🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@colinsmatt11 @realcaseyrollins

Destabalizing the fediverse clearly works against hisninterests and there is no reason for him to break federation. In fact he alsready breaks federation with groups he doesnt like on his personal servers (not saying he is wrong for this)

@colinsmatt11

Aside from the fact that he cant break federation as he doesnt control it... its not i his self interest to do that so why woukd he?

@realcaseyrollins

@colinsmatt11 @realcaseyrollins

Depends how you define malicious i guess. Im sure he thinks he is doing the right thing, and im sure he conviently ignores the factthati his mind the right thing is always synonymous witb his self interests

@realcaseyrollins Clearly i have,and i dont find his motives su tle personally

@alfredo_liberal@universeodon.com thats perfectly fair and id be pretty pissed about anyone smeari g any party.

What is concerning is why is it just not ok when people do it to democrats... if someone smears republicans or really any political agenda, isnt that just as worthy of contempt? Smearing should be bad regardless of if its against your team or for it.

@realcaseyrollins when has gargron been anything other than self serving though?

@alfredo_liberal@universeodon.com

I find it interesting you only dislike it if biden or democrats are smeared but dont seem to mind or object if politicians from other parties are smeared.

Considerinf smearing implies dishonesty this woukd suggest lying and misrepresenting facts to encourage democrat support by attacking non democrats is ok?

Woa buddy, i have no problem leaning one way or the other, but thats worrisome language implying some dangerous inte tional bias.

@jaysonmassey All i can say is if i had the ability to finally decide impactful real solutions that woukd have meaningful impact on the problem, none of these bills would be it. They are ok and i dont object, but largely probably wont even change the numbers enough to see it in the data

@realcaseyrollins Are you really surprised... really?

@jaysonmassey hb 731 doesnt do what you suggest. It just is a bill that would cause all long rifles to include a trigger lock with sale. So while im not opposed to a proper solution requiring safe storage this bill sadly isnt it.

Hb338 is ok, in theory, but with only a 500$ fine im not sure it really addresses the issue much. But its a start i woukdnt object to it as is.

Hb1080 absolutely not and is IMO a gross violation. Bodily autonomy is a sacred right and that includes suicide. If someone wants to kill themselves they should have that right and the means to potential suicide should not be legally restricted. We shoukd try to provide mental health access and help prevent suicide but in the end everyone has the right to do with their body what they wish.

Hb714 is kinda moot but i have no objections. It only requires long rifle background checks now on private sales. I can support this but its not going to have a huge impact and certainly not going to solve the problems.

These are exactly thr no-real-good but feels good nonsense i come to expect honestly. We could be enacting actual hugely impactful policies like free access to mental health and make some real change. Instead thry want you to have to buy a 10$ trigger lock you can bypass in about 5 minutes and probably wont even get used.

@flexghost I have absolutely no doubt you tbink so.. the troll always thinks hes right...

Anyway thanks for clarifying what you meant and i understand the post now and what was meant. Have a good day.

@flexghost Nope. O one is "arguing" anything... you said something, it was confusing so i asked, turns out you used the wrong word, so now i have my answer, end of it.

Now if you want to escalate that to some desire to argue or complain about semantics thats on you. But thats not my goal, the dude is a sicko i just was legitimately confused why they were being labelrb a terroist.

Not everything is a argument, calm your horses.

@flexghost certainly a sick individual... not sure the terrorist label applies thrn. A terrorist by definition has a political goal associated with their violence

@ligthert bold of you to assume we woukdnt try to hump it on our own...

@pies @zack @MelodyCooper

Yes, yes it does... not particularly relevant (unless you have more to add), but it surely does