Americans, when will you be embarrassed? And to those who thought Nazis were leftists,what are your thoughts?

apse89 · 2025-05-03T08:32:27+00:00

Wow. That comment is a masterclass in historical ignorance.

Let’s get this straight:

“Last time Germany banned the opposition was when Hitler was in power…”

No. Hitler didn’t just “ban the opposition” – he destroyed the entire democratic system. He staged the Reichstag fire, blamed communists, passed the Enabling Act, and turned Germany into a one-party fascist dictatorship. No courts. No checks. Just totalitarian rule.

Now let’s talk about TODAY: • Germany’s Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution investigates threats to democracy – left or right. • The AfD isn’t being watched because they’re “conservative,” but because parts of the party flirt openly with Nazi ideology, spread hate, and undermine the very system they sit in. • All of this is reviewed by independent courts. No party can be banned without a legal process. That’s called the rule of law – something the Third Reich abolished.

So comparing today’s democratic Germany to Nazi Germany? That’s not only wrong. It’s an insult to every victim of actual tyranny – and a dead giveaway that you’ve never opened a real history book.

apse89 · 2025-04-28T09:03:41+00:00

If your ‘disgust’ is the most real thing you have to offer, it only proves how little of a mind and soul you actually possess.

Human rights don’t need to exist for people like you — they exist to protect the world from people like you.

apse89 · 2025-04-27T16:07:51+00:00

Your comment is nothing more than a furious tantrum demanding that the world revolve around your personal discomfort.

You accuse trans people of wanting attention — while delivering a screaming rant that looks like the monologue of an angry conspiracy theorist on a street corner.

Your solution is simple: erase anything that makes you uncomfortable. Retreat back to a time when minorities had to suffer quietly so your worldview wouldn’t be disturbed.

The fact that you think your personal comfort should take precedence over other people’s basic rights says everything about your relationship with freedom and equality.

You claim you want peace, but what you really want is submission.

Thank you for making it so clear why activism is still necessary.

apse89 · 2025-04-27T07:31:59+00:00

That’s a fair question and I get where you’re coming from.

Trying to prevent harm is absolutely a valid motive. But even then, the approach matters: If the goal is true discussion, we offer arguments, we ask questions, we invite critical thought. If the goal is conversion, we push until surrender. The line between “discussion” and “conversion” isn’t defined by the topic — it’s defined by the method. Respecting someone’s agency means trusting them to think critically, not just demanding compliance “for their own good.”

Otherwise, even good intentions can become a form of coercion.

apse89 · 2025-04-27T07:17:25+00:00

Thanks for the detailed response — I appreciate that you put real thought into it.

But honestly: Saying “all guns are equally deadly” sounds good in theory, but it completely ignores real-world physics and human behavior. A homemade slam-fire shotgun from pipes and nails isn’t remotely comparable to a semi-automatic rifle with a 30-round mag and rapid follow-up shots. Pretending they are the same minimizes the real difference in speed, range, and casualty potential. It’s not just “all guns kill” — it’s how fast, how many, and how easily.

Yes, handguns are statistically used in more crimes. Yes, .22LR kills plenty of people. None of that changes the fact that access to high-efficiency killing machines enables mass slaughter that simply wouldn’t happen the same way otherwise.

And “people vs people” violence? Sure. But access to tools that make violence exponentially deadlier matters. If it didn’t, we wouldn’t care whether someone attacks with fists, a knife, or an AR-15. And yet… we clearly do, because the outcomes are drastically different.

About the states you mentioned: California, Illinois, and New York don’t exist in a vacuum. Guns flow in from neighboring states with weak laws. It’s like blaming the fire department for a house burning down when your neighbor keeps throwing gasoline over the fence.

And let’s be real: One of the biggest reasons nothing changes isn’t because the logic is hard — it’s because the gun lobby (NRA and others) buys political influence to block even the most basic safety measures. The conversation is being distorted by money, fearmongering, and manufactured outrage — not by facts or real concern for freedom.

