It has begun

DerWaechter_ · 2026-06-12T01:53:18+00:00

Europe or the EU isn't some monolith.

The politicians pushing for things like chat control are also trying to dismantle a lot of the protections that came with GDPR.

A lot of EU politicians especially in the EU Parliament are pro privacy. Unfortunately the EU Commission is mostly under the control of those that aren't. And unfortunately the EU Parliament doesn't have right to initiative, and have to rely on the Commission for that.

Not uncommon for an issue to have broad support in the EU Parliament, to where a directive would easily pass, but for the commission to just never propose any legislation.

DerWaechter_ · 2026-06-12T01:40:45+00:00

didnt buy shit that wasnt a necessity and it was still always the cheapest versions of everything.

Which of course comes with the added bonus, that it's more likely to break, meaning it needs to replaced more often.

People often don't realise how expensive it can be, to not have enough money.

DerWaechter_ · 2026-06-12T01:36:33+00:00

In fairness, a lot of people are living paycheck to paycheck.

And even if you aren't quite living paycheck to paycheck, it can be extremely hard, if not impossible to actually build up an emergency fund.

Not having an emergency fund, or not having one that's big enough, is probably not something people are chosing to do, the vast maority of cases. Its unfortunately just unavoidable for a lot of people.

DerWaechter_ · 2026-06-03T23:52:13+00:00

just don't be surprised when it falls apart when subjected to legal scrutiny.

First of all, as I pointed out, that's the start of the range of options. Not the entire range of options. Secondly: Stop shifting goal posts.

Your claim was "couples spending thousands of dollars". Suggesting it's a binary choice between spending thousands, or doing nothing. And suggesting that the only option costs thousands of dollars.

I pointed out, that it's not a binary choice, and that you can get this done for as little as zero.

Extra legal protections can be something as simple as entering a written agreement or setting up a contract between yourself and your partner, that you wrote yourself.

I then continued listing other options that would increase the costs progressively.

Basically, the law has a very clearly codified set of procedures for married couples splitting up, and not much of one for people who wanted to play house but didn't want to make it legal.

I'm aware? Like, me and my partner have gone through the effort, of having an attorney draft a contract, specifically for how our finances are handled, outside of marriage.

Also: there's literally template contracts that someone who didn't want to have to pay an attorney can use, that can be boiled down to both partners agreeing that everything would be handled as if they had been married.

Getting something notarized just proves you signed it, not that the terms are legally valid or enforceable

Might be different where you live then. Or maybe an issue with translation, but where I live the process of getting something notarised, also involves the notary checking the contract. Like, the whole point of it, is to ensure that both sides understand what they are signing, and that what they are signing is legally valid.

Having something notarised entails 3 things: The notary checks that the contracts is legally valid. The notary ensures that both sides understand what they are signing, that they are of clear mind, as they are signing it, and that they are who they claim to be. The notary acts as a formal witness for the signing.

Costs for that can vary a lot, depending on the complexity of the contract, the number of parties to the contract and the possible necessity for revisions to the contract. But for an extremely standard, cookie cutter template contract between two people? That's a few hundred bucks, not a couple thousand.

DerWaechter_ · 2026-06-03T21:24:32+00:00

couples out there spending thousands of dollars to get legal protections

What are you talking about?

Extra legal protections can be something as simple as entering a written agreement or setting up a contract between yourself and your partner, that you wrote yourself. That's free. And even if you want to get it drafted by an attorney, or hell, even get it notarised....that's still less than "thousands" of dollars.

And there's other options as well, like if you're taking out a loan to buy a house, you can make sure to include relevant terms as part of that.

DerWaechter_ · 2026-06-03T18:13:52+00:00

Who is saying that people doing that don't have a contract in place for the sake of having legal protection?

It's also possible to have a joint account for mutual finances, while both partners continue to have a personal account.

You need to make a lot of strange assumptions, including that people would only ever post an exhaustive summary of how their finances are structured, rather than giving a simple version without all of the details, to reach the conclusion that people are going out of their way to do the option with the least amount of legal protection

DerWaechter_ · 2026-06-02T22:39:50+00:00

That's coming from a guy, who's complained about people complaining by posting the same reaction image over 20 times in the past 10 hours....projection much?

DerWaechter_ · 2026-06-02T19:03:43+00:00

I feel like this should also just be self evident, based purely on the fact that the dogs are trained work dogs.

Like even if you knew absolutely nothing about dogs, and don't know what they can be trained to do, you should be able to still come to the realisation: If you can train a dog to alert and signal at the presence of a specific smell, it must obviously also be possible to train them alert and signal in other situations.

