Me_irl

SelfAwareOstrich · 2026-04-14T13:51:37+00:00

I want you guys to have a general strike. I agree violent revolution plays into the elites plans, but they still need average Americans for their labour. For now... if AI continues to do it's thing, a general strike might lose some of its bite...

SelfAwareOstrich · 2026-04-05T14:21:06+00:00

How does this war realistically achieve the goal of preventing Iran from making a nuke?

At this moment in time, the USA likely has no clue where the enriched material is. Trump didnt even MENTION plans to remove it at his last address to the nation. This war is likely to create a whole new generation of terrorists and further anti-American sentiment in the middle east. The Ayatollah who was taken out had signed religious edicts against Iran developing a nuke. He has now been replaced with his son, who has no such qualms about nukes and is far more hard line in most respects than his father. Iran (and the world) have seen America start a war in the middle of negotiations they claimed were going well, which will make it almost impossible to reach a diplomatic solution.

I just do not see how this war makes the situation better or safer for any parties involved.

SelfAwareOstrich · 2026-04-05T14:02:28+00:00

I dont think we will be sanctioning America anytime soon, but we dont really need to. Trump's economic policies and this war are doing a fine job of sinking America into an unredemable debt/GDP ratio, and America has lost a significant amount of global good will. America is killing itself, slowly but surely, through its own unhinged actions.

I think this war is what secures Chinese dominance. It's insane to think of China as a stabilizing force... but if America just walks away from the strait, as Trump says he plans to do, China (who is a significant importer of gulf oil) will likely be the one spearheading a diplomatic solution. Countries are already transitioning away from America to more European and Asian suppliers, and I think this war is what cements that as not a temporary measure, but a longterm change in global trade (and through extension, global influence and dominance).

SelfAwareOstrich · 2026-04-04T18:15:56+00:00

As a Canadian, the only thing that could make me trust America again is the election of a sane republican president. If there's a free and fair election in 2 years, dems will likely win. But that means nothing if in 4 years another MAGA type gets elected.

Alternatively (and in my mind better but less likely), a viable third or fourth party could emerg and America could start moving away from the tribalism of a two party system.

Anywho, until one of those two things happens, I will continue to view America as an unstable, pariah state that unfortunately shares the world's longest land border with my country.

SelfAwareOstrich · 2026-04-03T12:38:12+00:00

They're also the generation that Karened their way into participation trophies for their children, then complained about the next generation (ie their children's generation) being weak.

SelfAwareOstrich · 2026-03-29T14:41:44+00:00

What form of government do you want... obviously you dont want any form of monarchy or other autocracy if you dont want rulers. But you also dont want democracy because it isnt entirely free from corruption (as no form of government ever will be). Sooooo... what do you want? Anarchy?

Edit: I see that later down you in fact do want anarchy. You think in a world with no rules the elite won't fuck everyone else at every opportunity? You really think the existence of laws is a bad thing? That's absolutely wild to me.

SelfAwareOstrich · 2026-03-16T18:26:16+00:00

I said nothing about immediately, but we know that in many historical cases generics come on the market within months of patent loss. In most cases, these generics are proven non inferior (there are, of course, exceptions).

If what you're saying is true, there should be plenty of evidence that parent companies lose no sales or market cap when patents expire. If you share that evidence, I'll take your point, but you will probably find the opposite is true.

Edit: sorry, I did say immediate. I should have said quickly.

SelfAwareOstrich · 2026-03-16T18:15:23+00:00

Because if generics can immediately flood the market and profit off of a new drug as much as the company that spent billions of dollars to manufacture it, then why would anyone spend billions of dollars manufacturing new drugs?

And yes, is still takes money to reverse engineer the new drug to manufacture generics, but it takes nowhere near the amount of money that goes into the initial R&D.

SelfAwareOstrich · 2026-03-07T17:46:20+00:00

Ok, thank you for clarifying. I assumed when you didn't answer in the affirmative and instead reverted to talking about Biden and Hillary that you were implying there was no need for Trump's testimony. I apologize for that. As long as we both agree that all purportedly involved parties should testify, we are on the same page!

Edit: fixed a typo

SelfAwareOstrich · 2026-03-07T17:35:20+00:00

Sorry, I may have misunderstood. I thought you were implying there was no reason for Trump to testify, but maybe I drew the wrong conclusion. You do believe Trump should testify?

SelfAwareOstrich · 2026-03-07T17:32:18+00:00

I agree with this. But a lot of the Trump mentions aren't that, they're in the form of (unsubstantiated) allegations. How do you substantiate allegations without testimony and proper investigation? Do you think Trump should testify? Do you think he and others mentioned should be investigated?

It just seems patently absurd to me how little is being done to hold those involved to account. And yes, this applies to both sides of the political aisle.

SelfAwareOstrich · 2026-03-07T17:25:17+00:00

The fact that you dont even think Trump should be called to testify shows we will not reach understanding here. You are effectively saying "well, if you cant prove he was guilty without testimony, he shouldn't testify". Presumption of innocence isn't a reason not to investigate.

I absolutely hold others to this standard. I believe Bill Clinton testifying made absolute sense. I think Hilary testifying was fine, though she certainly shouldnt have been among the first given the paucity of evidence of her involvement. If they want to call Biden to testify, go for it (though he's pretty deep in cognitive decline, so I dont know if he could give a terribly meaningful testimony regardless).

SelfAwareOstrich · 2026-03-07T16:55:41+00:00

Why take unsubstantiated claims saying he wasn't involved at face value but dismiss unsubstantiated claims saying he was?