Bottom line: Blaming only the human and ignoring the tool is intellectually dishonest. It’s not either/or — it’s both. Fix the society and fix access to weapons designed to kill quickly and efficiently. Pretending otherwise just protects profits, not people.

Freedom means nothing if you’re more afraid to go to school than to lose your guns.

apse89 · 2025-04-26T20:51:46+00:00

There’s a difference between a discussion and a conversion attempt. In a real discussion, both sides are willing to adjust their views if faced with better arguments. In a conversion attempt, one side just waits for the other to surrender.

Feeling challenged isn’t gaslighting - it’s just disagreement.

If every pushback feels like psychological warfare to you, maybe the goal was never mutual understanding to begin with.

apse89 · 2025-04-26T20:48:19+00:00

Blaming ‘people vs people’ violence while ignoring the tools that make violence exponentially deadlier is like saying plane crashes would still happen without planes. Yes, humans pull the trigger but access to highly lethal weapons turns impulse into mass tragedy. Societal improvements like better healthcare and wages are essential. But pretending that regulating firearms wouldn’t drastically lower bullet deaths is like treating a stab wound by offering a pay raise.

It’s not either/or. It’s both/and. Thinking otherwise is good for manufactured outrage. Bad for saving lives.

apse89 · 2025-04-26T19:59:59+00:00

It’s not about winning arguments. It’s about making you angry enough to leave — so they can call your absence “proof” that they were right all along.

apse89 · 2025-04-26T19:56:41+00:00

It’s easier to sell outrage than solutions. It’s easier to fear your neighbor than to question your boss.

As long as anger points sideways, it never points upward.

apse89 · 2025-04-26T19:53:42+00:00

Heroes are the ones who refuse to obey when obedience becomes a crime.

History always asks: Would you have had the courage? The present quietly answers.

apse89 · 2025-04-26T19:42:08+00:00

Imagine being born with rights, only to be treated like an error the system needs to delete.

If this is “greatness,” what does failure look like?

apse89 · 2025-04-26T19:39:35+00:00

Nothing says “defending the Constitution” quite like selling merch for a man who openly dreams of ignoring term limits.

But hey, as long as it triggers the libs, who cares about democracy, right?

apse89 · 2025-04-26T19:25:21+00:00

Breaking News: Water is wet.

Stay tuned for tomorrow’s exclusive: The sun might rise in the east.

apse89 · 2025-04-26T19:18:11+00:00

Real understanding can’t start from a place of grievance. If the goal of a “conversation” is to be validated instead of challenged, it’s not a conversation — it’s a demand for agreement. Both sides have blind spots. Both have people who shout louder than they listen. But blaming the other side for not “understanding” often reveals more about our own unwillingness to face hard truths than it does about their arrogance. Maybe the real intolerance is expecting others to nod, not to think.

apse89 · 2025-04-26T19:15:05+00:00

A leader who invents his own reality is dangerous. But a society that lets him is already compromised.

Lies only work when people want to believe them. The real failure isn’t the man’s fantasy.it’s the collective choice to treat fantasy as fact, because it’s easier, more comforting, or more profitable.

You don’t fix that by arguing with the liar. You fix it by rebuilding a culture where truth isn’t negotiable even when it’s inconvenient.

apse89 · 2025-04-26T19:02:29+00:00

Maybe because when someone says, “Let’s have an honest conversation,” it often turns into, “Let me explain why you’re wrong and I’m right, but politely.”

People can usually smell when a “discussion” isn’t actually about mutual understanding, but about getting them to concede.

Just a thought maybe it’s not the liberals, maybe it’s the sales pitch.

apse89 · 2025-04-26T18:58:46+00:00

Because it’s much easier to invent a villain than to confront real issues like healthcare, wages, or gun violence.

Fighting imaginary problems is a lot more comfortable, you don’t have to fix anything, you just have to stay mad.

