Lovstuhagen @ Lovstuhagen @hilariouschaos.com

Posts

993

Comments

325

Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

---

I do not get that dramatic about it - I just think that she is his "beard," as we say in English to talk about a closeted gay man's cover for his activities.

I believe there's an ongoing lawsuit in France that means that this can result in legal action against her detractors at home and potentially limit the ways in which those outside of the country, like Candace Owens, can earn money from French listeners, advertisers, etc.

It may even be the case that such French court decisions could have ramifications throughout the EU or even whether or not Candace Owens can show up in France without having a court date.

lol

90m dau is wild.

Is it going to surpass Facebook?!

lol MAYBE.... Maybe not?!

I have met a lot of guys who are going through shit nobody knows about and don't abuse people, and I've only found out because 8 beers can make it come out for a brotha. But yeah, I see your point.

Exactly, yeah - our company doesn't stock any decaf and all my efforts to get them to do so have been met with such minimal success, and I prefer to have only decaf after 3 PM and it's better than water... So, my cheapo personal decaf insta coffee gets the trick done.

The few times I've brought my own decaf and made them in the company pot just resulted in me getting one cup and other people taking the rest, so it was a financial no go for me.

What's your feel overall on this?

I have had to use instant coffee for decaf at various points in my life, and my thought is that it is surprisingly adequate. Like, obvioiusly, I would prefer to brew it myself, but it is not super bad.

Fair enough - like I have said elsewhere, this would jus mean that the whole argument has to shift.

I do not think it's a strawman - I think most people agree that alcohol and private car ownership shouldn't be banned, so it's fair to bring this out as a preemptive argument.

It's an honest mistake if someone responds in some unexpected way.

Like if I brought up the Holocaust in an argument and suddenly someone said

The Holocaust Never Happened

I wasn't strawmanning them, lol. I was making the rational assumption that I am not talking to a Holocaust denier.

The population density of the Netherlands - it's the most densely populated state in Europe that isn't a microstate. In fact, it's more densely populated than some island nations like Puerto Rico and what is commonly considered a microstate, Luxembourg.

If someone wants to sit down and argue that we need to optimize road traffic, minimize the amount of people driving, etc. and also to illegalize alcohol and other dangerous substances, I can oppose that, but my arguments will shift dramatically, right, because it's hard to anticipate somebody is going to go all in on minimizing human liberty to maximize security like that.

It's legitimate to ask whether or not he has accomplices.

Besides, what if this actually validates the theory that he was a groyper?

Probing this guy's internet history should be a top priority.

Aww! I get it now - I saw my post - I misseda word- confirmed trans roommate Imeant to write.

The casings had content promoting LGBTQ stuff; a witness from the neighborhood that I linked to had said they were a couple in some capacity.

Normally the burden of proof for someone being gay or trans is not as high as you are saying it is.

I don't really know what you want, lol.

lol, who?

I had seen someone say that he was somehow a groyper, but is anyone close to him saying that?

Well,

• confirmed roommate apparently
• "was in the process of transitioning a law enforcement source confirmed to The Post Saturday."
• Twiggs family 'wouldn't be surprised' if transitioning; black sheep of family
• A neighbor is also saying this

Obviously, this could be fake or bad sources.

But I am not sure I would be convinced that there is a conspiracy to color trans people bad in this situation.

We are talking about the assassination of Charlie Kirk. It is hardly a conspiracy to suggest that he would be more of a target for the far left than the far right.

Isn't there also a subsection of people on the left who think his death is justifiable, maybe not JUST, but something that can be rationalized as a net gainf or humanity... So why this effort to just deny these basic facts of the case and call them a conspiracy?

Fair enough - you can see a clip of him bringing out a common part of it here in a YouTube Short.

And thisis the most important part- basically, as it stands we are already sacrificing human lives for human liberty. He uses car crashes in the above clip - 55,000+ Americans die per year in car accidents, yet nobody says we should ban private car ownership because we understand that the inconveniences caused is through the roof. We also would diffuse the blame for these accidents to specific individuals who are guilty of specific acts - we can actually create a system of accountability....

The same can be said of alcohol: 13,000+ deaths of drunk driving in 2024 in the US alone, yet there is no prohibitionist movement in the US that is remotely serious.

Point being: Charlie Kirk supports keeping firearms legally ownable to private citizens because it serves the purpose of defending us from the government and also from criminals...

... And ina much longer format, he would trundle out all the old arguments about guns and crime prevention, and he would even talk about how certain jurisdictions with very high rates of gun ownership experience homicide rates very similar to very safe European states...

Ironically... Look it up...Provo, UTAH,where Charlie died, is one of those places where about half the people own guns and they tend to have 1-2 murders per year in an area with a pop of just over 100k, so they get very European homicide ratenumbers.

Fun fact: there were no murders there for six years between 1999 and 2005.

well played

It's a concession that spree killings will happen.

It's 0.5% of the argument, and it's just debating honestly.

And you justify his murder over that?

Lol k

You are correct that the decision appears to have originated at Comedy Central proper.

However, in the early 2000s there was something called a 'South Park Republican,' which was basically referencing younger, Libertarian-esque Republicans with an irreverent demeanor.