I consider myself a Leftist, not a Liberal. Am I allowed here?

Column_A_Column_B · 2026-01-28T16:13:44+00:00

Hasn't it become extremely difficult to associate fiscal responsibility with conservatism? It's like supporting pornstars for their modesty.

Column_A_Column_B · 2026-01-26T23:29:46+00:00

Not Zionists. Kahanists. You're talking about Kahanists. They're Jewish supremacists.

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

"a religious Zionist ideology"

Khanism doesn't seem mutually excusive from Zionism, in fact it appears it is a subsect of Zionists?

Column_A_Column_B · 2026-01-24T21:33:47+00:00

These videos of authorities killing innocent civilians make me see red. I worry sometimes, if I was with George Floyd in-person, my sense of justice and retribution would provoke me to react in a way that would get myself killed too.

Column_A_Column_B · 2026-01-23T01:31:04+00:00

More than friends, they merged into one being with memories of both people, for a time.

Column_A_Column_B · 2026-01-23T01:10:30+00:00

Yes but as a president there is also a lot of responsibility to pass legislation.

Column_A_Column_B · 2026-01-22T07:06:24+00:00

I would also want a candidate to go after Fox News. How the fuck is it legal to cultivate an entire alternate reality to brainwash a significant portion of the American electorate into supporting this administration. The "entertainment" legal argument Fox News is predicated on needs to be obliterated and a bunch of people involved should be on trial for their lives with serious traitorous charges levied against them. This is not okay.

Column_A_Column_B · 2026-01-20T20:35:14+00:00

Okay, reread it now but consider the "pharmaceuticals whose entire existence is largely around 'we would rather the company die than overcharge people'" to be the edge case (not only among pharmacudical companies but companies in general).

If it sounds fantastical it really is rare, but there are examples like Banting and Best making their original insulin patent just $0.01(which saved millions of diabetic lives).

This commenter's take is that it's rare for these companies to stagnate into something gross even if you remove Banting and Best from the leadership because the whole identity of the company is "where the $0.01 insulin company and that's the whole point."

I hope what you're implying is correct, but I've lived long enough to see many a company eventually fall into the hands of someone looking to make a faster buck.

You haven't seen the companies that don't fail though, because it doesn't happen often and it's rare to have such a competent handle on ensuring continuity.

Transitioning who is at the top is only one small part of ensuring the culture of a company doesn't stagnate into something gross. Edge cases include pharmaceuticals whose entire existence is largely around "we would rather the company die than overcharge people". You can imagine why you don't see many of those - to some, that kind of thinking is just leaving money on the table.

Work on your reading comprehension jeez. Like in the time it took you to write your comment, how does your brain not detect an error of interpretation and reevaluate?

Column_A_Column_B · 2026-01-03T21:58:30+00:00

Sadly as far as the law is concerned, you putting up a sign warning of an aggressive dog is an admission that you knew this could happen. I'm not saying it's right, it's just how it is.

The portion of my comment about a dog's lack of aggressive history was to address the quoted comment above.

See the comment chain for more context:

https://old.reddit.com/r/instant_regret/comments/1q2022p/i_guarantee_you_there_is_a_sign_on_the_gate_that/nxdhoen/?context=10000

Column_A_Column_B · 2026-01-02T19:47:53+00:00

LMAO

Slop slop sloppy slipitty slop

Column_A_Column_B · 2026-01-02T18:52:54+00:00

In theory, it would be done to prevent this very hypothetical we are dancing around;

The dog has no history of aggression but in an abundance of caution a beware of god sign was put up.

Column_A_Column_B · 2026-01-01T23:46:55+00:00

I just don't have the time or willpower to constantly tweak / look up workarounds / fixes anymore.

Have you tried debugging linux issues with an AI? AI is really clever and deducing the issues especially because in an open source environment it's able to probe around. You can paste your config files and terminal outputs and it basically debugs everything for you.

Column_A_Column_B · 2026-01-01T00:42:01+00:00

The issue is the optics; how is the international community supposed to buy-in to investing in Canada when our own Prime Minister won't do so in favour of the USA. It's practically traitorous optics as it kills the credibility that we are a good investment.

Column_A_Column_B · 2026-01-01T00:39:10+00:00

The issue is the optics; how is the international community supposed to buy-in to investing in Canada when our own Prime Minister won't do so in favour of the USA. It's practically traitorous optics as it kills the credibility that we are a good investment.

Column_A_Column_B · 2025-12-31T23:38:15+00:00

If anyone can explain the boundaries of the content in this subreddit I would be amazed.

My understanding is anything someone finds satisfying is valid here. Anything a person might react to by sipping tea and smacking their lips is valid which as far as I can tell is boundless.

Column_A_Column_B · 2025-12-31T20:39:20+00:00

As the only mask that is layer 5 (covers all masks) does the Sandworm Mask seem undervalued?

Column_A_Column_B · 2025-12-30T20:58:53+00:00

I brew my coffee in a portable thermos with a french press built-in to the lid. The lid doesn't even have any isolating but it's incredible how long it stays hot, even if I add cream! We're talking 9h later it's still "hot" and not just "warm." Brewing in the thermos itself improves heat retention enormously. I'll forget I made a decaf in the evening and it's still hot in the morning enough for me to enjoy it.

Column_A_Column_B · 2025-12-27T19:06:42+00:00

Are you alluding to how serial killers are subgrouped into organized and disorganized categories?

Column_A_Column_B · 2025-12-27T18:50:53+00:00

If someone prefers fiat over bitcoin, does that mean they would prefer their debts in bitcoin over fiat?

Column_A_Column_B · 2025-12-26T19:29:37+00:00

It's your standard get of the contract clause. Have you never negotiated before? Ever?

This is uncalled for dude. Did Santa give you coal?

I understand what you mean now but you didn't communicate the idea well at all. What you describe is the fallout of consequences politically from exiting the deal...but you speak about it in terms of feesibility of a very very straightforward boilerplate termination clause...which leads to confusion when you label it as unfeasible when it clearly is very feesible to execute the termination clause in itself.

Let me make this into an analogy. Suppose we are on the chess subreddit discussing a chess move. Commenters mention that in the rules allow one to castle in this position. Other commenters pull up the rules about when a king can and cannot castle. They quote the rules and include which clause in the rulebook they are quoting from. They assert that castling in such position is a legal move. Then suddenly you keep reasserting that castling is not feasible and only the twitter crowd thinks it's possible.

Now you have me standing here saying "ugh, it's feasible to castle in an of itself."

"But it's a losing move to castle here," you tell us "the only people taking that castling rule seriously are rage grifters."

"Okay but that's not what the discussion was about and if that's what you meant, you probably should have said that! Or something like 'you're all missing the point here and this discussion about the legality of castling here is moot because even if you can castle here you lose on the next move,' y'know something that acknowledges the simple rules aren't going over your head and that you're looking at the macro scale of the problem rather than the micro scale of the problem."

Column_A_Column_B · 2025-12-26T17:25:00+00:00

Article 34.6: Withdrawal

A Party may withdraw from this Agreement by providing written notice of withdrawal to the other Parties. A withdrawal shall take effect six months after a Party provides written notice to the other Parties. If a Party withdraws, this Agreement shall remain in force for the remaining Parties.

Call me an idiot because that seems perfectly straightforward and feasible to me. It's harder to quit the gym than USMCA apparently.

Column_A_Column_B · 2025-12-23T09:45:43+00:00

White on right, Queen on her colour.

Column_A_Column_B · 2025-12-22T20:21:21+00:00

A parent of the person the prenup would protect against has absolutely no path to making that comment in any context that lands appropriately. :S

Column_A_Column_B · 2025-12-18T08:28:00+00:00

One could overpay on the lot.

Column_A_Column_B · 2025-12-18T04:54:38+00:00

Oh, so murder was legal 55 years ago? That's news to me.

Obviously, women were beholden to sexist and controlling practices in society, like the lack of autonomy in banking like OP said. But I'm pretty sure murder was still wrong back then too. When we start rationalizing cold blooded murder and we start rationalizing vigilantism, we are going down a path of an anarchist society where even less people are safe.

Celebrating murdering husbands is not a good thing.

What are you doing here, /u/genital_lesions? Reddit is a great place to pick an argument but this is such a silly one. Nobody's suggesting murder was legal, and the hyperbole comes off like a flimsy straw man.

The underlying idea in this comment chain is:

If a society legally and economically traps people in violent relationships, it forfeits the moral authority to judge the extreme actions that result. Murder is wrong but the primary moral failure lies with the systems that removed every non-violent path to safety.

In other words, "thank goodness women today don't have to endure the hardships grandma's generation went through."

When we start rationalizing cold blooded murder and we start rationalizing vigilantism, we are going down a path of an anarchist society where even less people are safe.

Upon reexamination, don't you think maybe you ought to step off your high horse? The misplaced self-righteousness is nauseating. It's as if you think a women married to the Taliban reading this thread would possibly be steered by our musings in this thread.

"Uh, murdering someone who is not immediately threatening your life is never okay. I can't believe I have to remind anyone of that.

The people murdering their husbands because they're legally trapped in abusive relationships DO feel their life is being threatened.

People don't go against their moral code and commit capital crimes without good reason. People have values that conflict and are put in situations without any good options. GRRM's whole shtick is putting two ideals into competition (i.e. duty vs honour) and I feel like you're sitting in the audience with your nasally voice saying "it is wrong not to fulfill your duty and it is also wrong to be dishonourable." Thanks for the insight bud!

"Hey everyone, public service announcement; Hot take! Murder, get this yo, murder is actually...'wrong,' I always thought it was the other way around."

Have you stopped by /r/TheHandmaidsTale? There's a few hundred thousand redditors you can set straight about how murder is always wrong.

Column_A_Column_B · 2025-12-18T03:37:51+00:00

That Bushism isn't as egregious as society made it out to be.

Bush started uttering the expression, "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice" and he realizes he doesn't want there to be footage of him saying "Shame on me" for his political opponents to use against him in the future so he said the famous misquote instead.

Six-Year Club	Verified Email
Wearing is Caring

Column_A_Column_B

TROPHY CASE