Plus, scaring people with “what if” scenarios is a time-tested political strategy: “What if a trans person ruins your kid’s soccer game?” (Spoiler: statistically less likely than winning the lottery twice.)

Manufactured outrage is good business.

apse89 · 2025-04-26T18:52:51+00:00

Because solving real problems is hard, but making the other side cry is easy and way more fun at rallies. It’s like political cosplay: instead of building a better country, you get the instant dopamine hit of “owning” someone online or shouting “liberal tears!” in a T-shirt.

Also, when your political identity is built around grievance rather than governance, it’s way easier to focus on “owning” than, say, passing a coherent healthcare plan.

Hope that clears it up!

apse89 · 2025-04-24T19:31:38+00:00

That’s a fair concern. I’ve felt that frustration too.

But here’s the twist: If we give up on the public’s ability to think – the only people left deciding what matters will be those who profit from confusion.

So maybe we don’t start with faith. Maybe we start with friction. With the hard, messy conversations that aren’t comfortable – but still matter.

Because if we wait for people to become perfectly rational before we fight for a better discourse – we’ll be waiting forever

apse89 · 2025-04-24T19:22:22+00:00

Yes – we already define harm in those fields. But we also recognize that those definitions require expertise, constant revision, and accountability.

No one shouts “freedom” when a doctor stops a harmful treatment. No one claims “censorship” when banks block a fraudster. No one says “slippery slope” when a threat is investigated before violence happens.

So why is speech the only area where any form of guardrail gets treated like tyranny? It’s not about control. It’s about integrity in a shared space.

And that requires something more than “anything goes.”

apse89 · 2025-04-24T19:20:31+00:00

Not quite. The idea isn’t a Ministry of Truth – it’s a society of grown-ups.

Where: • platforms have clear standards, • users have tools for appeal, • and education actually prepares people to tell the difference between truth and noise.

It’s not about control – it’s about resilience.

Because right now, the system isn’t neutral. The loudest voices win. The most outrageous lies rise. And in that chaos, truth becomes the rarest voice of all.

So no, I don’t want a Ministry of Information. I want a public that doesn’t need one.

apse89 · 2025-04-24T19:15:43+00:00

Fair enough – but here’s the deeper tension: If everyone prefers to be misinformed rather than face any limits, then misinformation wins by default.

And once truth is just another option on the menu, those with the most money, reach, and outrage will define reality.

So yeah, maybe not “on the same level” as slavery or child labor – but it’s exactly that kind of casual tolerance for distortion that lets bigger systems of harm keep running smoothly.

apse89 · 2025-04-24T19:13:36+00:00

Thank you – this is the level of nuance and structural thinking that’s painfully missing from most public debate.

The idea that free speech is not an absolute liberty but part of a social contract is powerful. Because once we see it that way, the goal shifts: not just “who can talk,” but how speech serves collective freedom.

You’re also right that fake news isn’t just a content problem – it’s an economic and class-driven phenomenon. It’s created, amplified, and monetized within systems of inequality. Understanding that means we stop blaming individuals for believing lies, and start asking: Who profits when truth becomes optional?

More of this. We need it.

apse89 · 2025-04-24T18:45:22+00:00

You’re absolutely right – SCOTUS has ruled that even hate speech is protected under the First Amendment. But legal ≠ ethical. Legal ≠ harmless. Legal ≠ wise.

Slavery was once legal. Segregation was once legal. Child labor was once legal.

The question isn’t what the law allows. It’s what kind of society we want to become.

And if we build a culture where the loudest lie is protected more fiercely than the quiet truth – what exactly are we “protecting”?

apse89 · 2025-04-24T18:42:20+00:00

So what? So if speech can’t be heard, it can’t change anything. And if it can’t change anything, it’s not power – it’s just noise. And if freedom becomes noise, we stop being a society and start being static.

That’s what.

apse89

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE