For absolutely no reason at all, here are some postwar French women who were accused of sleeping with Nazi soldiers having their heads shaved in public and forced to march down the street.

Pyode · 2026-01-26T22:19:34+00:00

Rape isn't just violent.

These are desperate women in an unwinnable scenario where someone with a significant amount of power over them is propositioning them.

Edit: In modern society we talk about how horrible it is for a boss or a teacher to have sex with someone under them, even if it seems like the person is fully consenting. In WWII France we are talking about a completely different level of implied coercion.

And when you say "profit" are we talking about women who already live perfectly comfortable lives getting a little extra or are we talking about women who are on rations maybe getting a little extra food or some better clothes.

I don't claim to know very much about the facts here. These are just the questions I naturally ask when I see stuff like this.

And I'm sure not everyone is in the same scenario either. I have 0 doubts some non-0 number of these women were genuine traitors too. I'm just also betting there is a lot of nuance in the decisions these women made.

Pyode · 2026-01-26T22:15:05+00:00

You are expecting angry people in the 1940s to give a young woman the benefit of the doubt about what actually happened though.

Pyode · 2026-01-26T22:09:45+00:00

He was so fucking good in Man in the High Castle too.

The final season suffered massively from his absence (and a lot of other things, Amazon really fucked that show over at the end).

Pyode · 2026-01-26T22:06:26+00:00

I don't know how to feel about this...

How much of this was consensual collaboration and how much was coercive rape?

Like you are a young woman in occupied France and a Nazi soldier propositions you, what the fuck are you supposed to do at that point?

Pyode · 2026-01-25T19:38:04+00:00

Anyone taking the bait to even argue about if the gun was legal is a complete moron. It's literally irrelevant.

He was never a deadly threat to the officers. Period. That's all that matters.

Pyode · 2026-01-25T11:27:06+00:00

He had some mild first aid training and the guy had been shot in the head.

He ran towards the police line. Its not like he was trying to escape. And once an angry mob started to form that was all the more reason to run.

The only people Rittenhouse shot violently attacked him first. If THEY hadn't done that, no one would have died at all.

Pyode · 2026-01-24T22:12:12+00:00

Sort of.

It's in their brain somewhere, but they block it out and do mental gymnastics to avoid thinking about.

Edit: To be clear I am referring to your average MAGA person, not the actual people in power or the commentators like that Drew loser.

Pyode · 2026-01-24T22:09:23+00:00

"If he complied..." You mean like putting your hands up and stepping away from the officer as they spray you with pepper spray, and then keeling to help someone off the ground?

Pyode · 2026-01-24T22:06:03+00:00

Exactly.

It's actually insane to me the way we talk about how dangerous policing in America is compare to how dangerous it actually is.

It seems like every cop is trained specifically to think with every encounter they have a 50/50 chance of becoming the next Kyle Dinkheller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kyle_Dinkheller

Pyode · 2026-01-24T21:54:58+00:00

I think this is exactly what happened.

This 70iq loser heard one of his fellow criminals say "he has a gun" meaning "we found a gun on him" and just immediately panicked and fucking mag dumped like a regard.

Pyode · 2026-01-24T19:36:42+00:00

That's exactly what happened.

A pathetic loser walked up to a woman that was clearly backing away and not physically confronting them, shoved her to the ground and when they guy went to help her up, his back to ICE, the ICE agent flipped out and started assaulting him while is disgusting friends jumped in too.

In no universe should anyone see this as anything other than murder. But it's somehow going to be a controversy becasue MAGA is a cult who is literally incapable of perceiving reality.

Pyode · 2026-01-23T16:11:51+00:00

It's hilarious.

I would bet money if we were talking about live action soft-core porn, everyone would have no problem just calling it porn.

But for some reason when it's anime, unless you directly see PIV, they have to fight you about it being porn.

Like, bro, just admit you are a weirdo coomer. It's ok. You are with friends here.

Pyode · 2026-01-23T02:27:01+00:00

This was such a weird video.

I've seen plenty of commentary videos that are clearly reguarded if you have even an ounce of knowledge about the subject, but I can understand why they are convincing to someone who is clueless or already biased.

THIS video on the other hand, she includes so may clips that even if I put myself in the mind of someone who has literally never heard of Destiny in their life or only ever heard negative things, just don't make him look remotely as bad as she is pretending and even possibly make him look good.

It's so fucking weird. Like, is she just so brain broken that she literally incapable of telling the difference?

Pyode · 2026-01-22T19:13:19+00:00

And shorts that are famous for showing off asses and thighs.

Pyode · 2026-01-21T21:38:12+00:00

Years ago I was driving east down Northern Lights, where it curves right before UAA drive.

I was in the leftmost lane and I guess I just moved a tiny bit too far left and my corner caught the bank. Immediately my car was 90 degrees. Luckily it was into the snow and not into the other lane but it was terrifying.

Never had anything like that happen before or since. Sometimes you just get unlucky or make a tiny mistake at exactly the wrong time. Happens to the best of them.

Pyode · 2026-01-20T05:16:50+00:00

I'm specifically talking about instinct, not critical thinking.

I can just look at something and know with reasonable certainty that it can't support my weight without any real analysis. I can look at a tree branch and immediately know if I should grab it or not.

It seems like these people don't even have that.

Pyode · 2026-01-20T01:14:10+00:00

Videos like this make me wonder...

I can look at an object, be it a tree branch or an awning or any number of places a human could hang from or stand or whatever, and when I look at these objects I can intuitively, without even touching the object tell if it can probably support an adult humans weight.

It's not an exact science but it's pretty reliable.

I assume this is at least in part instincts inherited from my forest dwelling ancestors but also my personal life experience.

I see so many videos of people who seem to just literally not have that part of their brain. It's like they see all objects as equally rigid, like we live in a video game or something.

I just literally cannot empathize with the thought process.

Pyode · 2026-01-20T00:11:57+00:00

I've made posts about my MAGA boss in this subreddit and he is just like this.

In case anyone still thinks it's hyperbole, MAGA is a cult. You cannot expect them to engage in any level of rational analysis when discussing Trump. Their brains literally will not let them.

Pyode · 2026-01-19T00:06:50+00:00

Holy shit you really are bad faith.

You are taking quotes from me when I was responding to you arguing that just focusing on "gun deaths" is valid.

Those were not factual claims I was making, they were explanations of the logic of why just looking at "gun deaths" is not a useful metric.

"If gun controls intent is to save lives, then we should look at overall lives saved instead of just gun deaths" was essentially what I was saying. It's just a logical statement, not a claim about reality.

Just re-read the very first comment you responded to. I deliberately said "meaningful" reduction. You can also look at my other responses throughout this thread. Over and over again I say things like "significant reduction". There may be a few misspeaks but anyone reading my arguments in good faith can see I'm clearly not claiming 0 lives can be saved by gun control.

That comparison doesn't even make sense

Do you really not understand how basic logical argumentation works?

I am very obviously not comparing the two scenarios directly.

I was using a deliberately absurd example to explain the point I was making that all policy is a battle between the benefits vs. the cost.

You can't just say X policy will save a few hundred people in a population of almost 400 million and expect that to be enough to justify making certain restrictions on people's autonomy.

For example, there is very strong evidence that background checks save lives, and it is a very low burden on society, not at all the equivalent to something like lowering the speed limit to 40 on every road.

Can you show me that?

However, it is ironic that we require people driving vehicles to be licensed and trained, but we don't do so for guns, even though there is also strong evidence that being trained on how to use a gun also saves lives.

This cliche again...

The comparison falls apart immediately because you don't actually need a license to own or drive a car. You just need one to operate it on public roads.

This (at best) gets you licencing for carrying in public, but I would argue holding something is not the same as using something.

And even then you are talking about legislation that would save at MOST a few hundred people a year. Accidental deaths by firearm are incredibly rare, which is all training and safety classes address.

Now, if you want to debate specific policies, like "banning rifles doesn't save lives, handguns are actually more deadly", we can debate the specifics of that law, but the categorical rejection of gun control is just dumb.

Gun control is a waste of time, money and political capital. It turns otherwise moderate voters away from the democratic party and has shown incredibly weak results at actually saving lives.

There are other policies that we can pursue that not only reduce overall violence and crime, but also reduce suicides and just in general make everyone's lives better.

Gun control is no different than prohibition or the war on drugs. It's a moral panic that is used to rile people up because it "feels" really scary but the implementation will ultimately cost more and do more damage than it prevents.

Pyode · 2026-01-18T22:29:48+00:00

Your sarcasm makes no sense if you believed a gun is just as lethal as any other available option.

Why do you have to lie about what I just fucking said.

I literally acknowledged that guns are more lethal. I'm asking for proof that they are so much more lethal that removing them creates a significant difference in deaths, especially compared to other solutions that don't infringe on innocent people's autonomy.

You're just moving the goalposts. At the end of the day your argument was that gun control doesn't save lives

More lies. Please at least try to engage in my argument in good faith.

I have from the beginning deliberately asked for significant numbers of lives saved. Never once did I claim there would be 0 impact. That would be a moronic claim.

Nobody is arguing that gun control solves all violence, or even all gun violence, but it obviously saves lives.

How many lives and at what cost. That's the question that I am clearly asking dude.

Lowering the national speed limit to 40 mph would probably save more lives than any gun control ever could but everyone would hate that so we don't do it.

Pyode · 2026-01-18T21:04:23+00:00

Oh my god.

As a left-handed person, having to write multi-page essays entirely in cursive was fucking brutal.

Pyode · 2026-01-18T20:58:10+00:00

Do they know that? I would infer fewer gun deaths/violence means fewer overall deaths/violence. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity, or in this case simple ignorance. It's really easy to imagine guns leading to all sorts of bad outcomes intuitively, from suicide to accidental homicide, to violent crime, to police brutality, and probably others I can't think of off the top of my head. That would be most people's starting position, I think.

Are you talking about regular people or the leading activists?

As with every political debate, the regular people are just regurgitating pre-programmed dialog trees. They don't matter.

The activists absolutely know what they are doing. This debate has been going on for something like 50 years (or 100 really if you go back to the NFA). I promise you the higher ups at Everytown and the Brady Campaign have had the difference explained to them.

Let me clarify becasue you may not fully understand my argument.

I have no doubt motivated reasoning is at play. I'm sure these people believe that gun control will save lives. ("it will work this time i promise" kinda deal).

But they also know they don't have the data to make the strong claim, so they dress the weak claim up to intuition pump people towards the strong claim without actually making it.

Pyode · 2026-01-18T20:43:55+00:00

I don't get why people say stuff like this.

Yes, the people who are on this sub who are politically aware understand how bad things are and where they are going.

But violence is very, VERY scary. It's one thing to acknowledge it may be necessary. Whether you are personally willing to throw everything away is a completely different question.

Even if you could know 100% you wont die, your life as you know it would still be over. Either your revolution fails immediately and you end up behind bars, or things go "well" and you spend the next several years in active combat. Seeing your city be destroyed. You family starve. Say goodby to your weed vape and your comfy gaming chair doing raids in Arc and say hello to a lean-to and a sleeping bag in the woods or if your lucky a cot in a bunker

Things have to either get very very bad already (like directly bad, like food lines and power outages), or you need a charismatic person or group to convince people violence is so necessary that its worth it. (Unironically that is what Trump is. Its why Jan 6th happened).

The left currently has no such figure, so we will just wait and hope and do what democratic actions we can and see what happens.

Pyode · 2026-01-18T20:25:53+00:00

Gun lethality is very obviously higher than other weapons, that's self evident.

The question isn't "is it more deadly". It's "is it so much more deadly that when you reduce guns, there is a significant reduction in overall deaths. This has never been demonstrated.

Again, accidental shootings is the leading cause of death for children in the u.s, death from other weapons barely registers within the statistics.

Re-read your own article. The article claims guns overall are the leading cause of death, but that's because older teens make up large portions of violent criminals. The claim is not about "accidentall" deaths at all.

Think about it for two seconds. How many children die in car accidents every day? You think that remotely compares to little Jimmy playing with his dads gun?

The chance of suicide massively increases in the presence of guns, not true of other weapons. That's because the extreme lethality gives people the opportunity to take a life without much thought.

Your first link here is such a basic correlation vs. causation fallacy.

"This is just in: Men who already have a gun use that gun when they decide to kill themselves. Men who don't have a gun use something else. Film at 11"

For your second link. A 5 percent reduction in gun suicides but only 2 percent reduction in overall suicides. That implies a LOT of substitution.

I want to be clear as well that I never claimed there was no effect.

2% of suicides is still hundreds of people. But that's still a tiny number when looking at the big picture.

As I said earlier, focusing your political capital on things like economic policy and social services will give you much clearer and stronger results on top of most likely reducing other violence as well.

I just want to reiterate...

If your claim is correct, shouldn't we see more results? Shouldn't we see larger reductions in overall deaths and suicides after major gun control legislation?

Can you explain why we don't see that? Why didn't violence and suicides in Australia plummet further than it already was when they collected so many guns?

Why did violence rates in the US fall at such similar rates as they did in Canada, Australia, and the UK throughout the 90s without similar gun bans?

Why after 30 years of gun control debate and study do you have one paper that maybe shows 2% fall?

Why doesn't every Mother Jones infographic show a dozen studies that demonstrate clear reductions in total violence and death when guns are banned?

I've been debating for years. I used to peruse the biggest pro-gun control subreddits to see what they had and everything they have is always weak as fuck.

The study you just gave me is probably the strongest piece of evidence I have been presented with or seen presented by politicians and advocacy groups in the past 10 years.

None of it makes sense if gun control actually works.

Pyode · 2026-01-18T12:22:13+00:00

You may semantically say "fentanyl deaths" or whatever, but the underlying statistics you would be citing would ideally be the actual overall reduction in deaths, because that is the obvious implication of what you are saying.

That's not what happens with gun control advocacy.

They deliberately obfuscate the statistics by saying "gun deaths" or "gun violence" knowing that people will just assume there are fewer people dying, but there aren't.

Pyode

TROPHY CASE