And the withholding of emergency funds that could be used for SNAP even more so.

I'm not saying the democrats are blameless. But I think funding for the ACA is a reasonable sticking point on government budgeting. And it's uh, really not a good look for the republicans to be willing to starve families and withhold funding from the ACA to make a point or whatever. Especially while their idiot in chief builds this stupid expensive ballroom.

“It’s problematic.” Just say sinful, you know you want to.

A 25 year old and a 50 year old want to fuck? None of your business. A couple wishes to roleplay different power dynamic scenarios? None of your business. Someone has a rape/dubcon fantasy they wish to play out in a safe, consensual setting? None of your business. Someone wishes to participate in group sex with 20 other people at the same time? None of your business.

If someone isn’t enthusiastically consenting without being manipulated or exploited, then that is abuse.

If someone isn’t an adult, then that is abuse.

The reason people focus on the person doing the strangling, rather than the one being strangled, is that only one person is going to be hurt or killed, and it's not the one doing strangling.

When your mother, sister, daughter, cousin, or best friend dies from strangulation, it affects you! It affects their children, their friends, family, and co-workers. Strangulation is the number 1 indicator of whether IPV will result in death. There is no such thing as consent in coercion, and very few people understand in real time they are being abused, manipulated and coerced by a partner, especially if part of the manipulation is that cutting oxygen and blood from a partner's brain is just freaky fun. And misinformed fucknuts like you are an abuser's best friend, you are part of the grooming that prevades the culture. Shame on you! You're out there validating extreme abuse as normal.

Everyone who is jumping down your throat knows you're wrong and is scared shitless someone experiencing strangulation will read that garbage and stay. And when she or they dies, because it is a near inevitability, her murderer will claim she just liked rough sex. She'll be dead, and he'll do it again. And unfortunately, it won't be you, or your sister, or your mom, or your child. You are more irresponsible than an RFK jr press conference.

You don't even do that.

You focus on stereotypes of the person doing the strangling. And the person being strangled.

Strangulation is the number 1 indicator of whether IPV will result in death. There is no such thing as consent in coercion, and very few people understand in real time they are being abused, manipulated and coerced by a partner, especially if part of the manipulation is that cutting oxygen and blood from a partner's brain is just freaky fun

False equivalence, snuck premise. Your argument relies on the assumption that strangling someone it itself a sign of coercion and abuse.

Also, very few people ask to be strangled in a kinky way while they're actively being strangled.

It usually comes before, on account of linear time being a thing.

And also strangulation impeding speech.

You're also assuming the "victim" is not the one pushing their partner to do the strangling, and the partner only does it because the "victim" likes and explicitly asked for it.

Which…is pretty common, sexually? Or so I've heard.

Ironically, pressuring your partner to do something they don't want to, especially sexually, is sometimes a form of abuse.

Studies have shown that social isolation can lead to a reduction in the volume of the prefrontal cortex, the part of our brain responsible for decision-making, complex cognitive behavior, and moderating social behavior.

________________________ In summary, if you don't like a thing, that gives you no reason to ban it for others - but if you are going to ban a thing, be consistent - because then you get to see just how terrible the world becomes when you take away freedoms.

There's nobody getting out of this alive. There is no safety. There are, however, choices. You can manage risk, but never remove it. And you have no idea of the horrors that await if you try.

In one of his full quotes with actual context (he has said this alot actually), he included cars in this. That despite vehicle deaths existing (at higher rates than deaths via illegal gun use), we as a society understand those are worth it for the privilege of owning and driving vehicles.

He also spoke about the 2nd Amendment being there so citizens can not only defend themselves from attackers, but a tyranical government.

By using a quote out of context you admit that you either:

1. Never actually listened to him say those words and are thus ignorant of what he said/advocated for or

2. Rely on lies to justify your bad actions and to get people to agree with you.

If people used cars safely and properly, deaths would be minimal; just like guns would.

However, you have assholes who abuse their privileges and drink and drive, who drive recklessly. There are people who abuse guns and use them improperly.

Implying that it’s an acceptable risk for people to die via guns or cars is dangerously problematic because it implies that an individual is worth less than the price of a car, or gun.

We take driving lessons before we are allowed on the road, we have to pay insurance to pay for expenses if we do get into an accident.

Those things mitigate risk.

Can you honestly say you can reduce vehicle deaths to zero without straight up banning them for all? Can you think of any regulations or laws that would stop all vehicle deaths? No? Then you admit that in exchange for people being allowed to drive, it's the unfortunate truth that some people will die. It's an aaceptable risk. It's worth it to be allowed vehicles.

Do you even know the actual conversation youre criticizing?

AUDIENCE QUESTION: How's it going, Charlie? I'm Austin. I just had a question related to Second Amendment rights. We saw the shooting that happened recently and a lot of people are upset. But, I'm seeing people argue for the other side that they want to take our Second Amendment rights away. How do we convince them that it's important to have the right to defend ourselves and all that good stuff?

CHARLIE KIRK: Yeah, it's a great question. Thank you. So, I'm a big Second Amendment fan but I think most politicians are cowards when it comes to defending why we have a Second Amendment. This is why I would not be a good politician, or maybe I would, I don't know, because I actually speak my mind.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting. I love hunting. The Second Amendment is not even about personal defense. That is important. The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government. And if that talk scares you — "wow, that's radical, Charlie, I don't know about that" — well then, you have not really read any of the literature of our Founding Fathers. Number two, you've not read any 20th-century history. You're just living in Narnia. By the way, if you're actually living in Narnia, you would be wiser than wherever you're living, because C.S. Lewis was really smart. So I don't know what alternative universe you're living in. You just don't want to face reality that governments tend to get tyrannical and that if people need an ability to protect themselves and their communities and their families.

Now, we must also be real. We must be honest with the population. Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price. 50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the road every year. That's a price. You get rid of driving, you'd have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving — speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services — is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road. So we need to be very clear that you're not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not happen. You could significantly reduce them through having more fathers in the home, by having more armed guards in front of schools. We should have a honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one.

You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won't have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It's drivel. But I am, I, I — I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe.

So then, how do you reduce? Very simple. People say, oh, Charlie, how do you stop school shootings? I don't know. How did we stop shootings at baseball games? Because we have armed guards outside of baseball games. That's why. How did we stop all the shootings at airports? We have armed guards outside of airports. How do we stop all the shootings at banks? We have armed guards outside of banks. How did we stop all the shootings at gun shows? Notice there's not a lot of mass shootings at gun shows, there's all these guns. Because everyone's armed. If our money and our sporting events and our airplanes have armed guards, why don't our children?

The question was about banning guns altogether. We have guns, our second amendment right, for a reason.

Some illegal gun use is inevitable in exchange for our right to defend ourselves from attackers and a tyranical government.

That isnt "problematic". That's how the world works.

This artist is known for crafting intricate wooden sculptures that showcase remarkable skill and timeless artistry. Each piece reflects a deep connection to nature, capturing its calmness and refined beauty.

India has not released any figures on deportations, but the Human Rights Watch report, citing Bangladesh border guards, said that Indian authorities expelled more than 1,500 people to neighboring Bangladesh and Myanmar between May 7 and June 15. That included Indian citizens and around 100 Rohingya refugees, who are a predominantly Muslim minority who had fled ethnic cleansing in Myanmar.

Also, constantly equivocate between illegal immigrants and foreigners, get people used to assuming that these are essentially synonymous categories.

And literally what kind of argument is “some bad people aren’t incarcerated, so why should anyone be incarcerated”? Like, what???

Then there are the "abolishinists" who just want "reform" and that's how the lunatics get away with it. Like ancaps.

Hey you two, you dropped something.

How am I being dishonest? Where did I losey memory?

Illegal immigrants - bad.

Legal immigrants - not bad.

No borders - bad.

Borders - good.

Letting fucking anybody in with no restrictions - bad, wrong, evil, literally the most basic function of any government is to defend and protect the border

Fixing our current shit system - good, but not one of you mental midgets has actually asked me my beliefs on this or what I think should be done beyond "if you think illegal immigrants should be deported you're somehow racist"

It's honestly hard not to give the stock hipster response. "Oh, you like legal immigrants? Name 3 of their albums."

"Legal entry to the country is something that doesn't make sense so everyone should just be able to go anywhere" so let's translate that first line too: "Your argument is impossible to engage with because I can't understand anything I don't agree with and I think you're bad" it's actually really simple to both engage and understand my argument, and if you don't know what my opinion on something is (because not one of you has asked) then you should probably ask, or not post anything because clearly you don't understand the subject.

I love legal immigrants. I can name 5 right now - me, my mother, my father, my next door neighbor, and my best friend. Simple. If you need more I can absolutely give you more. Don't know what you were trying to do here, but whatever it was, it didn't work.

Well, you clearly don't understand how it works at all. It starts by actually beginning the process, then engaging with the rest of it.

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/immigrate.html

And you, as an immigrant making every attempt to be legal, have no control over how long the process takes, and therefore no control over the legality of your own situation?

Correct, because immigrants do not make policy? "Blehhhhh"

No, the reason we weren't deported is we followed every instruction, which maintained our legal status, we didn't violate Visa, we didn't violate the terms of our green card, and were at no point in the process ever "illegal", and the literal term for people who are going through the process legally and correctly is "legal resident"? "Blehhhh"

You know people got deported before ICE right. You know that was a thing right. You don't think it started from nowhere with ICE right?

Fucking numbskull keeps winning my arguments for me as he smugly insists that... He's right and I'm wrong because anyone who disagrees is bad and bad people can never be right, checkmate, right?