Some li’l Dutchboy is still very triggered! Lol. What’s the average IQ in that juvenile detention facility you’re in for inappropriately touching your toddler brother, you sick little monkey? Stop obsessing over me and take your meds, Elliot Van Incel.
Hi! Your sub is a joke, full of snowflakes whining about how nobody appreciates them bringing Trump into every discussion and how it's impossible to redpill people on r/aww. Please keep yourself very safe very quickly.
Okay, so turn it into a pair of jeans and you're stealing from the labor or sweat shop workers. Easy.
More to the actual point, the is a difference between private consumption and capital, even though both are expressed in money, and when people say "property is theft" they usually are talking about capital.
What if that pair of jeans was not produced by sweat shop workers.
I bought some homemade beef jerky from a redditor way back in 2010 with btc in a purely voluntary transaction. (possibly the worst financial decision of my life in retrospect, but it was really tasty)
Who got robbed there?
when people say "property is theft" they usually are talking about capital.
Since you are responding to the fact that I claim taxation is theft I should point out that bitcoin is very much considered “capital” by those who wish to rob me.
Yes, you can find examples of ethical consumption. Good for you.
Turn the Bitcoin into a commodity and turn that commodity back into Bitcoin and then it will be capital. No one (reasonable) has a problem with that until you need labor to make your commodity and don't share your profits with them.
Anyway, my overarching point is that simply saying "taxation is theft" is blase and rather naive. You need state power to protect your private property rights. Once the state power is established, how can you complain that they need money to protect your rights?
Of course you'll say "no, I'd rather freely pay my local warlord protection money to protect my property rights".
Okay, again we get to the issue of turning your Bitcoin into something tangible. Say you want to buy a house with you money. You need authority to protect that property. Say you want to rent an apartment. Again, simply having locks and a gun won't be enough.
You can amass all the money you want, it's useless if you can't turn that into something real, and once it's something real you need some power to protect your claim.
So you”re looking for an example of tangible property that is maintained without the aid of the state?
Perhaps you should visit /r/trees to see all the physical plant matter and paraphernalia that people widely own despite government outlawing the mere possession of such.
Surely the government does not protect those people’s property rights to property that the government deems to be illegal correct?
In case you were wondering how people are able to own illegal property without government interference, might I suggest you check out the United States Constitution, Amendment 4:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
And again, we need to make a distinction between private consumption and capital. A cop seizing your weed isn't going to threaten the economy. If a farmer isn't secure in their property, or if an Amazon distribution center can be raided with no legal recourse, then the economy could grind to a pitifully slow mismanaged disaster.
My point is that the government offers no protections for the property and provides no remedies when property rights are violated in relation to contraband.
The restrictions government places on itself in enforcing its prohibition on such substances are not particularly relevant.
You assert that property rights are only possible with government enforcement.
But government not only doesn’t enforce property rights for contraband, they actively seek to violate these property rights.
This completely invalidates your assertion that property can only be maintained via State coercion.
This is now 2 clear counter examples to your original unfounded assertion.
Well I did you the courtesy of watching the whole video. 23 minute talk and he managed to address none of my concerns.
First, is poverty no longer an issue? Say someone is unemployed, they got sick and lost their job or something. They have enough money to either buy food or pay their "rights enforcement agency". They of course buy food. They suddenly no longer have rights.
Let's look at something that will happen within a decade or two of this society trying to function. A firm with a relatively large labor force has not been increasing pay, has been increasing hours, has been worsening conditions. The workers unionize and make demands. Capital denies the request. Workers go on strike. Capital hires a new age Pinkertons. Blood in the streets, class warfare, blah blah blah. What's your ideal solution to this problem?
Okay, according to the speaker in that video everyone can hire their own rights enforcement agency. So, Evangelical Christians form an agency which has very restrictive rules for its members. Other agencies and private courts don't give a damn about the Evangelicals' restrictive laws. You have a system where you willfully created a private Crusader army and then asked them nicely to please settle down and let everyone else live their lives in peace. How do you think this works?
Okay, here's another situation. A man starts a rights enforcement agency. It does well on the market. Becomes the biggest and most successful such private army. He dies, his son is a ruthless business man. Undercuts the competition at every turn. Rent seeking, same old story, makes a monopoly, becomes the richest man in America. He dies, his son is a megalomaniac madman. Again, how does this system not fall apart into warlords destroying everything?
Again, I pointed out that it is not my goal to dictate how society should be run and that the primary advantage of freedom is the ability to explore multiple competing approaches.
You bring up deficiencies in Friedman’s structure, but nobody would force you to participate in such. His “machinery” is only one possible way that society might organize itself absent the coercive State.
I can point to countless problems with the current state of things as well, no solution will be perfect and all have advantages and disadvantages.
The core of your argument seems to be that the abolishment of the state will eventually lead to the formation of a new State, I don’t see how this is in any way a justification for the State.
My argument: We have a Republic. If we abolish the state we will soon have a Monarchy. I prefer Republics to Monarchies. We should therefore keep the state.
Also, the level of violence in current society is low. Abolishing the state will increase violence. This is bad in my opinion.
Your Bitcoin was mined on a computer that comes from material extracted from mines and oil wells that... someone or other won “property” to in a war. That’s the theft part.
Basically, you can by something from someone, but if you go through the history of transactions behind that product, you’re gonna get to a world where some guy finds a mine or a tree or a well and decides that it’s “his” because he found it. I think you guys call this “homesteading”. It’s BS
Well, stop reeeeing taxation as a bad thing in and of itself for one. Taxation isn’t any less justified than owning private property in the first place, they’re both done without consent
Then we determine what sorts of transactions are acceptable and unacceptable based on their result
The difference between justified seizure of property and unjustified seizure of property has everything to do with the consequences.
To take your example, the state is justified in taxing while you’re not justified in taking your neighbors car because, by and large, the consequences of taxation are good and the consequences of you taking your neighbors car are bad.
You probably disagree with the first statement, and that’s fine. If the consequences of taxes are on balance bad, then taxes are bad. All I’m trying to say is that neither of them are a priori bad.
This is also why in some cases it is okay to take your neighbors car. For example, if a murderous lunatic is chasing you with an axe and you need it to escape. Or if your wife is dying and you absolutely need to drive her to the hospital. But living in a society where stealing your neighbors care just because want it is bad because such a society would be impossible to live in
This is also why in some cases it is okay to take your neighbors car. For example, if a murderous lunatic is chasing you with an axe and you need it to escape
I do agree here, and it is a perfectly valid position to assert that taxation is necessary and still recognize that it is theft.
