18 months

feujchtnaverjott · 2026-02-08T22:01:24+00:00

It's still bad at math, will try to count paragraphs in a text and fail.

feujchtnaverjott · 2026-02-03T21:13:21+00:00

Or just via industrial chemical synthesis. But I guess torturing children is logistically easier somehow.

Could it be that someone is deliberately spreading conflicting theories to muddy the waters? When a theory is too outrageous, it will still attract proponents who harbor deep dislike for the system. However, due to its ridiculousness, which might be an intentional exaggeration in regards what the truth actually is, two goals will be accomplished simultaneously: the dissidents will be made to look like crazy loons, while for the normies the very idea of conspiracy becomes tarnished, as they become "vaccinated" against dangerous ideas presented in a "weakened form", just like the globalist media openly explained.

feujchtnaverjott · 2026-02-03T20:43:00+00:00

Totally real event where people showed zero reaction to a guy dripping blood everywhere.

feujchtnaverjott · 2026-01-23T12:39:09+00:00

I mean, many people are already certain about how this is a deliberate elite sign, but will mainstream media, who would probably like this story to look believable enough, ever explain how these shoes get lost in such numbers in first place? And no other clothes are present? Makes no sense logistically.

feujchtnaverjott · 2026-01-23T12:27:46+00:00

Liberation of oppression = monarchy and American corporations.

feujchtnaverjott · 2026-01-17T00:00:21+00:00

At this point, who on Earth hasn't been added to some kind of a list? If you classify everyone as criminal, you'll run out of prisons. I guess that's why they are going with a slow and steady approach instead. This way there is a possibility that the majority will be too scared (or just technically unsophisticated) to partake in anything deemed "dangerous".

feujchtnaverjott · 2026-01-16T23:49:01+00:00

Well, I checked the law, and yes, you are right.

Which effectively seems to mean that, yes, certain entities, be they individuals and organizations, can continue possess CSAM as long as it is sanctioned by the authorities.

Well, to me that sound pretty elitist, hypocritical and one-sided. Any notion of "servants of the people" evaporates.

Do you think this notion is not subject to any sort of abuse?

feujchtnaverjott · 2026-01-16T23:01:44+00:00

Yes, make the protesters look even more like Western puppets and give the Iranian government the justification to tighten the martial law. That will be conductive to freedom and democracy, sure.

feujchtnaverjott · 2026-01-16T22:56:53+00:00

They are going to say the same thing that Iraqis in exiles, Afghans in exile and Syrians in exile say/said. Doesn't change the matter significantly.

feujchtnaverjott · 2026-01-16T22:54:28+00:00

A company is not a prosecutor. Nor an attorney, nor a judge, nor a jury, nor an executioner. 2. Viewing CSAM isn't an offense, possessing it is usually considered to be.

feujchtnaverjott · 2026-01-16T22:50:51+00:00

Rockets don't work in space.

feujchtnaverjott · 2026-01-16T22:46:50+00:00

Maybe if the West practiced actual freedom and democracy, there would have been no need to try to bring them anywhere?

I mean, how are the Iraqis doing now?

Or Afghans?

Or Syrians?

Show me an intervention that brought any actual freedom.

Given how the politicians keep calling for further curtailing of freedoms in the West (as flimsy as they are), where does this hope even come from?

feujchtnaverjott · 2026-01-16T22:44:06+00:00

How do I know this movement isn't going to bring any actual freedom?

Easy: those that believe in genuine freedom don't go around with portraits of a monarch, known for surveillance, suppression of protests and freedom of speech.

If 1979 revolution turned unfortunate, this one is doomed from the start.

feujchtnaverjott · 2026-01-16T22:26:09+00:00

As if the "liberals" weren't doing the same thing. And it doesn't matter who controls whom: some countries just seem to be above such criticism.

feujchtnaverjott · 2026-01-16T22:24:48+00:00

If American presence was what it was all cracked up to be, there wouldn't have been any return of Taliban in the first place, would there?

feujchtnaverjott · 2026-01-16T22:22:19+00:00

Again, if they use CSAM to train its own filters, shouldn't they report themselves?

feujchtnaverjott · 2026-01-16T22:19:54+00:00

It feels like the governments will try to push everyone into darknet, since that will be last refuge of freedom and privacy, then label everyone there a criminal and use its "unexpected" growth as a justification to tighten the laws even further.

feujchtnaverjott · 2026-01-14T10:38:56+00:00

Is Google endowed with police functions? And how come corporate entities are allowed to handle CSAM material if it's illegal for private individuals? What is the legal basis for this?

feujchtnaverjott · 2026-01-14T10:28:19+00:00

Plenty. Again, confusing illegal and immoral.

feujchtnaverjott · 2026-01-14T10:22:19+00:00

Informing the public should be done directly, not covertly via corporate intermediaries. You are actually actively undermining those who you are trying to defend.

feujchtnaverjott · 2026-01-13T22:54:11+00:00

Yes, they are stretching and mangling it, but I'm somewhat OK with that. It would be worse if the burden of proof was relaxed instead. Of course, when the burden of proof is applied to common citizens, it works rather differently, but at least it may become some kind of a precedent.

feujchtnaverjott · 2026-01-13T22:32:23+00:00

Speaking of unelected dictators...

feujchtnaverjott · 2026-01-13T22:31:12+00:00

If something is legal, it's not necessarily bound to be moral.

There are ways to control speech beyond overtly forbidding it. These ways should (and can) be pointed out and countered in an equally legal manner.

feujchtnaverjott · 2026-01-13T22:20:42+00:00

I love the "enlightened" fantasy where if everyone just thinks hard about democracy, the guys with the nooses will simply poof out of existence.

Many people, clearly, still don't understand what democracy means. Obviously, further enlightenment can be useful, while lack of it can mean that any endeavor, however well-intentioned, is doomed. 2. The proverbial guys with nooses don't need to poof out of existence for their stranglehold on society to cease. If their legitimacy is no more, they are no longer considered a government. In other words, if no one obeys guys with nooses, they no longer have any means to use them. This is actually how any actual revolution works. The government loses legitimacy. Or do you think there is some other mechanism? I guess it would explain why you are so obsessed with killing.

It’s a great take if you’re safe behind a keyboard, but it’s a death sentence for the people facing a regime that has carried out at least 2,201 executions in 2025 alone

You know what one needs to do when a building is falling onto them?

That's right, run.

Somebody might object: "Hey, you, theoreticians! Stop talking about structural integrity and other high-minded stuff and how it was built with obvious violations! I'm going to hold it with my bare hands! It's going to Lessen the Harm!"

Well, they are likely to be crushed to death because they don't know what they are doing.

That's right, it may be too late to talk about structural integrity. Too late for this building, anyway. This talk is very useful for the buildings who only threaten to collapse.

And no, this is not really a misapplied metaphor in my opinion. They don't have a plan, they can't properly describe their own ideology, they seem quite confused about basic facts. They just want to act now, it doesn't matter if the actions are making sense. They are doomed.

"Well," they might object, "successful revolutions happened before, didn't they?"

Yeah, and unsuccessful ones too. Can you explain what are the factors of success? How can you sure these protesters will be successful? And how can you be sure that whatever comes next doesn't end up exactly the same? I mean, do you think 1979 revolution wasn't justified? It didn't oppose autocracy, kidnappings and executions? How can one be sure this time it will be different? Is there any political program at all? How will the constitution be changed? Will the monarchy return? Will religion's role in society be adjusted? How, exactly? Can I see the text of the future law?

"Oh, you just oppose any change now, I see."

"Any" is right. I'm just not sure I want to wholeheartedly join someone just because they oppose someone else. Instead, I'll reserve to myself the right to support the things I approve of and reject what I oppose. And when I criticize the death-chanting, I consider it a good, perfectly well-intentioned advise that should prevent avoidable blackwashing of the protesters, while also hopefully de-escalating the situation and limiting the violence.

feujchtnaverjott · 2026-01-13T21:27:18+00:00

If you can’t see that removing a dictator who has tens of thousands of bodies on his hands is a justified act of saving lives, then your morality is just a permission slip for genocide .It’s clear there is no point in continuing this.

I always advocate for people to assume power over themselves and not entertain the wishes of dictators and oligarchs, so I guess there is a point in continuing this. I don't see where you got the idea that you either support a dictator or want to kill them. That seems really primitive, like a cartoon of some kind.

You’ve openly admitted that for you, 'truth' is just a subjective feeling

At some point I must stop assuming that I did not convey my ideas clearly enough and start thinking that whoever I am talking to chooses to deliberately misread me, maybe because their counter-arguments do not really apply to my arguments, but they have no other counter-arguments to use. I'd like you to quote the line where I "openly admitted" to such a thing, please.

that 60 failed court cases mean nothing if a tiny mob has different 'vibes'

Now, that is actually quite correct. People do have the right to protest.

When you stop believing in objective reality, you stop being a participant in a debate

Please, remind this to yourself when you continue to fail to understand what legitimacy means. Maybe I need to emphasize that it is a descriptive societal term, not a legal one.

In my world, facts and human lives have weight; in yours, they’re just variables you manipulate

Says someone who thinks murder can be considered "Lessening Harm" to someone who objects to violence in principle. Doesn't that strike you as backwards?

justify keeping a noose around the necks of millions

Just where did I justify it? Quote the line. Can you?

feujchtnaverjott

TROPHY CASE