I actually thought about this a while ago. Surely there are many hated people in the world, but some world leaders take the cake. I would pay to piss on Putin’s grave for example. So… Why isn’t there a business opportunity here? Buy the graveyard holding them, sell tickets to piss on Putin/Trump/Kimjong/Xi/whoever. You can make it into a holiday - 1000 euro for a weekend in a Moscow hotel, you visit the Kremlin, you piss on Putin’s grave, you go home with a shirt that says “I literally pissed on Putin and all I got was this lousy Polonium-engraved t-shirt”. I almost bought pissonputinsgrave.com when I thought about this, but I lack the funds to actually buy their graveyards.

Surely there’s something here for our society, right? We’re all tired of oppression at the hands of a few power-hungry old fucks and are just waiting for them to die so that we can finally release our common prostate. Or is it just me and you that would love the satisfaction of defiling the corpses of these cunt dictators?

Delivered without landing?

I shit on Israel and their propaganda department

Time to stop the Israeli social experiment, or whatever the fuck it was that they tried to do.

I’m just gonna keep your initial claim here for visibility

Vigilante justice is always wrong

Now, where did I claim that it’s never wrong? Because that’s what you seem to argue. You won’t find such a claim from me though, because I agree with your implied point, which is more like “vigilante justice is usually wrong because an emotional mob doesn’t weigh facts or proportional response, it just acts based on feeling”. So yeah, that one seems great. But not ALWAYS wrong though.

I’ll just give another example, since you gave one as well. Kid1 gets his bike stolen by kid2. He sees it happening and while he doesn’t know the thief personally, he (with his parents help) contacts the police and provides a very detailed description of the bike and a decent visual description of the thief. Because this isn’t really a top prio case, nothing happens for about 6 months. Then kid1 sees kid2 riding the bike around town, and he lucks into kid2 parking it in front of a small shop and going inside. Kid1 walks up to the bike, makes sure it’s his, and rides off into the sunset with it.

So I ask - was it really always wrong for me to go and get my bike back?

He said that even after he couldn’t get an erection, he would still imagine killing and having sex with people because it made him feel alive.

“I know exactly what you mean. You know what’s better? When they’re old and lonely and can’t fight back or don’t have anyone who’ll believe them. I once shoved a kitchen knife in a 90 year old’s ass cause he wouldn’t stop whining when I fucked him. He loosened up real good after that.”

Worst case scenario, you creeped out an old man with a bad sense of humor. Best case scenario, for the last days of his life a twisted psycho murderer who’s been hiding his true nature behind good deeds gets to feel a tinge of fear whenever he’s not sure he locked his door.

Vigilante justice is always wrong.

You keep saying this, but I don’t understand why. Hear me out.

So, vigilante justice is justice outside the legal system. If you say it is always wrong, you implicitly say that the legal system is the only way to resolve things. In an ideal society, I would grant you that. But you’re aware that even our laws today are imperfect, let alone the laws from tens or hundreds of years ago. So how can you stand by that claim? Surely if we allow for the system to be imperfect, it must mean that vigilante justice is sometimes the only possible way to achieve justice, and therefore right?

Aside from this: even if the system was perfect, laws are society’s convention. They are not natural, they are man-made. That means man can also change them (and we do, constantly - parliament/congress/senate/whatever form it takes). But even if they weren’t in constant change and they would reach a stability - is it still not the case that society must agree to obey them? If you give me hammurabi’s code and tell me to live my life by it, I may agree and do it or I may think you’re a fool and not do it. Same here - just because a vocal minority has decided the law that should govern everyone (even if that law is just and fair and impartial and righteous and by all means perfect) - it doesn’t guarantee that it will be followed by the majority. So there will be situations where each of us will be a vigilante, outside the system of laws imposed by a third party. Is that really ALWAYS wrong to do? Because I can personally think of very many situations where it’s not wrong.

So a country’s internal politics don’t matter unless they fall to Russia - that’s what you said, right?

But wouldn’t you agree that the country’s internal politics are what decides if it falls to Russia or not? If education is not a subject they invest in, if its population isn’t happy with the status quo, if they exhibit corruption, if their healthcare system is so bad that the middle class emigrates and leaves behind only the oligarchs and the poor, if their justice system doesn’t work and they don’t feel safe… All these internal politics have a huge impact on if a country can be influenced by Russia or any other nefarious agent.

I don’t get what you’re saying. You keep saying “yeah but we don’t care about X”, while X seems to be the direct cause of some of your problems that you DO care about. Are you trying to say Romania should take care of its shit internally so we don’t have to deal with it, and not let it grow to the point where it’s a problem for the rest of the EU?

Does this election not matter?

Briefly? No.

1. This is the first round of elections. It’s not a FPTP system. Yes, he has a good shot at winning. But now he has to earn the votes which went to the “third party”, so to speak. Which is difficult for both of the current candidates.

2. Romania’s president has limited power and responsibilities. He’s there as a a dignitary and usually handles foreign affairs more than internal ones. He’s also powerless - the government and the parliament are where the power is.