The necessity of the action does not change the nature of the theft.
The car example isn’t as clear because it is more like borrowing, but it is perfectly moral for a starving person to steal a meal.
It is still a theft, but a morally justifiable one.
To be a stakeholder, one must purchase one or more tickets, which entails locking a specified amount of coins for approximately 1 day (256 blocks).
After waiting for the ticket to mature, the ticket is entered into a lottery that runs once per block where the winning tickets gain the ability to vote on the previous block.
kek <= This one
kek
kek
kek
kek
You are trying to make a state based on how much one can pay for a lottery. Libertarians are fucking hilarious.
Like Bitcoin mining, The ticketing system is also not primarily intended to be a means of making money for participants, its purpose is to make decisions about the development and operation of the project while also reducing the need for power wasting Proof of Work mining.
There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal. While the first is the condition of a free society, the second means as De Tocqueville describes it, a new form of servitude.
Voting doesn’t bother me at all, nor does the concept of one person one vote.
I and many other members of the decred community think such voting mechanism for decred may have some value.
But there is no technical means to achieve such a proof that one person is one person any more than Reddit is able to prevent people from having multiple accounts.
If you can discover a distributed mechanism to prevent Sybil attacks that also ensures one person one vote we would love to hear about it.
Now voting for the coercion of others is something I very much object to, and why I refuse to participate in traditional government elections. But that’s not the sort of voting we are talking about at all here.
But there is no technical means to achieve such a proof that one person is one person any more than Reddit is able to prevent people from having multiple accounts.
Of course there are. Ask for a fingerprint or the hash of one. Other option include photo of your iris and so on.
Fingerprints can be forged. How do you verify a fingerprint represents a living person and is not wholly fabricated?
Same for iris prints.
They work for biometric authentication because I can’t easily guess your fingerprint (though stealing them isn’t hard) or your iris (harder to steal)
But this doesn’t work for protection against Sybil attacks because a unique fingerprint is not proof that it actually belongs to a living person and the same would be true of iris prints.
How do you verify these biometrics without a central authority?
If you do find a way to algorithmically verify that a fingerprint is from a living person that would solve the problems I described above and would be a huge deal.
But I’m not sure such a thing is possible, if you do find a way to do it, we’d love to hear about it.
Put a fingerprint and a password then. There come a point where you are more likely to loose your information trough actual physical thief of the machine than through hacking and we are so far past that that it doesn't matter.
We aren’t talking about biometrics for password like security though that’s why the threat model is different.
You are suggesting them as proof of a real and unique identity.
When you are using fingerprints purely for traditional access authorization the ability to craft wholly forged fingerprints is not a security concern, in fact it can be seen as a feature as in the above link.
But when you are attempting to use such a scheme to limit voting to individual persons and prevent a single person from representing themselves as multiple people this ability to forge new identities does become problematic.
Fictional fingerprints are not a concern for biometric computer access, duplication of such is.
But fictional fingerprints in a system that uses the existence of any fingerprint to grant something does cause problems and is not a solution to Sybil attacks.
The problem is that you are at the point where actually beating the person up to steal their fingerprint and password is easier than breaking it electronically.
This is why it's ridiculous. You are at the point where hacking the computer having the pos ticket is easier than falsifying their electronic presence.
It would be like saying that you can pay off a surgeon to change your face so photo identity card are meaningless.
The problem is that you are at the point where actually beating the person up to steal their fingerprint and password is easier than breaking it electronically
You are still not following.
I’m not talking about the possibility of stealing someone’s fingerprint.
I’m talking about the creation of totally fictional fingerprints, this allows a single person to forge multiple identities with no theft at all.
If 10 fingerprints = 1 vote all I have to do to generate more votes is to fake additional fingerprints
I don’t have to steal them from anyone so long as I can ensure their uniqueness and apparent validity.
So yes fingerprints are an ok security layer for computer access, but not a sufficient means to gate user registration or voting.
Then use a program that force people to use actual physical fingerprints.
There is no known method to do so, again if you have an actual solution we would love to hear it.
And add a limit of one person per machine.
This too it technology infeasible, but assuming you could force this restriction, it would just end up with a bitcoin type situation where those with more computers have more influence.
The bitcoin white paper actually describes its consensus system as “one cpu one vote”
it's called verifying where the stream come from. Are you seriously a programmer?
How do you propose to do this in a distributed way that does not require a central authority to validate sources?
What happens when a source you consider to be acceptable becomes compromised?
You are ignoring some key requirements in the spec of what we are trying to achieve here.
If your solution requires central clearing houses for identity, those become potentially corruptible by bad actors and you have fallen back into the same patterns of trust/authority that most blockchain projects want to avoid as a core goal.
How do you propose to do this in a distributed way that does not require a central authority to validate sources?
By using a program on everyone machine. You just need to protect it. So long you associate a number to each program (via for exemple the mining process), you can ensure that people use your program so you can continue being open source.
Hell, I am sure there are others, cleaner solutions than that.
By using a program on everyone machine. You just need to protect it.
Then the problem becomes how do you develop an open source piece of software that is able to distinguish between real and fake fingerprints?
There's easily available software for generation of convincing fingerprints, and I'm not of any method to distinguish between such a generated fingerprint and the real thing.
With the solution you suggest, this aspect is still an unsolved problem.
By using a program on everyone machine. You just need to protect it. So long you associate a number to each program (via for exemple the mining process)
What does this get you? The uniqueness of machines is not at all helpful in the determinations we are talking about. If having more computers makes it possible to create additional identities you have already lost one person one vote.
Then the problem becomes how do you develop an open source piece of software that is able to distinguish between real and fake fingerprints?
By the fact that it's an actual physical one.
What does this get you? The uniqueness of machines is not at all helpful in the determinations we are talking about. If having more computers makes it possible to create additional identities you have already lost one person one vote.
If you know that the program is correct (via that number), that verify that the fingerprint is physical.
No you can’t, nothing about a unique number can guarantee that a computer that you don’t control is running a piece of open source software or even closed source software unmodified.
If so, multiplayer game cheats would be impossible.
But even with central (remote) authority to ban cheaters, closed source games and closed source anti cheating software hacks still happen.
No you can’t, nothing about a unique number can guarantee that a computer that you don’t control is running a piece of open source software or even closed source software unmodified.
Of course it does so long you make so each software is associated to a number and protect the software itself.
Multiplayer cheat are based on the fact that they don't check which stream it come from. Because that would require to execute it with administrator rights.
If an open source piece of software was used to verify the legitimacy of fingerprints, an attacker would be free to generate and test as many fake fingerprints as his computing power could manage until he discovered a set that was not detected as fake.
