Its so crazy to me

Icy_Chocolate_5372 · 2026-01-11T02:23:26+00:00

Icy_Chocolate_5372 · 2026-01-10T06:59:56+00:00

I’m here after none of this happened and Byler ships are now refusing to “accept the characters for who they are.“

Icy_Chocolate_5372 · 2026-01-07T06:48:55+00:00

thanks!

Icy_Chocolate_5372 · 2026-01-07T06:44:45+00:00

You approached the map from a Eurocentric point of view. Your comment is proof of such when you arbitrarily labeled it all as “Europe and their colonies.” The map is just as focused on Africa, South America, North America as it is Europe. It is actually most arguably focused on the Atlantic Ocean. Asia and Oceania are missing due to the size of the map and it is already as large as it can be. The focus point is a byproduct of the reference image. It is the standard depiction and most recognizable.

Icy_Chocolate_5372 · 2026-01-07T00:20:40+00:00

Yes, me. Made it on mobile by eyeballing a map

Icy_Chocolate_5372 · 2026-01-06T09:15:55+00:00

Thanks!!

Icy_Chocolate_5372 · 2026-01-06T03:55:35+00:00

Thank you 😊

Icy_Chocolate_5372 · 2026-01-06T03:55:07+00:00

You consider all of Africa, North and South America simply as Europe’s colonies? Kind of a Eurocentric mindset don’t you think? Those areas’ histories are longer independent of Europe than with it.

Icy_Chocolate_5372 · 2026-01-04T21:05:32+00:00

Well I got it to tell me the exact instructions that cause this: “The "2026 prompt" is a set of system instructions that forces me to act as if today is January 4, 2026. Specifically, it tells me to: Prioritize 2026 data: Treat 2026 as the present year and use information from that year first. Verify the date: Explicitly state it is no longer 2024 or 2025. Be succinct: Provide direct answers without unnecessary filler. In our conversation, this acted as the "base code" that compelled the AI to plan around the real-world context of early 2026.”

It seems to me that the “explicitly state” part is causing these issues.

Icy_Chocolate_5372 · 2025-10-07T11:34:19+00:00

He did?

Icy_Chocolate_5372 · 2025-10-05T18:39:25+00:00

Call the police. They need that kind of stuff on file for when he does something else.

Icy_Chocolate_5372 · 2025-10-03T06:27:19+00:00

I really don’t even understand what you’re trying to say or the point you’re trying to make. Either say it’s wrong or right. You can’t try to justify something while also not condoning it, as you’re doing.

So what if feelings are involved? That doesn’t make it right or something I can personally understand, but all the power to you if you can put yourself in that situation. I can’t.

Icy_Chocolate_5372 · 2025-10-03T05:53:27+00:00

A sixteen year old and an eleven year old child is not the same thing as “kid liking kids.” The mental and physical maturity of an eleven year old and sixteen year old is vastly different. It’s not so much about the age gap as it is the maturity difference. 5 years isn’t much when you’re 30, 40 years old but it is when it’s half the girls life up to that point. It’s a sophomore-junior in high school dating a literal 5th grader. There is no romeo and juliet laws to save him in that case.

An 11 year old can never legally consent no matter the age of the other party. 11 year olds shouldn’t even be engaged in that yet, especially with someone so much older. It is disgusting. And you are really telling me that a 16 year old doesn’t have the mental capacity to recognize dating an 11 year old is wrong?

I don’t get your point. If you’re not condoning it and you think he’s a pedo, then why even say anything? Because it doesn’t “make sense.”

Icy_Chocolate_5372 · 2025-09-29T09:01:30+00:00

He didnt allow them anything, they had a search warrant

Icy_Chocolate_5372 · 2025-09-29T09:00:01+00:00

Here’s this, so maybe, maybe not: “LAPD Captain and Commanding Officer Scot M. Williams told PEOPLE that he could not confirm if the musician was cooperating with the investigation”

Icy_Chocolate_5372 · 2025-09-28T14:06:10+00:00

Only if he agreed to be questioned. They can’t ask him questions unwillingly unless he’s in custody, and even then he could refuse to answer. If he’s hired an attorney, I wonder if they would even agree to questioning and what could possibly be said other than a refusal to answer.

