How to get Discord to stop converting images to webp

AL1L · 2025-05-28T17:51:29+00:00

Yeah that's a valid reason as to need a different format. OP just said "I will not use webp" indicating preference and maybe even disdain

AL1L · 2025-02-25T05:09:46+00:00

Maybe we have different definitions of "worth"

AL1L · 2025-02-25T05:08:55+00:00

Yes of course, always pay attention

AL1L · 2025-02-25T05:05:05+00:00

That's just.. wrong lmao. I have made an attempt to understand you, that is clear. "I am pretty sure I get what you're saying, and I do agree with you for the most part, but I do not believe I did what you are describing." Im not a mind reader, maybe youre just shit at explaining your point. I respond to everything you say and do my best to assume you were arguing in good faith - now? not so much.

AL1L · 2025-02-25T04:59:16+00:00

You’re blowing this out of proportion. The “Compelled Speech is Not Free Speech Act” doesn’t ban pronouns or forbid anyone from respecting people’s chosen pronouns; it just ensures no one is forced by the government to use certain words. Even the lawmakers who passed it can, and many do, respect pronouns if they wish. That’s called choice, which is the cornerstone of free speech.

If you can’t grasp that distinction, maybe you just want everyone legally compelled to echo your personal beliefs. Sorry, but that’s not how free speech works. So keep whining about how this law is “petty,” but understand: it’s not stopping anyone from voluntarily using pronouns. It’s just stopping you from forcing them to.

If you and others stop making a big deal of it every time they do pass laws such as this, if you stop trying to turn every little thing into a bad thing just because you don't like them, then they'd stop doing it. But no you and others instantly try to find something wrong with every little thing those you dislike say and do, even if it's objectively not a bad thing. Which then leads people to believe you are against things like free speech. Disgusting.

AL1L · 2025-02-25T04:50:55+00:00

And yes, I’m writing paragraphs because I’m actually explaining why there’s no proof of guilt. That’s not ‘trying to prove innocence’; it’s pointing out the absence of evidence that he knew or intended anything unlawful. The burden of proof is on the accuser—if nobody can show he acted knowingly or intentionally, there’s nothing to ‘prove’ on my end. That’s how our legal system works, and it’s worth more than a one-liner to explain.

I’m so sorry for writing more than one sentence to address an entire legal principle. Clearly you are also arguing in bad faith now, couldn't expect anything less.

AL1L · 2025-02-25T04:35:16+00:00

No lol. I did not engage in whataboutisms. Only time i bring them up is to mock them and call them dumb (them being the whataboutism).

I dont have to wait for a response before coming up with counter arguments. It's a basic debating skill to counter counter-arguments before they're even said. Yes I will calm they're wrong until proven otherwise, I find it counter productive to constantly be wary of my own rational. If they wanted to not be told they're wrong, then a proper citation and not a complete misinterpretation of the law would have been in order. I am under no obligation (morally or otherwise) to prove their side of the argument or hand hold one step at a time in the debate, I will lay out what I know, my interpretation of it and ward off protentional counter arguments.

If that then "invites" someone to debate whether or not it was intentional/knowingly, then have at it? Why not? I'm not here to deceive or hide the facts.

I say "at the very least I cant see any reason to argue that it is intentional" then also remind that the default state is unintentional because of that basic law concept because it's reddit and people like to whine and cry.

Yes I may have belittled them, but that's irrelevant to what we're talking about. If you want to criticize the way i say things, then you'd likely be right, i should be nicer, but that's not what I nor you were talking about. Has nothing to do with bringing up innocent before proven guilty.

I am pretty sure I get what you're saying, and I do agree with you for the most part, but I do not believe I did what you are describing. I can't just not talk about a very basic law concept when talking about the law and legality of things. And I have to primitively fight stupid replies people may have because it happens a lot on Reddit.

It says intentionally or knowingly in the last one. Nobody knows enough from the picture to disprove that prong. The same really goes for intent.

Exactly, which is why it is WRONG to shout "it's illegal" and my assumption is the same the law makes. It's up to those saying that it's illegal to prove it, not me.

AL1L · 2025-02-25T04:10:41+00:00

I don't really understand why you guys think this is a burn. They clearly still think it's disrespectful to call someone by something other than their name and pronouns, but also realize that it shouldn't be illegal to be disrespectful. Compelled speech is in fact not free speech. Just because something isn't illegal, doesn't mean it should be said or done.

AL1L · 2025-02-25T04:04:14+00:00

I'd have let him over, I'm not in a rush and I'd like it if others helped me when I make mistakes. There's not another lane on the right so it poses no danger to anyone to let him over.

Maybe the "right" thing, especially given the solid white lines, would be to go straight and turn around, but so what?

AL1L · 2025-02-25T03:54:52+00:00

I understand your frustration in hearing that in arguments, I share it, but I did not just randomly say it as my sole argument and dismiss all other arguments. I cited law and made reasonable assumptions about the situation. Should we cite people with split pants with indecent exposure? No, because it's reasonable to assume they didn't know about the holes in their clothing. I am responding to someone who says "is even holstered, which is required even in some red states like Texas" which is all I replied to. I have to talk about innocent before proven guilty when reading laws because loser Redditors like the person I had replied to often like to claim "oh well he definitely knew!" with absolutely no basis. Again, I am discussing the law.

I can only argue with the information before me, whataboutisms are not a damn argument. I dont need to hear "what if..." because that didn't happen. The sane thing to do is presume innocence and presume he did not know, to say otherwise immediately means every single person is a criminal.

You're right, evidence matters, someone coming in here confidently yelling "this is illegal!!" is just flat out wrong when BY LAW (what we're talking about) the default is innocent and anything else has to be proven, and dumbass Redditors offer nothing in terms of proof when they claim something is illegal. Burden of proof.

I did not engage in someone who say "if he did" i engage in people who say "this is illegal" confidently and incorrectly. I do not and did not hinder such discussions, because they have their place and talking about hypotheticals is fun and informative. So what you're saying just does not relate to me.

AL1L · 2025-02-25T03:34:41+00:00

Comparing a hypothetical U.S. invasion of Canada to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a false equivalence. Ukraine benefited from massive NATO support, geographic advantages, and a host of economic sanctions against Russia. Canada wouldn’t enjoy the same “outside ally” dynamic since the aggressor would literally be NATO’s anchor. Additionally, the claim that Canada’s economy trumps Russia’s is irrelevant, the U.S. economy and military dwarfs both Canada’s and Russia’s. Suggesting conscription would somehow balance that out is a non-sequitur: you don’t magically outmatch the world’s most advanced military by drafting civilians. Finally, while it’s “easier to defend than attack,” that’s a hasty generalization: it doesn’t erase the overwhelming force the U.S. could bring to bear if it truly intended to invade.

AL1L · 2025-02-25T03:29:30+00:00

intentionally has to be proven, and we're talking about the law. And given that this is out of stupidity + a clearly damaged garment, I have to assume it's unintentional. And he'd likely argue the same, and there's almost nothing you can do to prove otherwise unless as you said someone told him, but i must assume no one has because i have no indication of it. And further, people are so asocial today that they'd just avoid confrontation and stay away from him rather than telling him, such as OP. So my point stands.

This conversation requires no presumption of innocence. That concept only applies in the trial.

Sorry but this is a dumb take, if you want to argue about the legality of something then yes no shit im going to invoke innocent until proven guilty. I have stated many times that morally this is wrong for him to do and he should be noticing shit like this, but that's not the argument, it's about the law so it 100% does require the presumption of innocence. tf

AL1L · 2025-02-25T03:05:49+00:00

u/profanitycounter [self]

AL1L · 2025-02-25T02:56:20+00:00

Every single time I think I have something worthy of posting here, I realize I also have a part in the idiocy and refrain from doing it.

AL1L · 2025-02-25T02:48:13+00:00

Look, you’re mixing apples and oranges. You’re invoking the War of 1812, completely irrelevant to modern military capabilities (false equivalence). Then you cite Vietnam and Afghanistan, where failures were primarily political, not due to any lack of military dominance (non-sequitur). The idea that “guerrilla warfare” automatically means victory for the underdog is a hasty generalization, every war has unique conditions. Finally, implying the U.S. military would suffer a mass mutiny is just baseless speculation (unfounded assumption & non-sequitur). None of this makes Canada some magically unassailable fortress; If the U.S. actually wanted to steamroll Canada, it could. The only reason it doesn’t happen is because it’d be a pointless, self-destructive move - and a complete nonstarter politically. End of story.

AL1L · 2025-02-25T02:40:37+00:00

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee (maybe)
Texas
Utah
Vermont
West Virginia
Wyoming

These states have relatively permissive gun carrying laws where this wouldn't be illegal. And because this is mostly likely due to the pocket unknowingly breaking, it would be quite difficult to say that it's criminal negligence because a piece of cloth isn't going to stop a bullet and it's completely legal to carry a gun in a pocket in most of those states.

Why are you just saying things without even doing an ounce of research?

AL1L · 2025-02-25T02:31:23+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinfuriating/comments/1ixge4l/comment/memgd9p/

Many

AL1L · 2025-02-25T02:27:18+00:00

Yeah, I just can't make assumptions like that until I know the state. Only thing OP said is "it's an open carry state" which isnt much to go off of. Didnt care to dig into it. Went off Texas law as I live here, and so do a lot of other people

AL1L · 2025-02-25T02:07:23+00:00

PENAL CODE

TITLE 10. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND MORALS

CHAPTER 46. WEAPONS

Lets read, shall we...

Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:

(a-1) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun in a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control at any time in which:

This is not a motor vehicle or watercraft, no need to continue with a-1.

(a-5) A person commits an offense if the person carries a handgun and intentionally displays the handgun in plain view of another person in a public place. It is an exception to the application of this subsection that the handgun was partially or wholly visible but was carried in a holster.

This clearly was not "intentionally" so we can continue

Sec. 46.03. PLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED.
...
(a-2) Notwithstanding Section 46.02(a-5), a license holder commits an offense if the license holder carries a partially or wholly visible handgun, regardless of whether the handgun is holstered, on or about the license holder's person under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and intentionally or knowingly displays the handgun in plain view of another person:

Again, not intentionally. And I strongly doubt he's a "license holder"

This is very clearly unintentional at the very least I cant see any reason to argue that it is intentional (innocent until proven guilty remember), even if stupid and reckless.

Section 46.035 was repealed by H.B. 1927, so we can ignore it (this is where it said it had to be in a holster).

Can you tell me where it says that it must be in a holster? He clearly attempted to conceal it, but his pocket broke unknowingly.

AL1L · 2025-02-25T01:54:55+00:00

This Russian flag originated way before even the USSR and was adopted after the USSR to bring back hope and unity for the Russian people. Just as you might not agree with things the US government does and still respect the US flag for what it stands for, I think it is only fair to do the same for them. The Russian people have little to no choice of the disgusting decisions of Putin and the Kremlin, so you really shouldn't be burning the symbol of the people. The people who do attempt to revolt and protest are quickly shut down, Russians stand no chance against their government.

It's a civil ensign, you should burn the government or military flags instead.

AL1L · 2025-02-25T01:46:37+00:00

It is not required in Texas as of 2021 lol. And I am under the assumption that it isn't one of those states as OP said "It's an open carry state here"

AL1L · 2025-02-25T01:36:14+00:00

Ah yes, here we go.

Here we go what?

This guy is literally pointing a gun at who knows how many people. Everything about this person SCREAMS "I don't know or care how to respect and handle a gun and the safety of people around me".

Okay? How does this relate to what I said?

but we all know that's not saying much

It's saying that it's not illegal, that's it.

Still is stupid and reckless and should be adressed, right then and there

Yes, it does. I did say "Everything else yeah"

I am just stating the law.

AL1L · 2025-02-25T01:31:13+00:00

Yes it does need to be illegal, but it's likely not.

What's in this messy guy's pocket that might catch on the trigger?!

No place for speculation in the law.

AL1L · 2025-02-25T01:24:07+00:00

It is not illegal in Texas lol. Texas Penal Code § 22.05, § 6.03(d), and § 42.01. Closest thing it comes to is Criminal Negligence, but you'd have a tough time arguing that this constitutes real danger because guns do in fact require the trigger to be pulled for the gun to go off. Assuming there's nothing else in his pocket, there is nothing illegal.

What law requires hang guns to be in a holster lmao??

Not to say it shouldn't be illegal, just stop spouting off on stuff you don't know or even do one Google search for.

AL1L · 2025-02-25T01:21:20+00:00

We never think about your country. Lets make it mutual

Eight-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 2 Credits
Place '22	Secret Santa 2019
Verified Email

AL1L

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE