SootySootySoot [any]

Never said they were???

Aight, disengaging.

I didn’t accuse people of straight up lying.

Dead children sucks. Even if they are the children of fascists supporters.

Hamas disagrees with you.

The group said that avoiding harming civilians “is a religious and moral commitment”

It added that “maybe some faults happened” during the attack.

Thanks for the shitty bad faith accusations. This kind of conversation sucks.

Some people in this thread really do need to

Violent opposition to genocide is of course justified, but publicly chanting supporting for an event that is, at the very least, widely public perceived as a massacre of civilians, is pretty shitty protest tactics at best. And discrediting fed-work at worst.

Critical support for Hamas. They should do more violent resistance to the IDF, and sadly civilians will die, but that aspect is an unfortunate necessity, not a thing to be lauded. Hamas themselves say they made mistakes in that attack.

People should not stand with them on every issue and event; overall obviously fighting a genocide makes them worthy of support.

Everyone isn’t really talking to each other but instead they talk to the audience.

I do agree that is it. I think this may be the fundamental, awful problem with modern-day social media and basically all forms of online interaction, even big Discord servers. To actually have a conversation with someone is basically impossible, you’re just only ever people at podiums shouting into the void.

Some forums have always been famously nasty places. For those of us old enough to remember the internet pre-2010, and lucky enough to stumble on the right corners of the internet, plenty of forums were actually super cool, tiny, self-moderated niche communities with like 20-30 active users tops where you could genuinely share passions and make friends. All but one of my good online friends I have now were made back then.

No idea how anyone would find many nice interactions now. Hexbear is as close as it gets for me, but it’s still significantly different.

To be honest, this is a very common occurrence in all UK schools up to ages ~13. I and at least 10 other students in my year group of ~150 were forced to wet ourselves in the middle of class because our requests to go to the bathroom were denied, not even by particularly ‘toxic’ or ‘mean’ teachers, it’s just a fairly normal attitude. I remember asking to go for like the fifth time, the teacher said “You can wait.”, and in response I showed her my piss-covered hand.

You’d think cleaning up all the piss would be enough to deter that policy, but apparently not.

It is child abuse though, and these really shitty attitudes to the needs of children are not spoken out against nearly as much as they should be.

Unironically “we may be poor and homeless, but we have FREEDOM (also we’re a police state)”

Is it socially acceptable to stare at people in the eyes anywhere? I genuinely don’t understand.

Well, if they went first, then it’s a quick coup. If not, they should be able to turn into enough queens, I think.

Heck yeah, Troika rocks my socks

On a serious note, I think it’s just because the only benefit of that would be to gloat about your victory. The outcome is definitively decided once checkmate happens, so the rest is theatre, rather than game.

My complaint is why ‘stalemate’ is a thing. If I’m clearly winning and your king can’t go anywhere without facing certain death, how the frick is that a draw?!

If the pawns just all turned around, they could win the game instantly!

I’ll take this moment to complain about how Tangled (a Disney Rapunzel film, basically) just assumes that pillaging native lands is the moral thing to do.

An old woman is using a magical flower out in the wilderness to retain her youth and health. It’s quite literally the only thing keeping her alive. When the Queen of the kingdom falls ill, soldiers of the kingdom go out and just rip up the flower. The old woman, deprived of her only means to stay alive, rushes to the castle, only to find that the flower’s properties are now stuck inside the Queen’s baby. Reasonably assuming that the selfish-ass King and Queen who just gave her a death sentence were obviously never going to let her use those powers, she takes the baby and raises it in a loving (if very sheltered) environment, using her hair to live instead, again, this is the only way the woman can stay alive.

Somehow, the woman is the bad guy, and the King and Queen who raided the native lands for their own selfish-ass purposes are the good guys. It was perfectly moral to take the flower because old woman didn’t enclose her land or have a fucking deed to say “THIS FLOWER BELONGS TO ME”. The old woman’s native knowledge of the land meant it could keep her (and who knows how many others) alive and healthy on an indefinite basis, while the monarchy just grab it, destroy it, and get a one-time use out of it because the lives of the royal family are more important than everyone else’s!!! Babysnatching isn’t moral, but what choice did the woman have?

Yeah I may be overthinking a kid’s fairy tale in movie form. But FUCK EM. I genuinely think it teaches children that there’s no need to respect the environment or other cultures’ understanding of ownership, nor the concept of public sharing.

??? It is not rude to look at people in Japan. Anymore so than it is elsewhere in the world.