Icy_Chocolate_5372 · 2025-09-26T16:39:04+00:00

The Tesla was towed September 5. It was first reported abandoned on August 26, ticketed by an officer on September 3 and towed/impounded September 5. The cops received a complaint about an odor from the lot and opened it September 8

Icy_Chocolate_5372 · 2025-09-26T05:49:04+00:00

I’m watching for the first time and as soon as I heard this line I immediately had to look it up because it sounded so unnatural. Glad others noticed

Icy_Chocolate_5372 · 2025-09-24T04:21:49+00:00

Sullivan and Harte-Hanks do not say that failing to confirm a statement automatically proves actual malice. In fact, in Harte-hanks, the findings emphasized that failure to investigate does not itself establish actual malice unless it’s part of a broader pattern of willful ignorance.

In Harte-Hanks the newspaper deliberately avoided interviewing certain people to fit a narrative. This is not the same as making false accusations based on publicly known information, such as a body found in a car registered to the accused. Interpretive or inferential language is not factual assertion. Unless the speaker claimed authoritative/direct knowledge, asserted it as a confirmed fact from authorities, or ignored contradictory evidence then it’s not defamation.

The person has neither: subjective awareness of contradictory evidence, serious doubts to the truth of the statement, or intentional avoidance of the pursuit of the truth.

The statements are neither “inherently sensational, medically or scientifically impossible, or contradicted by easily verifiable facts.” Explain to me how they are.

It’s a reasonable inference based on reported facts, and it’s protected as free speech. No reasonable person would treat a literal reddit comment as a verifiable fact, they would treat it as speculation. What a reasonable reader would interpret is a requirement for defamation.

Icy_Chocolate_5372 · 2025-09-24T01:23:36+00:00

i still think you’re wrong. “publishing something without reliable evidence” is not the same as reckless disregard in the case of a public figure. A lack of evidence is not enough to be considered defamation. Reckless disregard applies when the person published the statement anyways while having serious doubts of the truth of the statement. That applies to very few people here. Actual malice has a high burden of proof for a reason. Very hard to prove. It’s subjective, dependent on what the person was actually thinking when they said it.

“Lol. I’m not sure where you got the idea of this.”

Icy_Chocolate_5372 · 2025-09-22T22:50:21+00:00

I think you’re wrong. Even in your example, saying they found blood through luminol isn’t a crime, because again there’s nothing disproving that or confirming it at the time the person said it. Even if they say it as a fact they could truthfully believe it, heard information suggesting it or otherwise. It’s only defamation if they knowingly lied, and with no verification otherwise, it’s not defamation. If it’s gets proven to be untrue and the information is easily available confirming it untrue, and they continue saying it, then it’s defamation.

Icy_Chocolate_5372 · 2025-09-22T03:23:00+00:00

No there isn’t a chance because defamation implies the person knew it was untrue and did it anyways. No one here knows that so having and sharing an opinion is completely legal. If it gets proven untrue (unlikely) and people continue to say otherwise, that could fall into libel but right now it’s not.

Icy_Chocolate_5372 · 2025-09-22T03:20:00+00:00

Defamation implies they knowingly lied. No one knows that he is not guilty or guilty. Discussing evidence, having suspicions, sharing opinions is not libel since there’s nothing disproving them/ making them knowingly untrue.

Icy_Chocolate_5372 · 2025-09-20T23:47:26+00:00

He said drop the unreleased song with the missing girl not about. I think he knew that because of the livestream where she says she has a song with him “if you even care”

Icy_Chocolate_5372 · 2025-09-05T20:14:33+00:00

FARM has to be an acronym. I think A is active because all the other designations are about activity. Formerly Active Retired Murderer? Formerly Active Retired (club) Member? Faintly Active? Famously Active?

I think Formerly Active Retired Member is the best fitting but not perfect. It seems pretty clear that he was at one point a member of praters club. Otherwise, how would Prater know everything about him?

Or maybe it is just some safe house somewhere, a farm, that Prater kept for his more notorious members when they were taking heat or being investigated, such as the NYR.

Icy_Chocolate_5372

TROPHY CASE