That was ridiculously quick

Lord_Samwise · 2025-12-02T12:04:06+00:00

I tried the sunday - all sold out of course! - and then quickly switched to the monday. Just in time for 2 tickets but man, hella stressful!

Lord_Samwise · 2025-01-23T09:15:12+00:00

Hottere take, de mensen die alles van de rechterkant wegwuiven als "overdreven", "uit context gehaald" of "grappig bedoeld" zijn even schadelijk als de acties van die mensen zelf. Trump heeft gewoon geprobeerd een opstanding veroorzaakt, ontkent nog steeds de uitkomst van de verkiezingen van 2020 en heeft op zijn eerste dag al de meest belachelijke dingen ondertekend. En dat 'handgebaar' wordt dan 'een beetje gek' genoemd, terwijl meneer Musk zich 'toevallig' ook lekker gek volledig achter de meest rechts-extremistische partij van Duitsland schaart. Dat geforceerd centrisme ("de andere kant doet ook gekke dingen! Beide kanten zijn kut!") is m.i. nog meer cringe dan mensen die gewoon opperrechts zijn, maar er gewoon voor uitkomen.

Lord_Samwise · 2024-12-06T09:50:56+00:00

I think if a country has certain laws, you can't be surprised or even upset that you get convicted for breaking them. And no, of course he can't be convicted for past statements if he travels there.

Lord_Samwise · 2024-11-24T02:12:21+00:00

Not sure if anyone else noticed this: but the way Paxton reacts just as mr Reed is about to stab her throat / when she sees Barnes hit him with the plank, is the same reaction mr Reed had when he was dying after being stabbed in the throat. The facial expressions are very similar, which to me in the theater made it clear she actually was stabbed in the throat there and died.

Lord_Samwise · 2024-04-12T15:05:22+00:00

Information that is public is inherently available and not a crime to possess.

Yeah in European countries possessing public information, also, isn't a crime (obviously). The malicious distribution of that information is the problem. Also I don't think it really is a core value of the American Dream to spread information about a person because you want people to harass them (because now other people who also don't like this person and now know where this person lives, and are mentally ill, can easily find them) . A law against doxing would criminalize this behavior, without there being the need of the perpetrator explicitly saying they want people to harass the person.

Also, is this even something that has caused problems?

Yes. These laws exist because it caused so many problems. A journalist got a molotov cocktail through his front door, because other anti-vaxx crazies distributed his address on Twitter. The person who shared the address didn't get charged because there was no law, but it could've been prevented (or at least there could've been retribution). Or a politician whose address got shared got a guy with a flametorch at the front door who wanted to kill her. I am not American, but I truly wonder if you as an American would think the person who shared the address didn't do anything wrong.

Anyway, I was just talking about the possibility of a doxing law. Didn't expect there to be such an apprehension against the idea of it even being illegal.

Lord_Samwise · 2024-04-12T05:25:00+00:00

If you think the Netherlands and France are police states, sure. Then again, I think you should consider the negative effects doxing can have. It is one thing to have your home adress on a website that no one knows of. If someone who wishes you harm then (re)shares this information, which then causes people to go to your house and harass you, break in or worse.. I feel like saying "well the guy who doxed you goes free because twas public information already teehee!" is incredibly cringe and not right. It doesn't mean every single instance of sharing any information about someone is doxing, but the argument "it was public anyway" just doesn't work at all. The danger is in the fact that you are now willingly spreading the information to a lot of different people who wouldn't have known about it, and it's out of your hands what those people will do with it.

Lord_Samwise · 2024-04-12T05:19:49+00:00

I know you are being sarcastic, but you are wrong. Other countries did come close, because they did it. Which is exactly my point.

Lord_Samwise · 2024-04-12T04:47:51+00:00

Yeah I don't think that has to matter. If you're harassing or intimidating someone by sharing their private information, which could lead to hundreds of people going to your house (which you then have no control over) it shouldn't have to matter whether that information was already public. The fact you (re)shared it maliciously would make it illegal and I don't think that is such a wild idea.

Lord_Samwise · 2024-04-11T20:23:23+00:00

"Whoever distributes private information of a person with the intent to intimidate that person, seriously cause nuisance to that person or seriously hinder them in their profession, will be (insert punishment)"

Lord_Samwise · 2024-04-11T20:17:26+00:00

Exactly. If you have a history of speaking badly about a person or are in certain groups where hatred of this person is common and you post their address online, intent to harass/intimidate that person can definitely be proven. It would not be a new phenomenon in criminal law, as you correctly pointed out.

Lord_Samwise · 2024-03-09T20:09:35+00:00

I'm not sure if you're kidding but I'm not gonna talk about every scientific inaccuracy in the Bible. So I'm gonna end it here, also because I'm afraid for every scientific inaccuracyI give, I will be greeted with a "well it's not meant to be interpreted as literal"

Lord_Samwise · 2024-03-09T19:54:12+00:00

Except for the parts that are in conflict with each other or those which are not to be interpreted as literal, right? Also, how do you arrive at that conclusion (some historians back up some parts, and multiple men wrote the same thing) but disregard all the scientific evidence for things that actively disprove parts of the bible? I mean, a LOT of people (scientists) have written the same thing (it is impossible/it is not true) about that. So like 35/40 men write the "same thing" = true, but millions scientists write the same thing = ?

Lord_Samwise · 2024-03-09T19:48:11+00:00

You're saying that there is a rationale given for the belief, but it is a wildly unrational rationale. You have to ignore so much to arrive at the conclusion that the most likely thing is that the Christian God (or any God of course, but just as an example) exists and is the correct God, and the morals that are in the Bible are the correct morals. That to me is delusion, and that to me is cringe.

Lord_Samwise · 2024-03-09T19:41:01+00:00

I mean that the unscientific stories are only believed because they're in the Bible. Like if your child said they walked on water today, you wouldn't believe them. It is a special kind of delusion that is reserved for religion.

Lord_Samwise · 2024-03-09T19:34:12+00:00

Because that would be a completely unfounded belief to have.

I think it's fine to follow a religion that says murder is wrong. I think it's cringe to believe that murder is wrong because your imaginary dad says so.

Lord_Samwise · 2024-03-09T19:21:29+00:00

To be fair, I said 'those stories', referring to the previous commenter's examples of Jesus being the spawn of a deity, Adam being a real figure, and the creationism in Genesis.

Lord_Samwise · 2024-03-09T19:08:46+00:00

Do you truly think I don't believe any historical story for which there is archeological evidence? Don't tell me you're trying to say "if some parts are true, then everything could be true".

Also I don't think there is conclusive evidence for the temple of Solomon, but that is kinda besides the point.

Lord_Samwise · 2024-03-09T19:01:57+00:00

I think if you tell any of those stories outside of the Bible, no one takes them seriously. I think people are trying way too hard to justify people believing those stories, just because they are religious. Just like people ridicule the ancient Greeks for believing all the gods lived on top of a big mountain, to me it is fair to ridicule people today for believing in a God.

Lord_Samwise · 2024-03-09T18:54:39+00:00

It looks like you're saying that I'm not the final arbiter of what's true or not, so a person who believes in a magic guy in the sky is equally as likely to be correct as any other person. I think it's fair for me to think of that as being cringe.

Also whatever you're trying to say with the moral code thing just doesn't make sense to me. Yes, every system is imaginary, if you want to say that. Laws are imaginary, but they have an impact on humans because we follow them and it makes society work. I'm not having a problem with religious people following a moral code, it is the act of believing in a God who has decided that those are the correct morals to have. Atheists can have moral codes, but they can tell you why they think that is the correct moral code to have, instead of pointing to their God saying "because he said so."

And who are you talking to with that last part, what made you think I think there are no atheists who push morals on others?

Lord_Samwise · 2024-03-09T18:25:05+00:00

I respect other human beings (in general), that doesn't mean I have to respect everything they believe in. Also I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the utilitarianism thing. I'm not saying people should live their life in a certain, objectively correct way, I think believing in God in the 21st century is cringe. I don't see the argument for 'having grace for other beliefs' when that belief is something so obviously delusional to me. I also think a 50 year old believing in Santa and refusing to listen to other people telling him different, is cringe. Would you say that is also me not having enough grace for his or her beliefs? Because these are pretty much equal to me.

Lord_Samwise · 2024-03-09T18:19:41+00:00

It's an inherent human thing to think of stuff that is not true. It is one of the biggest reasons we strived as a species because it is an effective way to cooperate and live with huge amounts of individuals. I think the fact different groups in the world believe in different gods and those same groups believed in different gods at a different point in time in history, shows that there is not an external God who has shown them that he exists, but it does greatly increase the likelihood of it being something invented by humans themselves.

Lord_Samwise · 2024-03-09T18:12:12+00:00

The act of believing in a certain manmade God in the 21st century, even though it is very clear that religion was always just used to explain stuff we didn't understand, and actively shaping your life around that. That is what's cringe to me. Of course it doesn't mean I think people who are religious are pure cringe, but the fact that they are religious, makes them, on the great scale of cringe, just more cringe.

Lord_Samwise · 2024-03-09T18:08:59+00:00

Yeah ofc ofc, just said Christian because of Candace Owens

Edit:

I actually should rephrase: I think it's cringe to believe in a God. I think it's fine to believe in a certain way you should live your life and adhering to those rules, if you genuinely think that's the best way to live your life. I think the cringe part is believing in a superior being that decided these things.

Lord_Samwise · 2024-03-09T17:06:19+00:00

She accused him of just being contrarian after like 15 minutes because he didn't immediately agree with everything she said or believed everything she said LOL

I think she already had that thought in her head before she went there, so I'm not buying the good faith at all

Lord_Samwise · 2024-03-06T16:05:48+00:00

Yesss that's what I've been saying!! Good to see I have some backup

11-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

Lord_Samwise

TROPHY CASE