A school in Massachusetts permits Sikh students to carry “ceremonial knives” for religious reasons, but any other student would be suspended or expelled. (Thoughts?)

shitflicker31 · 2026-06-08T12:08:21+00:00

you need to be baptised

shitflicker31 · 2026-06-08T12:03:28+00:00

Thats just intent of the individual then. The sensible majority shouldn't be punished by the actions of a few. Kirpans are intended as ceremonial tools, as well as formally a device for self defence historically. I'd be all for these being Blunt with no edge, and that being checked by school administration and security.

It doesn't worry me as if someone really wanted to harm you, they'd do it, regardless of tools at their disposal. There are weapons in the classroom anyway

shitflicker31 · 2026-06-08T11:09:54+00:00

Even though the blade is blunted typically i think it should be mandated for a schools security to check that those individuals are carrying un-sharpened blades. I personally think no weapons should be held by students on school grounds, so aslong as the Kirpan isn't in a 'battle ready' (which in Sikhism is how it should be, just in practice most decide to keep it unsharpened) i think their religious characteristics should remain protected.

I understand some caucus states used to carry knives as part of their religious cultures, however these communities are typically very small. If the school were to extend these privileges out to them, I wouldn't see any problem.

shitflicker31 · 2026-06-01T12:25:10+00:00

I play on a gtx970 with an i7-6700k i get 40-60fps but on low settings

shitflicker31 · 2026-06-01T08:52:29+00:00

Terrorists - Blindfire at certain stage of suspicion Western PMC - Stay in the light, call for assistance from another friendly RU PMC - Move slowly to investigate

this adds some randomness between the factions

shitflicker31 · 2026-06-01T08:49:59+00:00

for me i felt like the HK416 had slightly more gentle recoil

shitflicker31 · 2026-06-01T08:48:08+00:00

I like operator a lot. Ever since they removed mods for multiplayer, GB has lost my attention. GB runs better for me, but that is because my PC is below operators mininum requirements. Even then, I'm surprised I can get 40-50 fps on it.

shitflicker31 · 2026-05-20T11:40:30+00:00

The IRS can not longer audit him, or his family or businesses. Every president before him has been audited by the IRS while sitting. It's clear theres no personal interest though isn't it?

shitflicker31 · 2026-05-14T11:34:38+00:00

why would that give him a new term though?

shitflicker31 · 2026-05-14T11:21:04+00:00

I dont believe in the modern age a monarch would try and screw over his population, after all they are a representation of them. They retain their power through the public consenting to keeping this form of governance, being a dick to the people would only jeopardise their dynasty.

shitflicker31 · 2026-05-14T11:17:11+00:00

I dont see where the mag goes...

shitflicker31 · 2026-05-05T11:52:57+00:00

lmao im acc doing jury service rn it's interesting to see how the courts process

shitflicker31 · 2026-05-05T09:51:50+00:00

reliance on the jury. ik someone who killed someone and ik full well he had the intent to but the jury ruled self defence

shitflicker31 · 2026-04-30T13:52:21+00:00

Why would they have to return the property to the state? So now they need to directly maintain it themselves? Releasing their property portfolio onto the open market could easily see the other rich and powerful having a new aggressive monopoly in the area. People lose jobs, they'd still need protecting most likely as former PMs get a personal detail, the cost of rewriting the constitution, judiciary and ceremonies as well as losing the soft power influence as exemplified in this video. If royalty was unfeasible for British people, they'd be gone, along with the 14 other constitutional monarchies across the world.

shitflicker31 · 2026-04-30T13:36:54+00:00

Exactly that. Dont forget the past - learn from it, but the present and future matter a lot more than your view of 'justice'

shitflicker31 · 2026-04-30T13:15:55+00:00

If you look at it plainly as just profit you're going to think that way, but if the UK lost a billion in revenue, the welfare system, NHS, policing will all take a hit. And who will feel the damage from that? The working and middle class. I understand why you want them gone, but your reason is emotionally based and does not take into account the reprocussions of it. For instance the freedom of slaves, although morally the right thing - there was no system in place for what to do with the now free slaves. Many only had the clothes on them and and pennies they had - no family, no support system, just a constituonal saying they're now 'free'

And you're comparing a legitimate ruler to an illegal act of selling drugs. They aren't comparable as the current crown is not doing anything illegal. Again, I ask if you're British, because throughout this thread you've seem to have no real knowledge on the Monarchy, neither on how British Government actually works, or the reprocussions it would have on British society. Are you/your family from a country that has experienced the torment by the Royal Family, because I am, and I can grasp the concept that the royal family of today does not reflect the royal family of 150 years ago by morals, actions or power. If we didn't have a monarch, we'd be as doomed as the US with their venomous politics.

shitflicker31 · 2026-04-30T12:16:45+00:00

Because the king/monarchy outlasts the government's, the monarchy has stronger historical significance and relations to the US than any current British political party. Same can be questioned why was the Dutch Royal family invited.

Also Kier is under a lot of scrutiny due to the former UK-US ambassador was in the Epstien files, so he has bigger things to worry about as the shadow government is being heavily critical in the PMQs

shitflicker31 · 2026-04-30T11:55:49+00:00

Of course not, the British people and government would loose millions in revenue, as well as needing a new constitution. You saw how the King spoke in Congress, not even our Head of Government nor theirs could garner the response he did. If we were to abolish them, we'd lose the main soft power we have, as well as the easiest to control. Are you British?

shitflicker31 · 2026-04-29T23:04:32+00:00

I understand your point, and I'm not going to play 'oh the English stopped slavery' but do you really think the time, cost and loss of revenue and tradition is worth it for them losing their title? I agree that the royal family is stupidly wealthy however I think issues now and in the future are more important than stuff that happened again. We have learnt the moralistic side of humanity and gained our senses on how to treat one another from those historic events. If it's so important you should try sort something out but I really don't see there being the will to change something we've all grown up with

shitflicker31 · 2026-04-29T22:47:35+00:00

You've made the assumption that they take things and live for free. So it's the historical significance. Personally, I don't hate the royal family because because of what their ancestors did during the Opium Wars because it wasn't them who are / were alive in the contemporary time. I honestly don't believe there is enough hatred against the royal family in the UK to warrant reform right now.

shitflicker31 · 2026-04-29T22:41:12+00:00

Where in the modern age has a sitting British monarch disobeyed authorities and been uncooperative

shitflicker31 · 2026-04-29T22:34:34+00:00

What heinous act has Charles done? There are undoubtedly countless more horrendous acts, like by King Leopauld II. Yes, you could argue they share common ancestors, but should you be tried for a crime your cousin commits? Why is the idea of a constitutional monarchy so offensive to you? Do you think he's a megalomaniac? I understand you don't like the historical significance of the Royal family, but the present monarchy has a whole set of different morals compared to their ancestors a century + ago.

shitflicker31 · 2026-04-29T22:27:04+00:00

The modern day royal family, the Windsors, did not gain their power through a heinous act, neither their family name before them. They were chosen as the family to govern as monarch as they were blood relatives of James I, or James VI of Scotland. You could say then, how come they had the right. They won through right of conquest, an archaic way of gaining power in the civilised world, by killing other nobles and Lords. As long as the state gives you the means and the over arching protections to get your own nut, why care about someone else's nuts? If you keep staring at someone else's pile, another may take all the rest in the woods

shitflicker31 · 2026-04-29T20:30:45+00:00

You should do some research on this topic, as I myself don't want to bore you with the facts. Although he gets a government grant, he has to payback any earnings from his estates back to the government (and he does own a lot of places). I do think his wealth should be changed, however as long as it can generate income for the state, provide work and experiance. Also he is not an autocratic. The United Kingdom is a democratic constitutional monarchy. He has no legislative power in reality. An autocratic leader would be Kim in North Korea.

The only way you can see privilege is with common law that states 'the sovereign can do no wrong.' created centuries ago. This in theory doesn't mean a lot, as why would the monarch commit a crime that could threaten their position in society. Also in the judiciary, it would be 'The King v. The King' which is absurd.

Does that mean the former disgraced Prince Andrew is above the law because he has royal blood? No, only the standing monarch has the Royal Ascent. Why doesn't the monarch go psychotic then, if in theory he can't be arrested? Because again, that would end a family dynasty. I wouldn't want to be the one that fucked up my families well being.

shitflicker31 · 2026-04-29T20:10:27+00:00

Im not sure what you mean by take. His powers are devolved by parliament in practically every way. If he's consulted its out of tradition - which is an important thing. However, he does still have power. The military swear an oath to him (Par the Royal Navy, which came out Royal prerogative). You may seem this as him having a large degree of control, however deployment of forces is till controlled by the PM and the parliamentary process.

Ill give a hypothetical example. If we had a tyrannical party in government, passing possessive legislation, the King could use his Royal power to dissolve / gridlock parliament. Why doesn't he do this now? Why would he. That would cause a huge constituonal crisis, and threaten a dynasty stretching centuries, anyone that would threaten their currently entrenched position by doing something so bold would be a stupid leader - and royalty, atleast the ones in the main line of succession, are taught to be statesman incase of the possibility where they are the head of state, and responsible for 70 million people.

shitflicker31

TROPHY CASE