So even if the method is 99% reliable, an attacker only has to generate rough 10000 fingerprints to get decent odds of finding a good set.
Aside from the brute force method, if the means by which fingerprints are checked for authenticity is open it becomes easier to engineer the fake fingerprints specifically for the algorithm such that they will pass to provide better odds than a pure brute force method.
Programming problems often seem much simpler when you ignore adversarial security.
Do you retards really think a block chain system in a country where there are still people with no reliable connections to the Internet is a more fair system. Lol, I suppose theyll have to rely on the Internet fairy to magic them a device to connect to the Internet and pay for the maintenence of the network,and itll be way different from a tax.
Ah great a government sponsored phone and government sponsored network to send an sms is all that's needed. Wait how is that any different from the other situation, 🤔 Let's try and put on our thinking caps before we say something retarded, since theres the same issues with phone networks.
Ah great, instead of a publicly owned utility being funded by me determining my ability to vote I can just instead hand it over to either some criminal gang to maintain, who will do it out of the goodness of their heart I am sure. Or some company I guess.
Or just piggy back on an existing network that someone already maintains, hence again just trusting some company to allow me to participate in the government.
How are you so retarded that you can't see these are all the same problem. . .
"Taxation is theft." is the dumbest war cry since "Red or Dead".
You know that literally changing somethings definition doesn't change its actual substance, right? Its like watching wiccans cast spells or any dipshit make a vision board.
I don't downvote, lolcow. This was a boring thread and you brought your spicy brand of dumb into it. You let me insult you to your face and call you names without being a big diaperbaby and running away or reporting me for harassment like a delicate soyboy.
Downvotes might change that. So I upvoted your idealistic ass. So you thought you had support for your points.
Ever think that maybe someone just doesn't like you? That its you?
Don't downvote lolcows. Your here for drama, not bussy-shaming.
Typically when downvoted so suddenly after a reply it’s safe to assume the person you replied to did the downvoting, but it seems to have been incorrect in this case.
I think that's always the typical assumption but that doesn't make it typically correct. It's like you have a rigid uncompromising world-view or something, that drives you to stupid extremes.
That sub has open mod logs and in case you couldn't tell that thread still isn't locked. Free speech was defended. u/freespeechwarrior actually DID defend the speech of even the people brigading us.
They make billions of rupies on products that lighten vaginas in India. Assuming you are an American, What's your excuse? If a Gangis tea harvester can afford it so can you. #wearealwhitewomen
Your crybaby sub was brigaded and spanked by a sub as weak as that. Then you had to come cry to Drama about it. This proves when you pissbabies accuse everyone of being beta cucks it's pure projection.
I never claimed I don't participate in crybaby subs, but don't let that stop you from a good jerk. I'm surprised you didn't go straight for my /r/LSC comment history.
based on the reports, it seems everyone is triggered.. the racists, the antifas, the tankies, the trumpists and the nazis.. you name it.. every level of the spectrum is represented in that post.
How many times have your fellow teen pajama Nazis desperately bleated out my username for attention in this post, laddie? Go ahead and count. This post is shitting on itself, you silly little fuckwit. And it points out the absurdity of this den of pissbaby adolescents like you. Denial isn’t just a river in Egypt, junior. But tell yourself whatever bedtime stories you like, Skippy! :)
210 comments
1 DarthPun 2018-01-20
As the creator of the subredditcancer thread, they’ll probably brigade this too.
1 Unfunny_Twat 2018-01-20
Man, this is some good drama
1 Sercat 2018-01-20
u/Devavrata17 has the finest comment history I've ever seen, god bless👏👏👏
1 morerokk 2018-01-20
1 Morgoff 2018-01-20
1 MG87 2018-01-20
TBF: It's not like /u/VegaTheAutisticFuck is getting laid any time soon
1 VegaTheAutisticFuck 2018-01-20
I'm married and we own two businesses. We basically have to schedule sex. lol
1 MG87 2018-01-20
So I was technically correct
1 jaja10 2018-01-20
he types like a left wing trump
1 captainpriapism 2018-01-20
fucking hell hes doing it unironically isnt he
1 Sercat 2018-01-20
Imagine expending this much effort.
1 comebepc 2018-01-20
It seems so
More of a reason for mayocide
1 Kwaloskie 2018-01-20
Elliot isn't even a Dutch name. I feel offended
1 Sercat 2018-01-20
It's supposed to reference Elliot Rodgers. I think.
1 Kwaloskie 2018-01-20
oh fuck
1 snallygaster 2018-01-20
ahahaha, /u/Devavrata17 is running circles around them. They're completely outmatched.
1 VegaTheAutisticFuck 2018-01-20
Riiiiight. He just cries when you drop numbers on his head.
https://np.reddit.com/r/ShitPoliticsSays/comments/7rvgn9/on_why_he_runs_away_from_debates_debating_them_is/
1 VegaTheAutisticFuck 2018-01-20
He has an obsession with toddlers and sex. He cried to the mods to make me stop mocking him. lol
1 aggressiveshitpost 2018-01-20
DAE LE TRUMP IS LE NAZI
Seriously, how /r/fuckthealtright users manage not to kill themselves is beyond my comprehension.
1 Mexagon 2018-01-20
The ulcers from the constant triggering eventually will do the job.
1 xoiz 2018-01-20
I can only dream...
1 Ultrashitpost 2018-01-20
The guy who originally made the sub even abandoned it and said it's a shitheap now.
1 4TheDrama 2018-01-20
Well the one who created r/Drama basically deleted his/her account from shame
1 Mayor_of_tittycity 2018-01-20
If you can't handle R/drama at its worse, you don't deserve it at its best.
1 error404brain 2018-01-20
At it's what now?
1 Mayor_of_tittycity 2018-01-20
If you can't handle r/drama at its worse, you don't deserve it at its best.
1 error404brain 2018-01-20
I don't deserve it at its what?
1 cunt_faced_retard 2018-01-20
Well, /r/altright is gone, so now all that's left are the retards that think Trump is a secret Nazi.
1 captainpriapism 2018-01-20
lack of courage im assuming
1 morerokk 2018-01-20
The FTAR comment which incited the brigade
1 thesnakeinthegarden 2018-01-20
TIL Subredditcancer is the sort of place that unironically is lead by a dingus named u/freespeechwarrior.
1 FreeSpeechWarrior 2018-01-20
Subredditcancer is actually lead by u/Nechaev
And my username found me.