3. Both these people are corrupt fucks. There is no winning this election. Yes, one’s worse than the other. I’d struggle to say which, although the pro-russian seems to be just a tad more evil.

4. Human nature. Sure, the guy is pro Russia. Great. But how much time will he have to actually bring Romania closer to Russia if he has to split that time between trying to get the country out of NATO and trying to steal enough to retire comfortably? He won’t get anything done, he’s too greedy for it.

Edit: Seems like the number 2 spot in the election may be taken by a less corrupt candidate than initially thought - this invalidates my 3rd point a bit. I stand by the rest though.

Germans are allowed to shove their fingers in their ears and go “lalalala I can’t hear you therefore it’s not genocide”. In fact, all of us are allowed to. It’s just that most of those who aren’t a cunt will choose not to. It seems Germans do not pass that particular filter.

Decree 770 […] signed in 1967

Gen X in Romania is actually replaced by “decreței” - loosely translated as children of the decree. About 20 years later, they’d be just old enough to take part in the revolution that brought about Ceaușescu’s execution and fast replacement with a former chief of the communist party’s propaganda department, who had strong ties to Moscow.

You think they’re going to pay when they can just use force?

9 plus anything is just a 1 in front of the other digit minus 1

This is also how it works in my head, but isn’t it the same as the other guy was saying, 10+6?

men are the primary perpetrators

the number of women who do it is such a small percentage as to be almost statistically insignificant compared to the number of men who do.

Men commit sexual assault every single day

barely 5% of them get prosecuted for it.

Citation needed

Listen, it’s very obvious we’re not on the same page. You’re responding to a comment thread that contains a comment literally contradicting most of your points, and you’re not being rational about it. You’re spouting wild claims with little regard for backing them up - it’s as if în your head, they’re axioms and not only do they not require proof, but invalidating them would mean the rest of the world crumbles. And I’m sure for you, that’s true.

All things considered, continuing this “discussion” brings no value to either of us. Have a good one.

Thread has a photo of a sign saying “not all men but always a man”.

Bringing up the statistic of female perpetrators is simply a way of deflecting the responsibility of

No. Bringing up the statistic is a way of correcting an intentionally skewed view that is vilifying men for no fucking reason. If you’re gonna be a dick about things, don’t go crying when you get shafted.

Think there’s any way to get Russia to attack Israel instead of Ukraine? We could allow either country to keep any land they earn from the conflict, no questions asked. Only stipulation being, only one country can remain.

And then the victorious party can eat the rest of the world’s nukes.

Part of the world: takes a step forward

Japan: not on my fucking watch

My bad, I didn’t know we were building our own ‘ship of Theseus’ argument. I’m out, smarter people than me can discuss that one.

It’s the same algorithm. It has the same purpose and the same result. It has simply been updated and improved. And it most likely still relies on certain markers that can measure how much a post will be engaged with and who will do it, except those markers are now less primitive and harder for us to define.

We’re arguing semantics. This has always been the purpose of a social network: to keep you addicted to it. To keep you interacting with it. They don’t make money if you’re not there to click their ads, to look at their sponsored videos, to be marketed towards. Did they do it as well 10 years ago as they do it today? No, of course not. But you were still being targeted with posts that would “do well” with your gender, your age group, your location etc. They haven’t changed one little bit of their business model.

So what are we talking about here? Some guy discovered 10 years down the road that a company wants you to keep using their website/service/app/whatever, but he thinks 10 years ago that company was - what? More scrupulous? More genuine?

Nah, man. It was always the same. They just got better at their jobs. And - fuck me, it sounds like they were pretty good at their jobs even 10 years ago: they managed to keep Joe Slow scrolling for an entire decade.

Holy shit, were you born yesterday?

Social media was not a stew of shit a decade ago.

Source: was a man on social media a decade ago and was not constantly bombarded with toxic shit.

Lol imagine being on social media for 10 years and still complaining about the algorithm.

Here’s a post from 11 years ago explaining how you were being targeted and how engagement was measured back then:

Facebook has a hierarchy of post types, since some types garner more engagement than others. Photos and videos take top priority. Links are second, and plain text status updates are at the bottom end. Weight doesn’t end there, though.

Interaction from other users can also affect this. For instance, comments are more weighty than likes, but both affect the overall weight of the post. So a text-based status update with 50 likes and 10 comments will be more likely to show up in the Newsfeed than a photo with no engagement at all.

Source (actual fucking source, as in an article written Aug 13, 2013, instead of your personal experience from the last decade): https://buffer.com/resources/understanding-facebook-news-feed-algorithm/

So, in those 10 years you’ve been on social media (congrats on the milestone btw, maybe you’ll get a clue about the fucking world soon) what they’ve been doing has not changed, it’s merely been perfected. But yeah, sit there and tell me all about how your rose-tinted glasses are ackshually great and don’t distort your view, and you’re not just a mindless cunt that’s been zucking the zuck’s dick for the last 10 years, scrolling through shitty posts meant to make you click them. “things were better back in the day” lol gtfo dumbass it’s always been the same, it just took you 10 years to notice.

What an actual waste of my time.