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

@steter

> Why ask?

Why would someone ask for facts... why are they important... really? Because the truth matters.

> He's a stochastic terrorist using mob boss techniques.

Yea I generally agree with that, he uses intimidation tactics and I am more than happy to see him get in trouble for that pattern.

> Former associates are telling us exactly that.

Sure, that isnt what I asked about, but sure, there is little doubt that he is a bully.

> He bellows threats & intimidates people.

He sure does... not what I asked about, but yea he does.

> Why would Mussolini order if he can feign innocence by just threatening, , then painting the executor as crazy?

1) because he isnt very smart and 2) I care about his **actual** innocence, not what he feigns or other accuse him of, but the truth, and thus why I ask.

> It's up to the courts to decide if a mob boss is above the law or not. Thus far, apparently so.

Wait.. thats a contradiction... your saying the courts decided he is above the law because you decided he is guilty and they have not, but then int he same sentence say "its up to the courts" in an attempt to deny me any right to make my own determination? That seems strange.

@JoshuaACasey

For some really weird reason we got like 10 reports on this within a very short time. It suggests someone is using sock puppets to manipulate the reporting system. Me and a few moderators from other instances who got reports are investigating and checking Ips to see if that is the case.

That said you **were** rude telling him not to breed and that he was a cultist when no one was rude to you. Consider this a warning, and if you delete/apologize for that will be considered moving forward. It should be obvious that telling someone they shouldnt breed who has not been rude to you is not very polite behavior.

Your other reported comments in this thread, likely be the same person, seem fine as far as an expression of an opinion goes, doesnt seem racist or anything too concerning.

As you know we have a environment here where we expect our members to engage in respectful discourse, especially when the other side is not being rude to you.

@Raz

@jeff

Could be, not how I remember it...

I remember the first incident being a cop ripping someone out of the crowd and beating them and then the crowd responded by rioting and breaking throught he barriers. Tear gas was used after that.

Taht said there might be a tear gas video i missed, feel free to share.

@beardalaxy

@jeff

Is that a surprising thing to do to a group of civilians breaking down the doors of the capital building? Sounds like a pretty attenuated response and fairly typical response to a riot.

@beardalaxy

@beardalaxy

Well thats another matter... but its hard to deny they were violent, at the very least towards property, and of course quite a few videos of clear aggression towards police... but the damage was mostly property damage... still its impossible to condone the actions of the crowd that day, even if we do agree it was exagerated.

@jeff

@Alphakilopapa

Dont assume what I cant avoid, that was my ex's mistake!

The Day After Tomorrow: a movie about a sudden global ice age where everything is so cold if someone goes outside they will instantly freeze to death, therefore a sons father has to walk to find his son and save him....

Anyone detect the plot hole?

@Alphakilopapa Considering I intentionally avoid "the media" and have little to no exposure it says a lot less than you think it says.

@realcaseyrollins

> But, if you’re “on a break”, you’re not dating nor in the relationship anymore. Many times, couples go on a break and never leave that state, starting other relationships with new people and not talking to each other ever again.

It depends, a lot... I know lots of people who are on a break and still see eachother and even occasionally have sex still (though it happens in the heat of the moment). In fact I usually find the "we are on a brake state" resembles pretty closely the "we are dating but not monogomous yet" state... different ends of the same candle.

Serious question. Did they find any evidence yet in all the trials and stuff going on that clearly shows #Trump intentionally want the capitol riot?

When it happened I saw little clear evidence it was intentional but at the same time based on his behavior and personality I totally would expect it was intentional and somewhere at some point there might have been a record of him saying he wanted it.... If there is any actual evidence I'd love to see it if anyone has any as I havent been following as closely as I should.

@realcaseyrollins

Certainly more rare to use that title and not be monogomous yet.. but not unheard of or quite as rare as you suggest. Though I usually find the pattern goes the other way, people who are BF/GF when they first adopt the title it coincides with monogomy. However once they have been together a long time if they want to see other people as they begin to question the relationship they may do so without breaking up... "We are on a brake [from monogomy]" is usually how i hear it described and it seems to be somewhat common.

@jeff

I brought this up at the time, when the violence broke out he was asking for it to stop after a few hours.

The main counter argument I have heard is that he waited hours until after it already started to die down so it was an insincere gesture.

@realcaseyrollins

> I disagree slightly, as there seem to be virtually no polygamous dating relationships

Polyamourous is totally different. That is when you love and are intimate with multiple people. I agree that is fairly rare in christianity. Thats not what I am talking about.

I am talking about dating multiple people, at the same time, because you havent falled in love with or been particularly intimate with any one of them. This isnt polyamoury, this is just dating people.

Dating multiple people before committing to any one person is absolutely very common int he christian community, and very much the norm.

@realcaseyrollins Yea thats true. but even then I'd hope you want to be explicit... "Hey you wanna go on a date" doesnt convey the same message, even to most christians as "Hey, do you want to be exclusive".

While you might be quite strict and assume the two are the same for the overwhelming majority of Christians you date someone, usually for some time, before becoming "exclusive".

So if you have a partner, even a christian one, a phrase like "monogamous" still holds more value since it is clear and explicit in what it means.

@realcaseyrollins

> I think the distinction between monogamy and non-monogamy is important enough to warrant its own label.

Sure but you are claiming they are equivelant, at least for you. So now monogomy has two labels that mean the same thing.

> At the same time, one can also say “we are boyfriend and girlfriend” without saying anything about monogamy.

But no you cant because "girlfriend" only means monogamy to you, and **some** christian. It isnt universal. So unless someone specifically knows that girlfriend means monogamy to you, then you cant say that and convey the information. You would have to say "She is my girlfriend, and I believe girlfriend is the same as monogamy"

Even if we accept that 100% of christians think like you, which they dont, you'd still have to say "I have a girlfriend and I am christian" where otherwise you could just say "I am monogamous"

@realcaseyrollins That may be, but how your benefitting by having two words that mean the same thing, and how does an additional label like "girlfriend" which carries no **additional** information benefit?

Like you can just say "we are monogamous" and that conveys all the info needed.

Thats sorta my point, there are a handful of useful labels, and a bunch that arent. The "girlfriend" label, for you, just means "monogamous", so its still a label that is largely useless and redundant, not to mention somewhat ambiguous because they are only synonymous for you, so less useful unless someone knows your personal definition.

@realcaseyrollins Some labels are descriptive and useful, others are not.

things like "girl friend" mean very little and its not clear when that line is true. how many dates does it take.

Other labels like "monogamous" are perfectly fine as they mean something specific and understandable. Its less arbitrary.

@wholemilk

CSAM is just the example.. its not about csam its about the "what about the children" nonsense people argue as a counter to free speech and privacy.

@jeff

@jeff

People are basically using the farright attack on people who care about free speech and invasion of privacy which is often done under the guise of "but what about the children"

@wholemilk