Wellllllll, maybe. Whitened sugar is processed with bone char, and given how white the stuf is, there’s a good chance that it’s also processed that way.

A country run on a blockchain. Fucking yikes. I think a “ship of fools” is putting it generously.

Living here and having to watch it happen in real time is terrifying. It was an easy way to know which of my friends and family are not okay.

That is rare, and being pregnant in both is what’s “one in a million.” Have you heard of this happening before?

Username tracks

I don’t think I’ll ever connect with his YouTube stuff like I did with his pre-YouTube The Show. But he’s consistently churning out great stuff.

It certainly could be, especially if you’re not doing anything wrong. But if a government pries that much, you’d maybe be painting a target on your back by inventing a new language. You could also use an existing language that is hard to translate and learn, and isn’t well known. Like Ithkuil

You’re seriously underestimating the governments ability to decipher a made up language. Bear in mind any government probably has entire departments dedicated to cracking codes and translation. Encryption is going to be a million times better than anything you can come up with. I’d just assume that if you can think it up, someone else can figure it out.

That’s true. But a space that is pro or anti something isn’t a space that’s going to be protected by any semblance of “free speech.” It’s not a fault of the community, it’s by design that they want people of a similar mindset. Wanting to guarantee “free speech” in a space like that defeats the purpose of those spaces.

I’m saying on Reddit in particular, the comments that got downvoted into oblivion were generally of a certain variety, and OP is being very cagey about what they mean. And again, a community forms around common belief, and “free speech” doesn’t protect your inclusivity into a space, it only protects you from government action against your speech.

No? Evolution is a fact. Would I want teachers fired for saying things that are objectively not true? Or teaching opinions as facts? Yeah. More red flags in “go against common teachings,” here.

Exactly this. Saved me the trouble. Thank you!

Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom from consequences for your speech. Your definition of “reasonable” doesn’t sound like it’s reasonable by the consensus of users on Reddit. It seems like you’ve been fairly gun shy about posting what these “legitimate opinions” are. On Reddit, I would get in arguments with liberals a lot, because I consider them entirely too right leaning. But it never resulted in mod action or even downvoting, it was a discussion. There is one kind of opinion that pretty consistently resulted in downvoting, and especially mod action. And those kinds of opinions should be downvoted. The only things I can think of otherwise are people criticizing mods or Reddit itself and getting banned by power hungry admins, but as others have said, go to a different community if you see that.

I’m saying that the opinions that people piled onto were generally worth piling onto. If the things you say garner a negative response everywhere you go, maybe it’s not everyone else who’s the problem.

“The ones who don’t follow the hive-mind.” 🚩🚩🚩

Either Dunkey’s video worked, or this will be in a follow up video.

I’m all for more cycling and getting rid of cars entirely, but this is reaserch methods 101. One of my college courses was entirely about finding flaws in research, and this is a great example of a study that has an intended purpose, and very selectively shows the data they want it to show. And with things like qualitative data that requires an opinion to show in the first place, you can throw this out as junk from the getgo. This is popular science made for click bait headlines.

You know Mr. Suave, I’m really really trying.

Okay, this debate is falling apart. You’re not looking past your idea that Isreal=Jewish, nor are you interpreting my arguments correctly.

There’s propaganda from World War 2 of Hitler eating people, but I guess in your interpretation, you’d say it doesn’t matter because he’s not Jewish, when the symbolism is the callous disregard for people in treating them like cattle through oppression. Blood libel doesn’t need to factor into anything here when you say that Isreal is enacting violence against a group of people.

Here is where you misinterpret my argument. I’m not saying criticism of Americans is antisemitism? I’m saying that a group of Jewish people who hold a belief isn’t representative of the whole, and criticism of that group isn’t criticism of Jews. So anyone (or any government) that’s using an argument of being a “light to the world” to spread belief, or “manifest destiny” to take over land, is worth criticizing. It doesn’t matter the race of an authoritarian, authoritarianism is the problem here.

According to B’Tselem, by 2021, 2,171 Palestinian children had been killed by Israeli military action. I’m not sure how you can deny that’s happening. But it’s clear by your response that you’re not interested in actually talking about this, and want to make assertions.

It then lists three examples. One of Israeli soldiers drinking the blood of the dead, one of Netanyahu eating children, and someone saying that a quote is built on the pretense of ethnic cleansing. The first two don’t specifically say anything about the blood libel, and are more provocative imagery that isn’t unusal for representation of oppression. Especially when you’re talking about oppression from a group that routinely kills children. The dual loyalty claim is also spurious. You could say something similar about manifest destiny and American exceptionalism as a criticism to the people who espouse those beliefs without saying those things about Americans broadly.