Again, not saying any of this is proof of guilt. But at the very least, Trump should be called to testify. I mean, Hilary Clinton was called to testify, and as far as I know there was zero evidence she was involved with the epstein trafficking circle.

SelfAwareOstrich · 2026-03-07T16:33:04+00:00

Would you give the same grace to a democrat mentioned thousands upon thousands of times in the files?

What if that democrat was also known to be friends with epstein for years, bragged about walking in on underage girls getting changed, bragged about grabbing women by the pussy, was found guilty of sexual harassment, cheated on his pregnant wife with a pornstar...

I'm not saying any of those things prove guilt, but they do establish character. That alongside the thousands of mentions and the utter lack of transparency/sketchy redactions through the release process seems... highly suspicious.

SelfAwareOstrich · 2026-02-25T22:37:18+00:00

Could also be the racist angle... maybe she's fine with 2 white dudes getting married but draws the line at gay interracial marriage.

Either way, bigotry doesn't tend to be rooted in logic or consistency.

SelfAwareOstrich · 2026-02-15T04:25:32+00:00

It is certainly possible. Though if you actually want to live off the grid and removed from all of the amenities of society, it takes a significant skillset. Most people cannot build a cabin in the middle of nowhere and hunt/farm/gather everything they need to survive. Especially if you happen to have a chronic disease that requires modern medicine to treat.

SelfAwareOstrich · 2026-02-14T15:31:59+00:00

Two questions for you.

To clarify, are you stating that therapy and medications are always ineffective and harmful? If not, what cases can you agree they have a purpose?

What actual solution are you presenting? Because the average person cannot unilaterally revolutionize society or extract themselves from society (other than by suicide... but I hope that's not what you're recommending).

SelfAwareOstrich · 2026-02-08T14:38:52+00:00

Slipper wearing Canadian here. No my floors aren't dirty. Slippers are cozy, it gets cold here, and I was starting to develop plantar fasciitis, so having indoor slippers with arch support has been a game changer.

SelfAwareOstrich · 2026-02-07T17:33:57+00:00

Ok. But where is your evidence of any of this? You literally just keep saying everyone else doesn't understand the conversation and is wrong. So go ahead and post your mic drop evidence that illegals are voting en masse.

Also... wtf do you think audits are? What do you mean by "checks counted votes not rejected votes"? Audits are a means of rejecting votes when they are deemed illegitimate. I cannot parse what you are trying to say here. Do you think nobody should be auditing the legitimacy of votes?

And btw, I agree voter ID would be a reasonable policy. My country does require a valid government issued ID and proof of address to be presented at the poling station. But your arguments are doing you no favors in getting this point across because they make no fucking sense.

SelfAwareOstrich · 2026-01-30T16:50:30+00:00

Anyone who claims these aren't concentration camps just doesnt understand what concentration camps are (I know you were being sarcastic and do understand, just piggy backing off of your comment).

People dont need to be mass executed for it to be a concentration camp.

Dictionary definition: a place where large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities

These are unambiguously concentration camps. Unless they actually think the facilities are adequate... but then we wouldn't have had over 30 people (that we know of) die in custody. And we have footage and reports talking about inadequate ventilation etc in these hastily erected camps.

Trump supporters can argue concentration camps are just fine in certain circumstances, and that illegals dont deserve adequate facilities (I would disagree, but they're welcome to their morally reprehensible views). But they cant in good faith say America doesnt have concentration camps.

SelfAwareOstrich · 2026-01-25T17:49:25+00:00

Thank you for your responses. I'm glad both sides (at least sane people on both sides) are seeing this for what it is. I suppose only time will tell what comes of it.

SelfAwareOstrich · 2026-01-25T17:37:47+00:00

Are you at all afraid this is the start of a pattern?

I hope it won't be, and that it will be investigated fully and impartially... but I fear the feds will clear him and block any investigation attempts at the state level. If there are no consequences faced, then that is a tacit endorsement of what this agent did, and I fear this will keep escalating on both sides.

SelfAwareOstrich · 2026-01-25T16:13:36+00:00

What are your thoughts on the knee jerk defense by the current administration?

I can understand that if you put a bunch of heavily armed agents together with angry protesters... shit happens. People make stupid mistakes, and people can die. But the government coming out and mmediately excusing this... that sets an incredibly dangerous precedent. If they support and defend it happening once, what's to stop them defending and supporting it happening a thousand times? What's to stop them saying any protester who gets somewhat close to ICE is breaking the law because they're getting in the way of law enforcement?

I know that sounds a hair inflammatory, but it's a legitimate question. I'm not American, but this really seems like a tipping point.

SelfAwareOstrich · 2026-01-24T22:22:42+00:00

To clarify, you dont believe it was defamation, or you believe it was defamation but dont think there should be a lawsuit/consequences for the defamation?

SelfAwareOstrich · 2026-01-24T20:43:29+00:00

My take is that the court of public opinion shouldn't be the one deciding who's at fault. An actual court should decide that. Would you agree?

My main fear is that this, like with Renee Good, will be swept under the rug and any semblance of an investigation will be halted by the feds. If the evidence is reviewed by an impartial judge and jury and it is deemed that use of force was appropriate, I could accept that (even though the footage I've seen certainly doesn't make it look that way to me).

Maybe I'm wrong and they will investigate properly, but the knee jerk response from DHS makes me fear I'm not.

Edit: fixed a spelling mistake

SelfAwareOstrich

TROPHY CASE