/r/Anarchism/comments/690qdw/with_the_admins_banning_a_book_i_expect_the_free/dh302zu/?context=3
1 thesnakeinthegarden 2018-01-20
shh bby. don't get triggered.
1 FreeSpeechWarrior 2018-01-20
Not triggered at all, big fan of r/Drama
Censorship and Taxation are what make me go REEEEEE
1 moudougou 2018-01-20
Found the child molester
1 FreeSpeechWarrior 2018-01-20
Maybe you should highlight that over at /r/pizzagate
1 T_Dumbsford-Is-Sexy 2018-01-20
Hi! Your sub is a joke, full of snowflakes whining about how nobody appreciates them bringing Trump into every discussion and how it's impossible to redpill people on r/aww. Please keep yourself very safe very quickly.
1 FreeSpeechWarrior 2018-01-20
At least we don't censor people. You're welcome to insult those snowflakes to their face, no reason to come badger me about it.
1 T_Dumbsford-Is-Sexy 2018-01-20
How many times have you read 1984?
1 FreeSpeechWarrior 2018-01-20
Three or four times
1 T_Dumbsford-Is-Sexy 2018-01-20
How many times have you jerked off to John Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged?
1 FreeSpeechWarrior 2018-01-20
Never. Not a fan of Ayn Rand and I couldn’t get past the bad writing and never even finished Atlas Shrugged.
I do recall getting to that rant though and it was one of the higher points of an otherwise bad novel.
I did rub one out in celebration of the ongoing government shutdown though.
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2018-01-20
We get it, you don't like age of consent laws
1 FreeSpeechWarrior 2018-01-20
I'm pretty big on consent yes.
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2018-01-20
Sorry, I refuse to create a joinder with pedos
1 becauseiliketoupvote 2018-01-20
Property is theft dumbass
1 FreeSpeechWarrior 2018-01-20
Who did I steal my Bitcoin from?
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2018-01-20
https://i.imgur.com/KB39K7x.jpg
1 becauseiliketoupvote 2018-01-20
I don't know. Come back to me when you can turn that into goods and services.
1 FreeSpeechWarrior 2018-01-20
Ok: http://fortune.com/2017/08/08/overstock-digital-currency/
Now what?
1 becauseiliketoupvote 2018-01-20
Okay, so turn it into a pair of jeans and you're stealing from the labor or sweat shop workers. Easy.
More to the actual point, the is a difference between private consumption and capital, even though both are expressed in money, and when people say "property is theft" they usually are talking about capital.
1 FreeSpeechWarrior 2018-01-20
What if that pair of jeans was not produced by sweat shop workers.
I bought some homemade beef jerky from a redditor way back in 2010 with btc in a purely voluntary transaction. (possibly the worst financial decision of my life in retrospect, but it was really tasty)
Who got robbed there?
Since you are responding to the fact that I claim taxation is theft I should point out that bitcoin is very much considered “capital” by those who wish to rob me.
1 becauseiliketoupvote 2018-01-20
Yes, you can find examples of ethical consumption. Good for you.
Turn the Bitcoin into a commodity and turn that commodity back into Bitcoin and then it will be capital. No one (reasonable) has a problem with that until you need labor to make your commodity and don't share your profits with them.
Anyway, my overarching point is that simply saying "taxation is theft" is blase and rather naive. You need state power to protect your private property rights. Once the state power is established, how can you complain that they need money to protect your rights?
Of course you'll say "no, I'd rather freely pay my local warlord protection money to protect my property rights".
1 FreeSpeechWarrior 2018-01-20
See this is why I mentioned my bitcoin. I have no need of government to protect that property, and in fact they are the biggest threat to it.
I reject your assumption that property rights require central authority/government to maintain and have provided you with a clear counterexample.
1 becauseiliketoupvote 2018-01-20
Okay, again we get to the issue of turning your Bitcoin into something tangible. Say you want to buy a house with you money. You need authority to protect that property. Say you want to rent an apartment. Again, simply having locks and a gun won't be enough.
You can amass all the money you want, it's useless if you can't turn that into something real, and once it's something real you need some power to protect your claim.
1 FreeSpeechWarrior 2018-01-20
So you”re looking for an example of tangible property that is maintained without the aid of the state?
Perhaps you should visit /r/trees to see all the physical plant matter and paraphernalia that people widely own despite government outlawing the mere possession of such.
Surely the government does not protect those people’s property rights to property that the government deems to be illegal correct?
1 becauseiliketoupvote 2018-01-20
In case you were wondering how people are able to own illegal property without government interference, might I suggest you check out the United States Constitution, Amendment 4:
And again, we need to make a distinction between private consumption and capital. A cop seizing your weed isn't going to threaten the economy. If a farmer isn't secure in their property, or if an Amazon distribution center can be raided with no legal recourse, then the economy could grind to a pitifully slow mismanaged disaster.
1 FreeSpeechWarrior 2018-01-20
My point is that the government offers no protections for the property and provides no remedies when property rights are violated in relation to contraband.
The restrictions government places on itself in enforcing its prohibition on such substances are not particularly relevant.
You assert that property rights are only possible with government enforcement.
But government not only doesn’t enforce property rights for contraband, they actively seek to violate these property rights.
This completely invalidates your assertion that property can only be maintained via State coercion.
This is now 2 clear counter examples to your original unfounded assertion.
1 becauseiliketoupvote 2018-01-20
Okay, what's your stateless solution, and how is it different from feudalism?
1 FreeSpeechWarrior 2018-01-20
Me imposing my solution on everyone would be no better than you imposing yours.
I advocate for the freedom to try different approaches free or coercion.
If you’re looking for an idea of how such a thing could work though, this is a good start:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o
1 LightUmbra 2018-01-20
Coercion is the way the world works. Get over it.
1 FreeSpeechWarrior 2018-01-20
200 years ago, slavery was the world worked.
We’ve mostly gotten over it, and I expect the same will happen with taxation in time.
1 LightUmbra 2018-01-20
A tax free society is as daft as communism. Get over taxes.
1 becauseiliketoupvote 2018-01-20
Well I did you the courtesy of watching the whole video. 23 minute talk and he managed to address none of my concerns.
First, is poverty no longer an issue? Say someone is unemployed, they got sick and lost their job or something. They have enough money to either buy food or pay their "rights enforcement agency". They of course buy food. They suddenly no longer have rights.
Let's look at something that will happen within a decade or two of this society trying to function. A firm with a relatively large labor force has not been increasing pay, has been increasing hours, has been worsening conditions. The workers unionize and make demands. Capital denies the request. Workers go on strike. Capital hires a new age Pinkertons. Blood in the streets, class warfare, blah blah blah. What's your ideal solution to this problem?
Okay, according to the speaker in that video everyone can hire their own rights enforcement agency. So, Evangelical Christians form an agency which has very restrictive rules for its members. Other agencies and private courts don't give a damn about the Evangelicals' restrictive laws. You have a system where you willfully created a private Crusader army and then asked them nicely to please settle down and let everyone else live their lives in peace. How do you think this works?
Okay, here's another situation. A man starts a rights enforcement agency. It does well on the market. Becomes the biggest and most successful such private army. He dies, his son is a ruthless business man. Undercuts the competition at every turn. Rent seeking, same old story, makes a monopoly, becomes the richest man in America. He dies, his son is a megalomaniac madman. Again, how does this system not fall apart into warlords destroying everything?
I'll leave you with this: mustard gas is cheap.
1 FreeSpeechWarrior 2018-01-20
Again, I pointed out that it is not my goal to dictate how society should be run and that the primary advantage of freedom is the ability to explore multiple competing approaches.
You bring up deficiencies in Friedman’s structure, but nobody would force you to participate in such. His “machinery” is only one possible way that society might organize itself absent the coercive State.
I can point to countless problems with the current state of things as well, no solution will be perfect and all have advantages and disadvantages.
The core of your argument seems to be that the abolishment of the state will eventually lead to the formation of a new State, I don’t see how this is in any way a justification for the State.
1 becauseiliketoupvote 2018-01-20
My argument: We have a Republic. If we abolish the state we will soon have a Monarchy. I prefer Republics to Monarchies. We should therefore keep the state.
Also, the level of violence in current society is low. Abolishing the state will increase violence. This is bad in my opinion.
1 Marblehornets01 2018-01-20
Your Bitcoin was mined on a computer that comes from material extracted from mines and oil wells that... someone or other won “property” to in a war. That’s the theft part.
Basically, you can by something from someone, but if you go through the history of transactions behind that product, you’re gonna get to a world where some guy finds a mine or a tree or a well and decides that it’s “his” because he found it. I think you guys call this “homesteading”. It’s BS
1 FreeSpeechWarrior 2018-01-20
So your argument is effectively original sin.
No matter what I do, my voluntary interactions with others are tantamount to theft because of the circumstances of their original appropriation?
How do you propose to correct this situation?
1 Marblehornets01 2018-01-20
Well, stop reeeeing taxation as a bad thing in and of itself for one. Taxation isn’t any less justified than owning private property in the first place, they’re both done without consent
Then we determine what sorts of transactions are acceptable and unacceptable based on their result
1 FreeSpeechWarrior 2018-01-20
So I hate the term, but this strikes me as “whatsboutism”
If property is theft, them surely I am just as justified as the State to go steal my neighbor’s property right?
Why does the nature of property as theft give one entity the right to tax/steal and not another?
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
1 Marblehornets01 2018-01-20
The difference between justified seizure of property and unjustified seizure of property has everything to do with the consequences.
To take your example, the state is justified in taxing while you’re not justified in taking your neighbors car because, by and large, the consequences of taxation are good and the consequences of you taking your neighbors car are bad.
You probably disagree with the first statement, and that’s fine. If the consequences of taxes are on balance bad, then taxes are bad. All I’m trying to say is that neither of them are a priori bad.
This is also why in some cases it is okay to take your neighbors car. For example, if a murderous lunatic is chasing you with an axe and you need it to escape. Or if your wife is dying and you absolutely need to drive her to the hospital. But living in a society where stealing your neighbors care just because want it is bad because such a society would be impossible to live in
1 FreeSpeechWarrior 2018-01-20
This is a subjective determination and I do content that by and large the consequences of taxation/the state are by and large bad.
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE6.HTM
I do agree here, and it is a perfectly valid position to assert that taxation is necessary and still recognize that it is theft.
The necessity of the action does not change the nature of the theft.
The car example isn’t as clear because it is more like borrowing, but it is perfectly moral for a starving person to steal a meal.
It is still a theft, but a morally justifiable one.
1 Marblehornets01 2018-01-20
Looks like we’re on the same page then lol. The article looks interesting, I’ll take a look at it. Thanks!
1 error404brain 2018-01-20
I also hate the concept of civilisation.
1 FreeSpeechWarrior 2018-01-20
Taxation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajhpFT-lVZY
1 error404brain 2018-01-20
Try building a social organisation (or a state if you prefer) without taxation, fam.
1 FreeSpeechWarrior 2018-01-20
I am actually now that you mention it:
https://docs.decred.org/getting-started/constitution/
Many people incorrectly refer to the dev funding mechanism as a tax, but there is no coercion involved.
Blockchain governance is governance that rules via carrots rather than sticks.
1 error404brain 2018-01-20
kek <= This one
kek
kek
kek
kek
You are trying to make a state based on how much one can pay for a lottery. Libertarians are fucking hilarious.
1 FreeSpeechWarrior 2018-01-20
I don’t really see the Staking system as a lottery in the traditional sense.
The tickets for the lottery you speak of are always returned in full, even if you “lose”
That is to say, if I “buy” a ticket for 50DCR, even if it expires without voting my 50DCR Is returned.
If you have other questions or concerns you’re welcome to visit /r/decred
We are not a community of libertarians, there are plenty of Statists and even communist among our community.
1 error404brain 2018-01-20
You can't see the problem with rich people buying hundred thousand more tickets than poor?
Seriously?
1 FreeSpeechWarrior 2018-01-20
What can they do with those tickets? The governance of decred is purely the governance of the currency itself.
Those who hold more have more to gain/lose as a result of the decisions of the organization.
Now this would be absokutely oppressive in a real government like our own but in a governance model that is only concerned with a voluntary currency it makes more sense.
Like Bitcoin mining, The ticketing system is also not primarily intended to be a means of making money for participants, its purpose is to make decisions about the development and operation of the project while also reducing the need for power wasting Proof of Work mining.
1 error404brain 2018-01-20
You really hate the concept of equality, right?
1 FreeSpeechWarrior 2018-01-20
Not at all.
1 error404brain 2018-01-20
I am sure the concept of one man one vote is servitude to you, but this doesn't mean that equality is no less dependant on that.
1 FreeSpeechWarrior 2018-01-20
Voting doesn’t bother me at all, nor does the concept of one person one vote.
I and many other members of the decred community think such voting mechanism for decred may have some value.
But there is no technical means to achieve such a proof that one person is one person any more than Reddit is able to prevent people from having multiple accounts.
See: https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoUBI/comments/2v2gi6/proof_of_identityproof_of_person_the_elephant_in/
If you can discover a distributed mechanism to prevent Sybil attacks that also ensures one person one vote we would love to hear about it.
Now voting for the coercion of others is something I very much object to, and why I refuse to participate in traditional government elections. But that’s not the sort of voting we are talking about at all here.
1 error404brain 2018-01-20
Of course there are. Ask for a fingerprint or the hash of one. Other option include photo of your iris and so on.
1 FreeSpeechWarrior 2018-01-20
Fingerprints can be forged. How do you verify a fingerprint represents a living person and is not wholly fabricated?
Same for iris prints.
They work for biometric authentication because I can’t easily guess your fingerprint (though stealing them isn’t hard) or your iris (harder to steal)
But this doesn’t work for protection against Sybil attacks because a unique fingerprint is not proof that it actually belongs to a living person and the same would be true of iris prints.
How do you verify these biometrics without a central authority?
1 error404brain 2018-01-20
Because you put it tough some kind of program to verify that it look like a fingerprint.
1 FreeSpeechWarrior 2018-01-20
Like TouchID?
Not good enough: https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Passcode/Security-culture/2016/0627/Fake-fingerprints-The-latest-tactic-for-protecting-privacy
If you do find a way to algorithmically verify that a fingerprint is from a living person that would solve the problems I described above and would be a huge deal.
But I’m not sure such a thing is possible, if you do find a way to do it, we’d love to hear about it.
1 error404brain 2018-01-20
Put a fingerprint and a password then. There come a point where you are more likely to loose your information trough actual physical thief of the machine than through hacking and we are so far past that that it doesn't matter.
1 FreeSpeechWarrior 2018-01-20
We aren’t talking about biometrics for password like security though that’s why the threat model is different.
You are suggesting them as proof of a real and unique identity.
When you are using fingerprints purely for traditional access authorization the ability to craft wholly forged fingerprints is not a security concern, in fact it can be seen as a feature as in the above link.
But when you are attempting to use such a scheme to limit voting to individual persons and prevent a single person from representing themselves as multiple people this ability to forge new identities does become problematic.
Fictional fingerprints are not a concern for biometric computer access, duplication of such is.
But fictional fingerprints in a system that uses the existence of any fingerprint to grant something does cause problems and is not a solution to Sybil attacks.
Does that make the problem clearer?
1 error404brain 2018-01-20
The problem is that you are at the point where actually beating the person up to steal their fingerprint and password is easier than breaking it electronically.
This is why it's ridiculous. You are at the point where hacking the computer having the pos ticket is easier than falsifying their electronic presence.
It would be like saying that you can pay off a surgeon to change your face so photo identity card are meaningless.
1 FreeSpeechWarrior 2018-01-20
You are still not following.
I’m not talking about the possibility of stealing someone’s fingerprint.
I’m talking about the creation of totally fictional fingerprints, this allows a single person to forge multiple identities with no theft at all.
If 10 fingerprints = 1 vote all I have to do to generate more votes is to fake additional fingerprints
I don’t have to steal them from anyone so long as I can ensure their uniqueness and apparent validity.
So yes fingerprints are an ok security layer for computer access, but not a sufficient means to gate user registration or voting.
1 error404brain 2018-01-20
Then use a program that force people to use actual physical fingerprints. It's not rocket science. And add a limit of one person per machine.
Everything can be solved so long there is a will.
1 FreeSpeechWarrior 2018-01-20
There is no known method to do so, again if you have an actual solution we would love to hear it.
This too it technology infeasible, but assuming you could force this restriction, it would just end up with a bitcoin type situation where those with more computers have more influence.
The bitcoin white paper actually describes its consensus system as “one cpu one vote”
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/5638/what-is-the-motivation-behind-one-cpu-one-vote-rule
Ive been been pondering this problem for over 2 years, and so have many others.
It’s not nearly as simple as you think it is.
I’d very much like to solve it, and use such a solution to operate a purely voluntary CryptoCurrency UBI
But there is no known solution.
1 error404brain 2018-01-20
What are you on. Of course there is, it's called verifying where the stream come from. Are you seriously a programmer?
Wew. Wew, lad. You are not a programmer at all, are you?
1 FreeSpeechWarrior 2018-01-20
I've been a developer for over two decades.
How do you propose to do this in a distributed way that does not require a central authority to validate sources?
What happens when a source you consider to be acceptable becomes compromised?
You are ignoring some key requirements in the spec of what we are trying to achieve here.
If your solution requires central clearing houses for identity, those become potentially corruptible by bad actors and you have fallen back into the same patterns of trust/authority that most blockchain projects want to avoid as a core goal.
1 error404brain 2018-01-20
By using a program on everyone machine. You just need to protect it. So long you associate a number to each program (via for exemple the mining process), you can ensure that people use your program so you can continue being open source.
Hell, I am sure there are others, cleaner solutions than that.
1 FreeSpeechWarrior 2018-01-20
Then the problem becomes how do you develop an open source piece of software that is able to distinguish between real and fake fingerprints?
There's easily available software for generation of convincing fingerprints, and I'm not of any method to distinguish between such a generated fingerprint and the real thing.
With the solution you suggest, this aspect is still an unsolved problem.
http://biolab.csr.unibo.it/research.asp?organize=Activities&select=&selObj=12&pathSubj=111%7C%7C12&
What does this get you? The uniqueness of machines is not at all helpful in the determinations we are talking about. If having more computers makes it possible to create additional identities you have already lost one person one vote.
1 error404brain 2018-01-20
By the fact that it's an actual physical one.
If you know that the program is correct (via that number), that verify that the fingerprint is physical.
1 FreeSpeechWarrior 2018-01-20
How do you verify that the fingerprint is physical in software though?
1 error404brain 2018-01-20
You can verify the software tho. Via the use of that number.
1 FreeSpeechWarrior 2018-01-20
No you can’t, nothing about a unique number can guarantee that a computer that you don’t control is running a piece of open source software or even closed source software unmodified.
If so, multiplayer game cheats would be impossible.
But even with central (remote) authority to ban cheaters, closed source games and closed source anti cheating software hacks still happen.
1 error404brain 2018-01-20
Of course it does so long you make so each software is associated to a number and protect the software itself.
Multiplayer cheat are based on the fact that they don't check which stream it come from. Because that would require to execute it with administrator rights.
1 FreeSpeechWarrior 2018-01-20
So I did find some research on a method of detecting fake fingerprints, but it is unreliable:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4210264/
If an open source piece of software was used to verify the legitimacy of fingerprints, an attacker would be free to generate and test as many fake fingerprints as his computing power could manage until he discovered a set that was not detected as fake.
So even if the method is 99% reliable, an attacker only has to generate rough 10000 fingerprints to get decent odds of finding a good set.
Aside from the brute force method, if the means by which fingerprints are checked for authenticity is open it becomes easier to engineer the fake fingerprints specifically for the algorithm such that they will pass to provide better odds than a pure brute force method.
Programming problems often seem much simpler when you ignore adversarial security.
1 error404brain 2018-01-20
Once again, you just need to ensure that they are physical. It's the only thing that matter here.
1 westofthetracks 2018-01-20
lol
1 IsADragon 2018-01-20
Do you retards really think a block chain system in a country where there are still people with no reliable connections to the Internet is a more fair system. Lol, I suppose theyll have to rely on the Internet fairy to magic them a device to connect to the Internet and pay for the maintenence of the network,and itll be way different from a tax.
1 FreeSpeechWarrior 2018-01-20
BTC is usable without an internet connection these days through sms gateways.
It’s also possible to take advantage of a payment system/network without being directly connected to it.
1 IsADragon 2018-01-20
Ah great a government sponsored phone and government sponsored network to send an sms is all that's needed. Wait how is that any different from the other situation, 🤔 Let's try and put on our thinking caps before we say something retarded, since theres the same issues with phone networks.
1 FreeSpeechWarrior 2018-01-20
Government sponsored is not a precondition for phone networks.
https://www.npr.org/2011/12/09/143442365/mexico-busts-drug-cartels-private-phone-networks
1 IsADragon 2018-01-20
Ah great, instead of a publicly owned utility being funded by me determining my ability to vote I can just instead hand it over to either some criminal gang to maintain, who will do it out of the goodness of their heart I am sure. Or some company I guess.
Or just piggy back on an existing network that someone already maintains, hence again just trusting some company to allow me to participate in the government.
How are you so retarded that you can't see these are all the same problem. . .
1 thesnakeinthegarden 2018-01-20
"Taxation is theft." is the dumbest war cry since "Red or Dead".
You know that literally changing somethings definition doesn't change its actual substance, right? Its like watching wiccans cast spells or any dipshit make a vision board.
1 FreeSpeechWarrior 2018-01-20
Absolutely, and this is exactly why I make such a point of reiterating that theft is still theft even when you call it taxation.
1 thesnakeinthegarden 2018-01-20
"If I say its the same thing enough, it'll come true! I do. Ido. I do believe in fairies."
1 FreeSpeechWarrior 2018-01-20
Thank you for being honest I guess.
Still doesn’t make Taxation not theft.
1 thesnakeinthegarden 2018-01-20
Go to an online dictionary. Write out the two definitions. I'll wait.
1 FreeSpeechWarrior 2018-01-20
Ok
1 thesnakeinthegarden 2018-01-20
lol. If I circle the right words and letters, I can spell out "you're retarded." too.
1 FreeSpeechWarrior 2018-01-20
Sure, but it’s the logical connections between the definitions that matter.
Why don’t you post a couple of definitions?
1 thesnakeinthegarden 2018-01-20
"Dumb-ass: someone unironically calling themselves freespeechwarrior."
And bored. Thanks for answering the ping. You've been a treat. Havefun freezpeaching everywhere you champion of the oppressed white beta male, you.
1 FreeSpeechWarrior 2018-01-20
I always read ad-hominen attacks as a concession of an argument.
Thank you for playing and have a great weekend.
1 thesnakeinthegarden 2018-01-20
I don't downvote, lolcow. This was a boring thread and you brought your spicy brand of dumb into it. You let me insult you to your face and call you names without being a big diaperbaby and running away or reporting me for harassment like a delicate soyboy.
Downvotes might change that. So I upvoted your idealistic ass. So you thought you had support for your points.
Ever think that maybe someone just doesn't like you? That its you?
Don't downvote lolcows. Your here for drama, not bussy-shaming.
1 FreeSpeechWarrior 2018-01-20
I apologize for my incorrect assumption.
Typically when downvoted so suddenly after a reply it’s safe to assume the person you replied to did the downvoting, but it seems to have been incorrect in this case.
1 thesnakeinthegarden 2018-01-20
I think that's always the typical assumption but that doesn't make it typically correct. It's like you have a rigid uncompromising world-view or something, that drives you to stupid extremes.
1 MG87 2018-01-20
Imagine being this retarded
1 LemonScore 2018-01-20
Sounds like you're the triggered one :thinking:
1 thesnakeinthegarden 2018-01-20
What a zinger! You're the life of the pepe republicans club, I bet.
Do that again. Trigger me again.
1 becauseiliketoupvote 2018-01-20
Check out /r/MetaCancerSubDrama. Same concept, much better execution.
1 thesnakeinthegarden 2018-01-20
I can only get so hard...
1 becauseiliketoupvote 2018-01-20
Right?
1 thesnakeinthegarden 2018-01-20
I got, like, such an angry roll of nickels going on already.
1 VegaTheAutisticFuck 2018-01-20
That sub has open mod logs and in case you couldn't tell that thread still isn't locked. Free speech was defended. u/freespeechwarrior actually DID defend the speech of even the people brigading us.
1 thesnakeinthegarden 2018-01-20
apt name.
1 VegaTheAutisticFuck 2018-01-20
Right? :)
1 cuteman 2018-01-20
Shouldn't they be protesting in their pussy hats today?
1 ltedt 2018-01-20
No,now pussy hats are transphobic. We can't have that, transkin folx are more important than women on the progressive scale
1 cuteman 2018-01-20
Not just transphobic. It's discriminatory against people with pussies that aren't pink.
1 ltedt 2018-01-20
What is best are the "women" saying there are no pink pussies in the real world and it's just an invention by the porn industry. I mean, come on
1 Ace4929 2018-01-20
Sounds like something they should get checked out
1 GenitalGesticulation 2018-01-20
Same people who think women with a bmi under 45 aren't real.
1 Rodomite 2018-01-20
They make billions of rupies on products that lighten vaginas in India. Assuming you are an American, What's your excuse? If a Gangis tea harvester can afford it so can you. #wearealwhitewomen
1 pepperouchau 2018-01-20
>knowing there's a women's march going on today
Rent free
1 Tiepilot789 2018-01-20
r/subredditcancer calling other people idiots, lmoa.
1 A7thStone 2018-01-20
Your crybaby sub was brigaded and spanked by a sub as weak as that. Then you had to come cry to Drama about it. This proves when you pissbabies accuse everyone of being beta cucks it's pure projection.
