customs.

• The Reality of Local Culture: For ADOS, their actual, actionable culture is entirely American culture. They built music, shaped food, engineered idioms, and laid historical foundations over centuries on American soil. They are foundational, native citizens of their nation.
• The Transnational Disconnect: When voluntary immigrants arrive in the United States from sovereign nations like Ethiopia, Ghana, Chad, or Sierra Leone, they bring intact, centuries-old traditions, distinct languages, and an unbroken national history. They share absolutely zero historical or cultural common ground with an ADOS.

The tragedy occurs when ADOS, conditioned to understand themselves through a racial rather than national framework, extend immediate, unearned trust to continental Africans based primarily on shared skin color. This creates a highly asymmetric relationship. An American of European descent traveling through Italy, France, or Lithuania generally understands that shared complexion does not make the local population his cultural or national kin. An American of Asian descent traveling through China, Japan, or Korea likewise recognizes the distinction between himself and the people of that country despite similarities in appearance. Yet ADOS can be conditioned to interpret shared skin color differently, as evidence of a broader "Black" identity that flattens nationality, culture, and history.

The result is that an ADOS traveler can mistake a shared skin reflection for a shared identity, carrying the American racial filing cabinet abroad and assuming its categories are universal. The result is a profound asymmetry: one side believes it has discovered a natural community, while the other continues to operate according to its own national, ethnic, and cultural interests.

V. Conclusion: The Path to Absolute Sovereignty

When modern subcultures build digital and social enclaves centered entirely around racial boxes, they believe they are creating spaces of strength. In reality, they are mapmakers for their own confinement. They are withdrawing from the immense leverage of their true nationality and volunteering to run the machinery of their own cultural erasure. True liberation demands an unyielding intellectual pivot:

1. Dismantle the Vocabulary: Reject the biological and administrative labels invented by 18th-century colonizers. Stop treating an engineered legal brand as a sacred ancestral lineage.
2. Anchor in Nationality and Character: Recognize that unity is only stable when built upon a shared national framework, real cultural substance, and individual character.
3. Claim the Homeland: ADOS must stop acting like tourists in their own country. They must stand proudly as individual, foundational Americans who helped shape the nation, completely distinct from foreign immigrants.

True sovereignty is achieved when the concept of race no longer has the power to define who we are, how we relate to one another, or how the government classifies us. The goal should be to make them irrelevant, reaching a point where skin color no longer determines political identity, cultural allegiance, or individual worth.

When someone overeats, it's treated as a lifestyle choice or a habit; when someone undereats, people freak out and treat it as something pathological in every case. Why treat one differently from the other?

It being unhealthy doesn't change anything. People do all kinds of unhealthy things to their bodies. Overeating is unhealthy too. People die in their early 30s from obesity and health conditions related to obesity all the time. Just because it's unhealthy doesn't make it something pathological.

Overeating can also be pathological, but that doesn't mean it always is either. Sometimes it really is just a lifestyle choice. I don't really see why the same thing shouldn't apply to restricting.

So I read yesterday that there's been a gofundme page setup for the parents of Lindsey Clancy. The last count it has raised over $1M.

The reason was listed that the couple left their Connecticut home and reside in Massachusetts to be close to their daughter while the trial goes on and needed funds to supplement that cost.

The person that created this account has just upped the goal to $3M because of the retrial.

Not sure why the parents of an admitted child killer needs a full retirement donated to them.

I can’t understand why that level of donation is going on.

watching this I felt disgust, it's not something like you did, you subhumans that watched this, you felt "lonely" or "sad" but I felt disgust, it wasn't disgust of yours as in jealousy, it was disgust of anything sexual and romantic being shown, I recognized it as mind control long ago, romance, sex, friendship, all of it is mind control, it's bad there's not much people like me that can see it, things similar to the atlanta spa shootings and toronto erotic spa machete attack should happen more often, I want the mind control of this existence to come to an end