I don’t want to fuck Rowling.

It was the remains of fish which we ground into powder and fed to other fish and sheep, whose remains we ground into powder and fed to other sheep and cows, whose remains we ground to powder and fed to other cows.

Just because the mode of payment changes with the technical abilities of the medium doesn’t change that.

Not according to German, French, and I suspect most of other european countries laws. Only torrenting copyright-protected content is against the law because you’re uploading the content (distributing) while downloading.

Would you call it piracy to yank out the ad insert from a free newspaper and throw it into the trash without looking at it? Because that’s the exact analog from the non-digital world. Just because the mode of payment changes with the technical abilities of the medium doesn’t change that.

What is more racist, though? The average cop or the average LLM? I’d wager a guess it’s the average cop. So, it would still be a net benefit.

From wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender

The term cisgender was coined in 1994 as an antonym to transgender, and entered into dictionaries starting in 2015 as a result of changes in social discourse about gender.[4][5] The term has been and continues to be controversial and subject to critique.

I think there’s some confirmation bias on your end here. The local community (including me) tends to be young and liberal and knows the term cisgender. I’d bet that the majority (by a huge margin) of English speakers (including as a second or third language) has never even heard the term cisgender or doesn’t know what it means. Lots of them will react negatively if you label them cisgender out of pure ignorance and false assumptions - no transphobia needed.

Only complete asshole transphobes do. Honestly, not even they do. They just lie about it as a gotcha.

Sure, they exist. But what’s their percentage of the population or the X user base? I think you’re making a false generalization by an invalid extrapolation.

And just to be clear: I’m not saying cisgender is a slur. I’m just pointing out that the notion that community A or an individual can decide whether some word is a slur or not in community B is ridiculous, and that the argument, from the first comment I replied to, for technical correctness or intended meaning of a word is irrelevant for who considers what a slur.

I hope that made my point clearer to your dry-nosed primate’s brain.

Removed by mod

One recent article authored by Stokes claimed that a Nazi-alien alliance was responsible for acts of arson at a Kellogg’s cereal factory.

Oh my … that was an entertaining read 😂

It’s not not done because it is difficult. It’s not done because it is not profitable for those in power.

A loaded gun in a fucking glovebox absolutely IS a problem.

Yes. I never said anything to the contrary.

Had applicable law been followed, this would not have happened.

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm#46.13

What a tortured take.

Feels like you’re talking about your own comment.

Add-on:

And even what you describe is already more than what is needed in the USA isn’t it?

I’m no expert on US gun law, but what I do know, is that blanket statements on US gun law are almost always wrong. Gun legislation varies highly between states. There are places where it is rather lax, and then there are places where it is really strict. It’s been a while (read decades) since I read about it more in depth. From the top of my head: a third to a half of the states has gun legislation comparable to that of Germany (comparable in “strictness”, not wording). New York and one or two other places have even (much) stricter legislation than Germany.

No idea, if that comparison to Germany helps you, but it is the best reference I have.

I completely agree with that. But maybe, just maybe, we can try to help them with the problems instead of only restricting their access to guns. Again, fix the causes, not the symptoms. Fix poverty, establish proper welfare, provide affordable (universal) health care. It’s really not rocket science. The debate for stricter gun control is a distraction from the actual problems/causes.

I’m no swiss law expert, but that’s not what wikipedia says regarding buying ammunition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Switzerland

In order to purchase ammunition, the buyer must fulfill the same legal rules that apply when buying guns (art. 15 WG/LArm). Foreigners with citizenship to the following countries are explicitly excluded from the right to buy and own ammunition: Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Turkey, Sri Lanka, Algeria and Albania.

The buyer must provide the following information to the seller (art. 15, 16 WG/LArm; art. 24 WV/OArm):

• a passport or other valid official identification (the holder must be over 18 years of age) (art. 10a WG/LArm).
• a copy of their criminal record not older than 3 months, a weapons acquisition permit which isn’t older than 2 years, or a valid European Firearms Pass, if asked by the seller (art. 24 § 3 WV/OArm).

[…] the US which has 3x the amount of guns per capita than Canada does[.]

Has Canada one third the per capita gun violence of the US? Spoiler: it doesn’t. People bring up that point because it clearly shows that gun ownership does not correlate with “gun crime”. Guns do not cause crime. Guns are a means to an end. Do you want to treat symptoms? Then go ahead and regulate shit out of guns. Or, do you want to treat causes? Then prevent poverty, establish proper welfare and universal health care.

If you feel the need to label everyone who brings up that point a gun nut, I will have to call you a smooth brain for not understanding the difference between symptoms and causes. But, maybe we can do without the insults?

Solid argument.

Well, Timmy can’t take the military issue ammunition home, but there are next to no restrictions for him to buy ammunition. All he needs is a passport (doesn’t even need to be Swiss) and a clean criminal record that is no older than 3 months.

Well, there’s a pretty good example of why virtually unrestricted gun ownership is a bad idea in the USA.

Only if you mistake symptoms for causes. The US is a great example though, because no other western nation has such an extreme wealth distribution, poverty, and dysfunctional welfare. And no other western nation has violence problems to that degree.

Poor wording? Has a problem might have been better. Still correct though, and context is a thing.

From my point of view, any argument for gun control is a distraction from the real problems: Poverty and dysfunctional social systems.

Edit: Also, it’s pretty rich to allege bad faith, when you reply with nothing but STFU to a reasonable comment.

That’s a really stupid take on what I said.

Could it be, that the real problem is criminality caused by poverty and dysfunctional social systems?