Skates

if I'm understanding you correctly, what you're saying is this man has a billion dollars in assets but he needs them to do his work which is beneficial for people.

I'm not sure this is really the correct description of the situation. I'm not trying to be pedantic, but the fact that his company is valued at 1 billion doesn't mean the assets are worth 1 billion.

People have assigned this value to the company based on assets, yes, and on the workforce and etc. But they are also assigning value to the company based on what direction they think the company will be lead. Ask yourself this - if their CEO is a genius who has proven time and again that he can make magic happen with very little worth of value, wouldn't you invest in him? Wouldn't you say his company, while maybe poor and shit today, will probably be worth a billion dollars soon thanks to its leadership?

Two issues come from this, both that I don't think you account for - because you argue for workers owning the company in a co-op-like situation, or the CEO selling assets the company doesn't need in order to put that billion to good use:

1. If the CEO starts dumping stock - so will everyone else. Selling stock means you don't think the company is that valuable. If you don't trust it, why should I? The company's price would tank, and so would any potential it has

2. If workers are the decision makers, not the genius CEO that everyone trusts to lead - guess how much I'm investing in a company ran by faceless dudes that I don't trust. Exactly $0. You make this company a co-op and you guarantee the main attraction about it is no longer attractive. And at that point if I'm the CEO I'm out anyway - you obviously don't trust my leadership enough to let me run the company, why would I ever want to stay? But good luck competing against the face of rockets with your cute little co-op that gets no funding and can't pay it's employees.

My point is - you want to reap the benefits of capitalism and investments in the stock market, while living in a socialist utopia where your actions on the market don't have consequences. I'm not sure that'll work.

So if you get to vote for president again, you'd vote with the cunts who lied that you'll never vote again?

Stockholm syndrome is a thing, and democrats have it. I fucking hate Republicans and Trump, but seeing a dem try to pretend the other side is hell incarnate and that Trump is gonna remove elections, and in the same breath try to convince you to vote for them in the future SUPPOSEDLY REMOVED FUCKING ELECTIONS? Jesus fucking christ what a disgusting bag of hypocritical chodes your party can be. Go pardon a criminal just like your political opponent is running from justice, and then come back to the table in 4 years to say you're not the same.

Anyone voting for Republicans or democrats is fully fucking retarded.

Defund the police, shit on the thin blue line. This is always an option.

ACAB

"Google solarpunk for the best tits"

To my mind, Ban has always meant permanent.

Then explain perma-ban

Joke aside though - ban is a toggle. You can toggle something on or off, but it usually implies something temporary. You can then manually unban someone at a later date, or have the unban be automated in some cases.

"I turned the lights on" - there is no expectation that you never turn them off again

"It is snowing outside" - at some point it will stop snowing

"I'm banned from my local book club for repeatedly asking if they made a movie for that one" - this too shall pass. Maybe in 4 years when I go back they'll forgive me and let me back in, and by that time I'll have watched Moby Dick - manual toggle of the ban back to 'off' is expected here.

"I was banned from Day9's stream for backseating" - here the ban would have an automatic limit, maybe something like a million seconds.

But you see, that's the whole thing about "omg retail workers have it so hard" people. The only way to satisfy them is to never shop again. Retail is hard because customers exist. Otherwise it would be "do nothing, get paid". And these people don't actually give a shit if a business can survive on them doing nothing, because they're more focused on getting rid of those pesky customers that make their life oh so hard.

Yeah, retail is annoying. You know what else is annoying? Transporting garbage from location A to location B. Searching for 3 days in your own code to find a bug that's making you look like a dipshit to your boss and team. Roofing in the summer. Dealing with having lost your clients millions of dollars because stock X plummeted and you didn't foresee it. Being on an oil rig in the Atlantic for 9 months a year. Cleaning a hoarder's apartment. Getting shot at in Ukraine. Masturbating prize horses for the $emen. Looking all day at people's ugly stinky feet. They're all called jobs and people do them because they are literally a fucking part of our daily lives and the way we function and have a productive society. You're free to fuck off and farm wheat if you only wanna eat bread for the rest of your life, and you don't have to interact with anyone. For the rest of people who have evolved past a trade-based society, real life is that way (☞ಠ_ಠ )☞

But no, tell me again what a bad day you've had cause Timmy took 12 free samples. Jesus fucking christ, the balls on some cunts.

advertising them somewhere else, Tumblr, throwaway eBay listings, Spotify playlists,... here.

You missed a great opportunity to have 'here' be a link to an emulator.

Nintendo goes on to claim that this subreddit has played a central role in fostering Switch piracy,

Piracy has been long ago defined to be a service problem. Nintendo should be suing themselves. I hope the lawyers eat it all up.

I know, right? You can just get something else he's interested in. Like OP, maybe the kid likes antiquities, you could get him some from Benito Mussolini's 12000 piece collection in the Colonial Museum. Or maybe he likes art, you could buy him one of Hitler's paintings.

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.