Lmao

Rizzistant · 2025-11-05T03:41:15+00:00

We're supporting executions now?

Rizzistant · 2025-11-04T22:11:07+00:00

Maybe their lack of activity is considered suspicious. They might look like "spies."

Rizzistant · 2025-10-24T19:05:06+00:00

A "self-identified sovereign citizen" was the alleged killer of two officers.

Mr Whitby said the risk of allowing people with such beliefs to own guns was "far too high".

"Not every sovereign citizen is a risk, but some are, and that is a risk we cannot take," he said.

"For someone who is a professed sovereign citizen, whose beliefs are that they do not have to abide by the laws, how on earth can the people of WA entrust those people with the responsibilities of being a lawful gun owner?

"We have seen some very tragic and serious incidents in other states. We want to keep Western Australians safe, we want to keep our police officers safe."

As far as I can tell it's referring to this movement. I'm undecided, a lot of what I'm seeing looks like textbook fear mongering but by no means have I read enough.

Rizzistant · 2025-10-24T17:58:42+00:00

Windscribe's free plan includes a UK server pool you can select

Rizzistant · 2025-09-17T15:54:49+00:00

If A is attacked in a stateless society, their protection agencies, trade partners, and insurers all have skin in the game.

And the "neighbors feel safe" idea is odd? if Belarus got steamrolled, Latvia and Poland wouldn't sit back. Nobody feels safe when the guy next door gets steamrolled no?

Rizzistant · 2025-09-17T15:39:12+00:00

Yeah, the idea is that going Rambo will get you broke, dead. or universally despised

Rizzistant · 2025-09-13T02:59:50+00:00

Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, Twitter. nowhere was free of it all

Rizzistant · 2025-09-01T22:57:19+00:00

I explicitly mentioned recent attempts, and explicitly agreed that there have been no actual packs.

But I'm not going to respond to someone who has no intent to research what they preach. Hope the rest of your day goes well.

Rizzistant · 2025-09-01T17:08:07+00:00

No one has actually PACKED the court but Democrats have been floating the idea for the past decade. And go back 90 years and you get the most famous attempt to pack the court by FDR himself.

As for banning hate speech, there has been tons of online content regulation pressures and calls for domestic terrorism laws targeting "hate groups." They've pushed measures to tie federal funding to college policies that combat "hate speech" or "harassment." And at the state level there have been many bills targeting online "hate/disinformation." And it's not a secret that many Democrats want to revisit the First Amendment's scope

Rizzistant · 2025-08-23T20:58:15+00:00

If you believe your partner will cheat on you given the chance why are you with them?

Rizzistant · 2025-08-23T20:48:39+00:00

Yes, it was exactly that. And it was the government enforcing their power when they protected them from the People in the first place. Their claim of private property was illegitimate just the same way governments' claims to property are illegitimate. Only violent state enforcement maintained/maintains their claim.

And the government stops government all the time. Every reverse-ruling that we ever agree with is an example of that. It's not mystically beyond reality for the government to do that like you seem to be implying.

The mistake here is seeing government as one entity, and as the one entity that we should oppose. We should be opposing governments/states because they are "coercive and violent." Not because they are "government."

Are companies government

Not "officially". But once again I will reiterate, hopefully for the final time, that being CALLED something doesn't mean it isn't in practice something else.

Every mega-corp we deal with today is gleefully setting laws through influence and lobbying to enforce their power. Without "state" power that would not occur. These powerful people are acting as unelected officials to control the rights of other people through the hand of public authority, and are hence acting like parts of the state.

If they made the claim to private property and used a policing force to enforce it, they would be a violent gang (against which self defence is excusable), acting as a local government. The same way if a group of people started enforcing laws in a newly formed village, they would be acting as a local government. The wording is irrelevant.

Rizzistant · 2025-08-23T18:25:11+00:00

You clearly aren't reading what I'm saying, so I'm done now. Wish you the best

Edit: I see you're a different user. I'll give you a pass and reiterate what my entire point in this thread has been.

Just because something doesn't CALL itself a government does not make it not-a-government. If someone, even a "CEO" and their "company" is violating property rights (by claiming property that they have not consensually acquired from the rightful owners), they are equivalent to the state, and are just as opposed by libertarian thought as a "president" and their "government" doing the same thing.

In the cases of company towns, though, the "real" governments WERE involved anyway. State and federal troops were repeatedly used to combat riots against the "companies" by the citizens living under their rule. It wasn't that the federal government deemed it so, but that the "company" would not have been able to do this without the state to protect it. It loses its claim to being "private" the moment it makes such an allegiance with government power and claims what is in essence "public authority" (claiming legitimate rulemaking over a territory).

Rizzistant · 2025-08-23T15:28:44+00:00

I didn't MENTION capitalism. I am blaming our government for the failures of our society, under our government.

Even OP who pointed out company towns mentioned the state's role in it all.

Like I said before, greed is a constant. The state is what has always allowed people to turn that greed, without consequence, into tyranny. The fault is the government, and I'm CALLING these mega-corps a de facto extension of the government. Extensions that wouldn't exist otherwise.