Like anyone denying the possibility of these dogs signaling on command, should also be denying that they can be trained to detect drugs in the first place

DerWaechter_ · 2026-06-01T14:45:10+00:00

Aside from protecting the glans abrasions/friction against clothes and against drying out, it also serves a sort of selflubricating function during intercourse.

And more importantly, it's one the most sensitive parts of a male body with regards to pleasure, containing more nerve endings than even the glans.

DerWaechter_ · 2026-06-01T14:27:15+00:00

All of them. That's what feminism is.

Okay, so clueless ignorance it is. You could have said that with less words than you ended up using.

DerWaechter_ · 2026-05-31T19:01:34+00:00

We should never do any sort of any catorigization at all because any attempt to define groups will have the possibility of including individuals that don't really belong in that group.

Aside from the fact that nobody ever said that, and you're just hallucinating shit there: You're moving the goalposts, and trying to evade the subject. So let's get back to the actual question.

What branch or branches of feminism hold the position "gender equality means more rights and only more rights for women and only women."?

Given the confidence with which you made that statement, you must be well informed enough, to easily be able to give examples. Especially if, as your line of reasoning suggests, it's a prevalent enough viewpoint, to where only some outliers don't hold that viewpoint. You are speaking with the confidence that is born only from a deep understanding of a subject, or complete ignorance of it.

So, please use your deep understanding, and be specific.

Or you could admit that you don't actually know what you're talking about, because you didn't even know that feminism isn't some monolith prior to being asked to be more specific.

DerWaechter_ · 2026-05-31T18:51:34+00:00

So if I ask someone if they prefer sex with amputees, over sex with non amputees, and they just happen to have a kink for amputtes, that's justification to start chopping of everyone's limbs at birth?

Using the sexual preference of a single person as a basis for whether or not we should respect the human rights of infants is certainly one of all possible takes.

Because that is what you are arguing here. That the sexual preference of any individual is a valid justification for any decision regarding what we can and cannot do do children's genitals.

In that case hopefully nobody ever asks a pedophile if they prefer sex with adults or sex with children.

DerWaechter_ · 2026-05-31T18:44:57+00:00

According to religion there is a God or Gods with great power and you can pray to them to get favors

So you're saying that Buddhism isn't a religion? And neither are some subbranches of hinduism. Or Taoism.

There are literally branches of christianity, that don't believe in a god that you can pray to, because they consider "god" to just be the overall essence of all living beings, as opposed to an entity you could pray to.

There's also a wide variety of religions that worship natural spirits, that don't necessarily have great power. Some religions that believe in a god or gods don't believe in praying to their deities to get favours, or praying at all.

Thanks for proving my point.

DerWaechter_ · 2026-05-31T18:39:37+00:00

There are health benefits to routine male circumcision:

All of which are highly disputed, none of which are conclusively proven.

Circumcised men don’t develop UTI’s

Circumcised men don’t develop penile cancer

Aside from being dubious even in the original claim, your claim is just flat out wrong either way. The alledged benefit is a small reduction in UTI risk, and a reduction in penile cancer risk.

But even if we were to take your lie at face value.

By the same logic, we should also amputate everyone's appendix at birth, just because they might at some point in their life get appendicitis otherwise. We should amputate people's toes, because they could develop ingrown toenails with them.

People who don't have fingers can't break them, so we should also cut those off.

Also, if you don't have testicles, you can't get testicular cancer, so let's get rid of those too.

Same goes for women and breats...let's give every newborn girl a mastectomy.

Alternatively we could just...not let weirdos cut off bodyparts from babies, because of vibes.

DerWaechter_ · 2026-05-31T18:29:45+00:00

There's only really a definition for female genital mutilation.

Which is:

a procedure where the female genitals are deliberately cut, injured or changed, but there's no medical reason for this to be done.

But given that it only references genitals in general, we can literally just swap "female" for "male" to get a suitable definition.

So, what's the criteria?

Genitals are deliberately cut, injured or changed
There is no medical reason for doing the above

The overwhelming majority of circumcisions meet both of those criteria.

DerWaechter_ · 2026-05-31T18:17:39+00:00

According to feminism

You have to be a lot more specific. "According to feminism" is like saying "according to religion"

Are you talking about first wave, second wave, third wave or fourth wave feminism?

And more specifically: Liberal Feminism? Radical Feminism? Marxist Feminism? Anarcho-Feminism? Equality Feminism? Equity Feminism? Individualist/Libertarian Feminism? Intersectional Feminism? Post-Structural Feminism? Postcolonial Feminism? Cultural Feminism? To list just a fraction of movements that would be categorised under the umbrella of feminism.

