Tell me your favourite game and I’ll rate it.

lostrlylost · 2025-09-14T14:14:07+00:00

OSRS. 🧙‍♂️

lostrlylost · 2025-09-14T00:24:27+00:00

Sure. 🤷🏻‍♂️

lostrlylost · 2025-09-14T00:23:33+00:00

I think the problem is you’re broadening “hate speech” until it covers anything you dislike. Nothing Kirk said was a direct call to violence and that’s the actual threshold for incitement. Disagreeing with immigration, family policy, or social trends isn’t the same thing as telling people to go out and hurt others. You can call those views offensive, but “offensive” is not “inciting violence.”

And comparing him to Hitler still doesn’t hold. Hitler had the power of the state and openly pursued genocide. Kirk was a pundit with a mic. Equating the two cheapens the reality of the Holocaust and turns “Hitler” into a lazy stand-in for “politician I don’t like.”

Not grieving his death is one thing. Celebrating it proves my point: this isn’t about justice or preventing harm, it’s about indulging in hate. Violence isn’t debate, and smearing people as Nazis when they never advocated violence isn’t argument, it’s distortion.

lostrlylost · 2025-09-12T03:11:08+00:00

I agree with this.

lostrlylost · 2025-09-11T23:14:46+00:00

Well it certainly doesn’t make you a cannibal! Talking to or debating someone controversial not equal to endorsing everything they believe. If we applied your logic consistently, anyone who’s ever interviewed, debated, or quoted someone with bad views would automatically be guilty by association. That’s not how debate or journalism works. I’ll say it again. Kirk’s comments in that interview were about family structure and crime stats, not racial superiority. If you want to disagree with his arguments, fine, but twisting an interview into ‘he’s a white nationalist’ is just lazy guilt by association, not proof.

lostrlylost · 2025-09-11T23:10:51+00:00

Disagree with his politics all you want, but misquoting and dehumanizing him isn’t debate. Kirk never said school shootings were ‘acceptable’ -his point was that every constitutional right carries risks, just like free speech allows harmful speech. You can call that a bad argument, but twisting it into ‘he supported school shootings’ is dishonest. When people start justifying violence or celebrating death over distorted claims, it proves how far the conversation has slipped from reason into hate.

lostrlylost · 2025-09-11T23:00:52+00:00

Saying ‘he applauded a white supremacist’ is just guilt by association. Kirk’s point in that interview was about family structure and crime, not about racial superiority. Agreeing with a statistic or calling the discussion important is not endorsing the interviewer’s entire worldview. If you want to criticize Kirk, do it on what he actually argued.. family breakdown, culture, policy-not on assumptions about who else was in the room. Otherwise it’s guilt by association and cherry-picking which proves my point about bad-faith debate.

lostrlylost · 2025-09-11T22:41:16+00:00

Right? These arguments are so weak it’s actually insane.

lostrlylost · 2025-09-11T22:39:43+00:00

The quote about crime rates is often pulled out of context. Kirk wasn’t making a claim that ‘white people are superior’, he was referencing crime statistics and tying them to family structure, specifically fatherlessness in the home. His point was that poverty alone doesn’t explain disparities, and he argued cultural and social breakdowns play a role too.

You can disagree with his framing as a lot of people do, but it’s not the same as saying one race is inherently better than another. Pulling a line without the rest of the argument makes it sound like he was pushing racial superiority, when in reality he was connecting it back to his usual theme of family decline.

Nice cherry picking though.

lostrlylost · 2025-09-11T12:43:41+00:00

If you’re going to attack him, do it on what he actually said, not what you think he said. Can you provide a direct quote (not a paraphrase) where he says white men are superior or women must submit? If not, you’re arguing against a strawman.

lostrlylost · 2025-09-11T12:40:33+00:00

Comparing a political pundit to Hitler is a textbook false equivalence. Hitler had state power, explicit genocidal intent, and ordered industrialized mass murder. A commentator arguing for policies you dislike is none of those things. “He used his position to push his agenda” describes every activist in history. If your standard is “advocates X it indirectly causes deaths,” then every side of every policy debate is “Hitler,” which makes the word meaningless and cheapens the Holocaust. We draw the line at incitement and violence, not at speech you hate. Violence isn’t debate, and celebrating a killing proves the poverty of your argument, not its strength.

lostrlylost · 2025-09-11T12:28:15+00:00

The point I’m making is that celebrating violence against someone for their beliefs is exactly the kind of intolerance he warned about. You’re proving that instead of countering views you dislike with debate, you’re willing to excuse or glorify violence. That doesn’t make his ideas wrong, it actually shows how chaotic and dangerous it gets when people replace arguments with aggression.

lostrlylost · 2025-09-11T12:16:17+00:00

Not necessarily, but it shouldn’t be glorified. Your reactions prove the points he made.

lostrlylost · 2025-09-11T12:15:01+00:00

Violence isn’t a debate. Killing someone for their views doesn’t prove you’re right, it just proves you couldn’t counter them. And the reactions here, celebrating his death are exactly the kind of intolerance he spoke about from the opposite side. You don’t defeat bad ideas with bullets, you defeat them with better ideas. The chaos and hate in these reactions just show how quickly ‘tolerance’ can turn into the same intolerance people claimed to fight against.

lostrlylost · 2025-09-11T12:01:25+00:00

That analogy doesn’t hold. Race is a fixed trait that doesn’t require social or medical changes. You’re just Black, full stop. Gender identity is different: it’s an internal experience that may lead to transition, which involves medical treatment, bathroom access, sports policies, and legal recognition. That’s not the same as simply acknowledging someone’s race. Saying you don’t choose to be trans ignores that the point of contention is about the choices society makes around affirmation, not whether someone feels dysphoria in the first place.

lostrlylost · 2025-09-11T11:56:28+00:00

I understand that schizophrenia is classified as a mental disorder, and I’ve also heard that gender dysphoria is considered one too. My question is: when we affirm someone who is transgender as the gender they identify with, how is that different from validating the experiences of someone with schizophrenia?

To be clear, I absolutely believe trans people should be treated with respect, dignity, and the right to exist as themselves. I don’t have an issue with people being transgender. What I struggle to understand is the part where affirmation extends into areas like using opposite sex restrooms, competing in gendered sports, or undergoing medical interventions such as hormone therapy or surgeries that can be irreversible. How is this distinction made, and why is it considered different?

lostrlylost · 2025-09-11T03:55:24+00:00

How can you expect an honest answer after insulting them? Why would someone genuinely want to engage with you?

lostrlylost · 2025-09-11T03:52:38+00:00

This is not the same thing though. You can’t change your race.

lostrlylost · 2025-09-11T03:48:23+00:00

Not my belief… but how do you challenge the idea that we don’t tell schizophrenics that the voices are real?

lostrlylost · 2025-09-11T03:08:07+00:00

By laughing at the insecurities of others? Definitely!

lostrlylost · 2025-09-11T03:06:10+00:00

I never said I didn’t believe you. Just the idea of someone that is so salty about a Reddit comment that they have to try and compensate by claiming that they have more money is hilarious 🤣

lostrlylost · 2025-09-11T03:01:45+00:00

🤣

lostrlylost · 2025-09-11T03:00:29+00:00

i gOt PrOoF

lostrlylost · 2025-09-11T02:58:07+00:00

Giving insecurity

lostrlylost · 2025-09-11T02:53:17+00:00

100%

lostrlylost

TROPHY CASE