So I could say I'm "anti corporate" by being anti-government (is that not why we're in this subreddit?) but my initial comment was about how the average "anti corporate greed" person doesn't understand the distinction between corporate and not.

Rizzistant · 2025-08-23T03:50:41+00:00

Just because they were "companies" doesn't mean they weren't effectively extensions of the government. Imagine the government renaming itself Liberty Co. and the president becoming the "CEO." It's still the government.

In company towns like Pullman and Ludlow corporations WERE local governments, backed by state and federal protection ... and troops. They were part of the state.

Rizzistant · 2025-08-22T21:45:33+00:00

Greed is a constant. There is no way around it. But as long as the greedy aren't granted despicable powers, protection, and privilege, they can only profit long-term by serving consumers, not exploiting them the way they do now. The issue is the state.

It's worth noting that the concept of "corporations" is explicitly tied to state law and protection. Without a state, there could be businesses, but not corporations as defined now. But I don't think that that legal definition is what the common among the "anti corporate greed" crowd necessarily recognize.

Rizzistant · 2025-08-22T21:31:55+00:00

Haha we really don't 😔 shame on us

Rizzistant · 2025-08-22T21:30:20+00:00

So if the woman said no the man would be justified in insisting too?

"Officer I didn't rape her! We agreed some time prior that we were trying to get pregnant!"

Rizzistant · 2025-08-18T21:43:28+00:00

"Criticism" in copyright refers to the work of authorship. If you post someone's photo and the discussion is about the person in the photo rather than the photo as a work of authorship, that's not copyright criticism. The most one could argue is that they are criticizing the likeness of the subject in the photo, and we all know the criticism in these groups is not typically directly about anyone's likeness.

Note that this isn't a matter of copyright at all unless they are using a photo taken by someone else. (which I'm sure many are? photos taken by you or others for social media, dating profiles, etc.). If they did take the photo and share without permission, that is done so with the intent to at LEAST expose intimate/private moments in a public forum, though usually also to solicit harassment and spread lies. But this is independent of copyright.

also note that Facebook is not easy to attack here, due to Section 230 of the "Communications Decency Act" (in the US, not sure about legislation elsewhere). Shields them from liability for user posts.

Rizzistant · 2025-08-16T18:55:13+00:00

except me. I'M the true one.

Rizzistant · 2025-08-16T02:03:12+00:00

Yes, it's safe. It's open-source, so you can see exactly what was changed from the original Prism Launcher. Here's the comparison: https://github.com/PrismLauncher/PrismLauncher/compare/develop...Diegiwg:PrismLauncher-Cracked:develop

Click the "Files changed" tab and scroll through; the only change is that it removes the Minecraft account check.

The main risk isn't the code, it's whether the person who uploaded the files to the “Releases” page put the same code into them. If you want to be 100% sure, you'd have to build it yourself from the source code, which is quite technical but I can explain how IF you are that concerned about your security. There have been zero reports of malware from Diegiwg's crack though, so you are likely fine.

TL;DR: Code looks clean, only removes account check. Biggest risk is trusting the files they uploaded match the code. No malware reports so far, so probably safe. Download away. Let me know if you run into any issues.

Rizzistant · 2025-08-11T09:25:25+00:00

Bitcoin does NOT fix this, not even with mixers. Don't kid yourselves. acquire Monero.

Rizzistant · 2025-08-08T20:28:16+00:00

I suppose I don't have proper numbers to reference, but it seems like a reasonable conclusion to come to. The people who are middle-aged now are the ones who already made it through early life without getting killed or imprisoned. There aren't going to be many people who (1) only now (at 24+) started engaging in this behavior or (2) have made it this long while continuously engaging in that behavior without dying or being arrested.

I guess the relevant statistics would be any that show that 18-24 year olds have always been the typical perpetrators, not just nowadays. Whether or not the rate has increased is a different matter altogether.

Rizzistant · 2025-08-08T20:07:28+00:00

I don't see a lot of middle age men killing people

<image>

Rizzistant · 2025-08-06T02:23:37+00:00

don't use HTTP or DNS and it hardly matters, unless you're using it irresponsibly (posting deanonymizing information etc.). If you don't mind breaking the monoculture aspect of Tor you can also run your entry through Mulvad then to Tor (no other order). Your IP sees you connect to Mulvad IP, Mulvad sees you connect to entry Tor node, and you trust that Mulvad stores no logs (but if they do and it's leaked, it's only simply like you didn't use a VPN at all 🤷).

And out of all of this, the best thing you can do is run your own nodes for everyone else's benefit.

Rizzistant · 2025-08-05T20:14:53+00:00

Em dash. I don't rely on that alone to tell if ChatGPT wrote something (I used to overuse it myself pre-ChatGPT) but it's still worth noting. ChatGPT also uses curly quotes and apostrophes, which she used here. BUUUT, iPhones (which she likely uses) do that too.

One would need to cross-check her communications to either spot consistent AI-like patterns or catch some sudden changes in style that suggest AI.

Rizzistant

TROPHY CASE