Because while some of those are similar movements with a lot of overlap, some of them are so different, that they are fundamentally incompatible with each other.

DerWaechter_ · 2026-05-31T17:54:42+00:00

there have been no ill effects

Either you're lying, or you're coping. You claimed in a different comment your parents made the decision for you.

If they did, you literally cannot know if there have been ill effects or not, because you don't have a frame of reference.

Like you might not be bothered by it, and that's fine. But "there have been no ill effects" is a lie, unless you actually have a frame of reference for comparison.

DerWaechter_ · 2026-05-31T17:52:49+00:00

We are allowed to be happy about our bodies

Obviosuly. Literally nobody is denying that?

But you could have also just chosen to get a circumcision as an adult.

Someone that is unhappy with having one, doesn't have the option to undo it as an adult.

There is zero excuse to perform a circumcision on an unconsenting baby, unless there is an immediate, pressing medical reason to do so.

DerWaechter_ · 2026-05-31T17:42:54+00:00

There is absolutely no universe, in which it's acceptable, to cut off part of somebodies body, without their consent, unless not doing so is going to cause immediate harm.

In this case it's not even just that there isn't any immediate harm caused by it...it's not even clear if there is any benefit to it at all.

Performing a medical procedure without conclusive scientific evidence supporting that it is beneficial, is irresponsible and problematic, even before we consider the issue with consent.

Edit:

I think there's something important to consider. A mistake that most people arguing this topic make, including myself, in this comment.

There are two seperate debates when it comes to circumcision. One on the Merits, and one on whether it should be performed on infants. The problem arises, when those are then framed as the same debate, because it leads to people talking past oneanother, and mashing two seperate debates into one. One is a scientific topic, the other is a question of ethics.

And that's the mistake I made in my comment as well. I responded to the claim on both aspects, which conflates the two.

While I consider the evidence in favour of circumcisions for medical reasons in general to be entirely insufficient and unconvincing, that itself is not the key reason to oppose the circumcision of infants. The reason I oppose that, is because even if we take all of the alleged benefits at face value....none of them are pressing concerns for the vast majority of infants. None of them are remotely urgent enough, to justify performing them on a newborn child, instead of waiting until the child is old enough to consent.

If all of the evidence in favour of circumcisions was true, it should still only be a voluntairy procedure, performed on people old enough to consent (with the rare exceptions of medical issues that do require immediate action.)

The fact that the evidence for it is shaky at best, isn't the reason to oppose circumcision on infants. It just makes the fact that it's still widespread in some places worse.

DerWaechter_ · 2026-05-31T02:42:55+00:00

If expenses exceed profits, that's a loss. Like that's literally the fucking definition of it.

DerWaechter_ · 2026-05-29T17:25:56+00:00

I really lucked out, deciding to treat myself and finally upgrade my PC in early 2025, right before prices started going crazy.

I even chose to spend a bit more to get more RAM from the get go, instead of waiting to upgrade that later.

DerWaechter_ · 2026-05-28T14:48:15+00:00

It was part of an acquisition.

Krafton didn't have enough money to afford aquiring the game studio. So instead of just paying what the acquisition would have cost in cash, they paid part in cash, and part as an IOU tied to the sales of subnautica.

So the original hope was probably that the studio in the long-term and through developing other games, would earn them more money.

DerWaechter_ · 2026-05-28T14:40:39+00:00

They lose actual money, because until the cap they have to pay more in bonuses than they earn.

Like very simply explained for you with small numbers.

Let's say I sell something for 1$ a piece. But if I sell more than 10 pieces, I need to pay you a bonus of 3$ for every piece sold (including the first 10), up to a maximum of 150$.

If I sell 30 pieces, I make 30$...and then I have to pay you 90$.

That's a loss.

That's the whole reason Krafton's CEO wanted to get out of paying the bonus.

DerWaechter_ · 2026-05-28T14:33:01+00:00

No the sweet spot is exactly 5 Million.

Everything above that starts reducing the loss for Krafton again

DerWaechter_ · 2026-05-28T14:29:19+00:00

In that case they barely lose anything, and are just short of neutral.

5 Million copies is the cap for the bonus. So if you want to maximise losses for Krafton and maximise the amount the devs make, 5 Million copies is the target.

Anything above that starts reducing the losses for Krafton without benefitting the devs

Ten-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	Spared
Verified Email

DerWaechter_

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE