He made the “Bored of Peace” with several war criminals for a reason…

It’s insane how well Fetterman showed that brain damage causes conservatism.

Were those his completewords?

Because around here it was translated as “apologised his words offended”, or as I read it between the lines: “sorry you people are such woke snowflakes!”

Monkey see, monkey do

Because you can’t buy personal effort.

We here at Phlock are 110% ethical human beings!

Apparently modern CPUs are snow flakes 🤓

I think you’re confused about how heatsinks work.

For reference: modern CPUs are a lot of hot air. 😁

As 4chan showed in the past, user bases go to platforms that allow NSFW content, and take their SFW activity with them.

But that didn’t answer my question. What problem does age verification genuinely solve by taking away my (adult) privacy?

PS: Expect a lot of LGBT+ content to also get flagged, as it’s considered inappropriate in certain authoritarian countries with money. Having to send in personal ID to join a minority community is just one step away from wearing pink triangles.

I’m fine with the 18+ question because it atleast explicitly requires people to know they’re entering that site. You can’t argue kids are exposed by accident if they click “Enter”.

As for ID verification, I’m against it for my own privacy, if nothing else changes for kids, then what is the argument to have it for adults? (Besides authoritarian control)

Except “for the children” as argument to give up privacy never actually works.

Kids will find porn elsewhere, on shadier sites with even less moderators looking out for them. This has been true since the first dirty magazine in the woods has been found. The solution isn’t banning them, it’s educating them to treat it in a proper way. But that ofc takes effort and doesn’t let policy makers villify people.

Meanwhile the adults have to give up their privacy for no real effect. Or the porn makers just move to a platform without PII and we can repeat this dance again in a couple of years.

Because he didn’t make them gold.

Watch him repaint them during the “renovation” and proclaim how he made it so beautiful, instead of all that ugly white Obama had! (or some other complete bullshit lie)

Providing drugs and alcohol to “entice” women into having sex is predatory behavior, whether or not the women partake consensually or not.

So you’ve never asked a romantic interest or Tinder date to have drinks? Because the moment you pay the bill, how is what you’re doing any different?

The point was more that the argument of “no phones allowed” doesn’t really make a sex-on-drug party any worse.

Nobody points to Al Capone sane-washing tax-fraud. Nobody argues about what an evil cunt he was based on his tax returns either. It was just the logical consequence of his racketeering, violence and general mob-boss-ness. The only reason people know about his tax fraud is because it’s how he got caught. From a moral perspective, it makes no difference in how people consider his character.

Similarly, in this discussion about sexual abuse, not allowing phones backstage at a Lindemann afterparty is of no real consequence. You wouldn’t be allowed to bring a phone to a drug party, whether it’s organised by Charles Manson or the freaking pope. I wouldn’t go to a gay orgy in Brussels expecting to keep my phone around, it’s just part of the package.

Now if there wasn’t any drugs backstage and you still weren’t allowed to bring your phone, yeah, I think that would be a red flag, because the obvious reason for it is now missing.

Rule 34 strikes again!

I think it was more about inviting them to do drugs with him than to watch, and you wouldn’t want any selfies of that going on instagram.

Yes, obviously doing drugs around strangers is a bad idea. But if you truly insist on inviting strangers to do drugs with you, asking them to not bring any cameras in the room seems like a good move PR-wise.

By you saying “aware” I’m assuming you’re insinuating “Wir habben das nicht gewusst” ?

No, I’m not ok with pretending not to know someone can’t consent.

But I’ll Devil’s Advocate this one: There was alcohol & drugs present and being used consensually. I’m going to assume Lindemann did so as well. If at some point someone looks inebriated, are you gonna think it was involuntary? If two people go to a bar, meet eachother and agree have sex, is that abuse? And what if they both willingly got drunk first?

Imho, the key factor is intent, trying to make somebody do something against their (sober) will is always wrong. Spiking someone’s drink is coercion, because you force them into another state of mind without their consent. But if a stranger at a party at a bar acts drunk, would you immediately think they got drugged? Or does one’s informed consent to get inebriated also include the common consequences? And would you think differently if that person was drunk at a work party vs a dive bar?

I don’t know enough specifics to be certain what happened either way, but as someone who has willingly opted to get inebriated in the past, I always considered the consequences as part of that choice. (As long as the inebriation occurred voluntary) I’m aware that some people may see that as a “blaming the victim” argument, but I do draw the line at knowingly abusing someone’s state of mind vs both parties being inebriated and trying to have fun.

The main logical discrepancy I see is Lynn’s account of Lindemann running off angry. If he was a serial rapist, he probably wouldn’t do that, he’ld coax her into having more of her spiked drink until she was too inebriated to say no. I think Makeeva got those women just high enough to agree to try some (more) drugs to get them going, to make her look like she knew how to pick the party animals.

But that’s just my opinion based on the evidence I’ve seen. YMMV

The question did specify 2028, which would’ve excluded Finland, yet you deemed it necessary to grace us with your opinion about a 2030 election.

Rather, if you wanted to consistently pedantic, you should’ve replied with “Nobody, because Finland’s presidential election is in 2030”

If you’re going to be obtuse, atleast put some effort into it ;-)

I’m not fanatically defending or accusing anyone based on my feelings, I’m trying to be objective and rational.

This mob mentality “everyone not agreeing with my view is disgusting and a fanatic idoliser” argument isn’t helping your case.

Arguably, you don’t want camera phones near an artist doing illegal drugs. You don’t need to be a rapist to find that logical.

That said, I don’t tend to follow “celebrity news” and definitely not German football, so I wasn’t aware of his friendship with Boateng (up to 10min ago). Having read the cliff notes, his choice in friends does say something about Lindemann’s character.

I hope you are wrong simply because that means those women weren’t violated. But honestly, the firing of Makeeva sadly indicates she did spike those women to provide to Lindemann’s parties. How much he was involved, I don’t know. It wouldn’t be the first time an entourage does shitty things to keep the golden-egg-laying artist happy without their knowledge. That’s unfortunately too common to exclude it at this point, although I wouldn’t advice anyone to rely on it being the case.

But if you wonna convince people he’s a rapist, maybe try presenting evidence first, rather than just ordering people what to do. People tend to be more accepting of a conclusion they made themselves.

“We have reviewed ourselves and found nothing wrong”

Sorta, depending on your exact definition.

More of a Lassalle flavour of socialism than Marx, at the very least.

Pragmatically, state-less communism is a utopia reliant on all members following its principles. A state is required to defend against greed, both from the outside as from within.

Wwhether you call it market socialism or social democracy, the concept of a state limits capitalism to serve its people first, while also granting as much freedom possible by “allowing” capitalism, seems to be the closest one can get to Marxism while still defending against tyranny.

Society is a living thing and must be able to both change and defend itself. Socialist states are prone to tyranny from within, where as pure communist utopia has little to no defense from foreign entities. A democratic government in service of the people is the best way I’m aware of to achieve the core socialist principles.