1 Ultrashitpost 2018-01-20
While what you are saying is actually correct, you can't really accuse others of posting on crybaby subs while you yourself post on CB2.
1 A7thStone 2018-01-20
I never claimed I don't participate in crybaby subs, but don't let that stop you from a good jerk. I'm surprised you didn't go straight for my /r/LSC comment history.
1 Ultrashitpost 2018-01-20
That's more retarded than crybaby. CB2 actually despises anything resembling fun and whatnot.
1 A7thStone 2018-01-20
I don't know; I think it can be fun. It's more fun to come shit up drama, and still be able to post in places like cb2 and LSC.
1 morerokk 2018-01-20
You should learn some new swears that aren't just variations of "-baby". You spend too much time in SRS.
1 A7thStone 2018-01-20
I don't banter with kids who's nuts haven't descended yet.
1 tacitchav 2018-01-20
"they're a buncha fucking babies."
1 A7thStone 2018-01-20
Does baby need a bottle?
1 EarnestNoMeta 2018-01-20
Good one
1 ltedt 2018-01-20
yes, daddy
1 thesnakeinthegarden 2018-01-20
Do you have one, or are you just a little cock-tease slut?
1 A7thStone 2018-01-20
I'm volcel, so cock-tease I guess.
1 thesnakeinthegarden 2018-01-20
I don't know what that means.
1 A7thStone 2018-01-20
Voluntarily celibate
1 menvaren 2018-01-20
"Voluntary"
1 A7thStone 2018-01-20
Potato potato
1 Teh_Jews 2018-01-20
You already told us that you post in r/LSC
1 thesnakeinthegarden 2018-01-20
is that asexual or one of those MGTOW scabs?
1 A7thStone 2018-01-20
Neither, it's a personal choice because of poor relationship choices in the past.
1 thesnakeinthegarden 2018-01-20
bummer. Have fun batin
1 A7thStone 2018-01-20
Go away, batin.
1 VPEKD 2018-01-20
mmm yes mommy!
1 A7thStone 2018-01-20
I'd make a bad reddit joke, but I'm above that.
1 comebepc 2018-01-20
Well, at least you don't talk to yourself
1 totalrandomperson 2018-01-20
That's discriminatory against people with hormonal problems.
1 allkindsofnewyou 2018-01-20
BustItBaby
1 Morgoff 2018-01-20
The same people that use "waah waah I dun a poo poo" type stuff think "Soyboy" is bad.
1 A7thStone 2018-01-20
Is it baby's nap time?
1 Morgoff 2018-01-20
I'm not calling you daddy if that's where this is going.
1 A7thStone 2018-01-20
I wouldn't want to take trumplethinskin's place in your heart bb.
1 Morgoff 2018-01-20
Trump's literally retarded and I'm not American.
You're terrible at this.
1 A7thStone 2018-01-20
I'm sorry for being presumptive. Are you gobbling Farage's brown star instead?
1 Morgoff 2018-01-20
NO! NOT FARAGE! YOU LEAVE HIM OUT OF THIS!
Getting warmer though.
1 A7thStone 2018-01-20
Sorry I'm a dumb 'murican. The only UK politicians I know besides Farage are Teresa May, and the absolute boy Corbyn.
1 Morgoff 2018-01-20
Well you gave it a go, and that's what counts.
It was Labour which is Corbyns party, since he's the best of an absolute turdbowl.
1 A7thStone 2018-01-20
I obviously misjudged you, but that's ok since this is drama and everyone is here just to be shitty to each other.
1 Morgoff 2018-01-20
Not completely, I still probably think 90% of what you believe in is retarded.
1 A7thStone 2018-01-20
That's probably a fair assessment.
1 wwaalleess 2018-01-20
Canadian Jesus is the only world leader I recognize, tbhwu
1 thesnakeinthegarden 2018-01-20
That's not how any of this works. You're awful at this. Try harder. Something original. Or something hyper repetitive.
Try telling him to KYS. Or post bussy.
1 A7thStone 2018-01-20
Post bussy or gtfo.
1 thesnakeinthegarden 2018-01-20
better, feels forced. Which is perfect.
1 westofthetracks 2018-01-20
jesus christ you and the magatards deserve each other
1 A7thStone 2018-01-20
That shit is funny. If he didn't tweet like an offended teenager whenever he feels slighted it wouldn't be, but here we are.
1 tacitchav 2018-01-20
"Pissbaby". Me likey.
1 A7thStone 2018-01-20
Does baby need their nappy changed?
1 thesnakeinthegarden 2018-01-20
Are you a novelty bot?
1 A7thStone 2018-01-20
I wish.
1 Gtyyler 2018-01-20
Is your sub in one giant open relationship but still not getting laid?
1 A7thStone 2018-01-20
What is that supposed to even mean?
1 Rith2 2018-01-20
Kinkshaming is anti-white
1 A7thStone 2018-01-20
Mayocide when?
1 thesnakeinthegarden 2018-01-20
NOW!
1 ReverieMetherlence 2018-01-20
wow, the definition of reddit leftie
1 A7thStone 2018-01-20
that's a bingo
1 Al_Simmons 2018-01-20
Aka safe space cry baby subs.
1 A7thStone 2018-01-20
I'll show you my safe space; if you show me yours.
1 comebepc 2018-01-20
1 Shiwanshu1 2018-01-20
Stop downvoting the lc
1 A7thStone 2018-01-20
Thank you. These newfriends have no idea how to play.
1 Rith2 2018-01-20
Surely the admins will do something about this
1 morerokk 2018-01-20
I already messaged them. I have hopes that they'll intervene.
To their credit, they did suspend /u/Ragingfuckalot after I messaged the admins about her doxing people.
1 shallowm 2018-01-20
Wait, wasn't that /u/DeepDickedHillyBilly?
1 JenkemJoe 2018-01-20
This post needs the Shitshow flair..
based on the reports, it seems everyone is triggered.. the racists, the antifas, the tankies, the trumpists and the nazis.. you name it.. every level of the spectrum is represented in that post.
1 Epic_XC 2018-01-20
including mods who think they’re badass by laughing at legitimate reports they receive
1 JenkemJoe 2018-01-20
oh lookie.. I got my first stalker of 2018!
1 comebepc 2018-01-20
This needs to be a quote
1 Whatafuxup 2018-01-20
/u/VegaTheAutisticFuck taking scalps in that thread lmao
1 allendrio 2018-01-20
shitty title OP this is a gangbang brigade going back and forth forever.
1 [deleted] 2018-01-20
[deleted]