A large amount of racists and bigots are into norse stuff? Maybe. Almost all people in the norse stuff are racists and bigots? High doubt

In my experience, people are, on average, extremely susceptible to this very basic logical fallacy, and truly believe the two sentiments above are equivalent. In other words, believing that "most X are Y" implies "most Y are X".

It's fucking everywhere, pervasive all over the political spectrum too, it's universal. Radical feminists use the fact that most physical assailants are male to malign half of the human population. Racists use statistics about what percentage of violent crime is committed by a race, to draw conclusions about what percentage of that race commits violent crime. Hell, Reefer Madness, a propaganda piece with a well-deserved reputation of being completely full of shit, rests its premise on the exact same fallacy: "practically everyone dying from hard drug use is/was also a weed smoker, so we've concluded weed use leads to hard drug use".

I see it over, and over, and over again, online and in real life. It makes you want to grab someone by the shoulders and shake them while yelling "all oranges are fruits, does that mean all fruits are oranges?!", lol.

That's enough venting for tonight, though, haha.

It was a joke, and still is. It's just that there were enough extremist imbeciles out there who didn't realize it was a joke, and took it seriously.

That doesn't change anything about its origin as a joke.

Can we reclaim pepe?

We never lost it, imo. The vast majority of Pepe use is by people communicating nothing resembling a message of hate in any way.

Yeah, I'm very much in the camp of "fuck you, you don't get to have it" when it comes to extremist groups trying to co-opt other symbols.

It's extremely doable--the LGBT population has largely succeeded at doing exactly that with "queer", for example--these days, basically nobody utters that word as a pejorative. Fuck you, it's ours now. See what I mean?

There are way more of us than them, we could literally do this for everything these dipshits try to 'claim'.

Did this even merit a post? Few states are more obviously Dem than New York, lol. There was never the slightest question.

the windows help “[add] privacy in the toilet facility”

?????

You should link to the actual source this article is pulling everything from: https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/19/politics/kfile-mark-robinson-black-nazi-pro-slavery-porn-forum/index.html

On another note, I have never seen so many receipts on one guy, lol, damn.

Reminder that he won election, and four years later re-election, in landslides, even if you go by popular vote.

Now, there's one thing you might have noticed I don't complain about: politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here... like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There's a nice campaign slogan for somebody: 'The Public Sucks. Fuck Hope.'

I'm not convinced Donald Trump has any actual political positions. He's more concerned with himself and his own ego than anything else. Didn't he generally express Democrat/left views for decades up until shortly before he decided to run for office?

I have no doubt he'd happily say anything, if he thought it'd improve his chances at 'winning'.

Hello, you seem to be referencing an often misquoted statistic. TL:DR; The 40% number is wrong and plain old bad science. In attempt to recreate the numbers, by the same researchers, they received a rate of 24%, but only while considering acts like shouting as violence. Further researchers found rates of 7%, 7.8%, 10%, and 13% with stricter definitions and better research methodology.

The 40% claim is intentionally misleading and unequivocally inaccurate. Numerous studies over the years report domestic violence rates in police families as low as 7%, with the highest at 40% defining violence to include shouting or a loss of temper. The referenced study where the 40% claim originates is Neidig, P.H.., Russell, H.E. & Seng, A.F. (1992). Interspousal aggression in law enforcement families: A preliminary investigation. It states:

Survey results revealed that approximately 40% of the participating officers reported marital conflicts involving physical aggression in the previous year.

There are a number of flaws with the aforementioned study:

The study includes as 'violent incidents' a one time push, shove, shout, loss of temper, or an incidents where a spouse acted out in anger. These do not meet the legal standard for domestic violence. This same study reports that the victims reported a 10% rate of physical domestic violence from their partner. The statement doesn't indicate who the aggressor is; the officer or the spouse. The study is a survey and not an empirical scientific study. The “domestic violence” acts are not confirmed as actually being violent. The study occurred nearly 30 years ago. This study shows minority and female officers were more likely to commit the DV, and white males were least likely. Additional reference from a Congressional hearing on the study: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951003089863c

An additional study conducted by the same researcher, which reported rates of 24%, suffer from additional flaws:

The study is a survey and not an empirical scientific study. The study was not a random sample, and was isolated to high ranking officers at a police conference. This study also occurred nearly 30 years ago.

More current research, including a larger empirical study with thousands of responses from 2009 notes, 'Over 87 percent of officers reported never having engaged in physical domestic violence in their lifetime.' Blumenstein, Lindsey, Domestic violence within law enforcement families: The link between traditional police subculture and domestic violence among police (2009). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/1862

Yet another study "indicated that 10 percent of respondents (148 candidates) admitted to having ever slapped, punched, or otherwise injured a spouse or romantic partner, with 7.2 percent (110 candidates) stating that this had happened once, and 2.1 percent (33 candidates) indicating that this had happened two or three times. Repeated abuse (four or more occurrences) was reported by only five respondents (0.3 percent)." A.H. Ryan JR, Department of Defense, Polygraph Institute “The Prevalence of Domestic Violence in Police Families.” http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/4951188/FID707/Root/New/030PG297.PDF

Another: In a 1999 study, 7% of Baltimore City police officers admitted to 'getting physical' (pushing, shoving, grabbing and/or hitting) with a partner. A 2000 study of seven law enforcement agencies in the Southeast and Midwest United States found 10% of officers reporting that they had slapped, punched, or otherwise injured their partners. L. Goodmark, 2016, BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW “Hands up at Home: Militarized Masculinity and Police Officers Who Commit Intimate Partner Abuse “. https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2519&context=fac_pubs

Seriously, all the same 'plays' too:

• lol rofl you think I was actually asking?
• you're ugly anyway
• (if the rejection is based on you already being in a relationship) she's ugly, you'll never find someone as hot as me
• (if you're single) you're gay/you're a f*ggot
• (slur related to your race, more common if the rejected is of a different race)

How Did This Happen?

College loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. Simple as that.

With lenders knowing that the government will make sure they get paid, they're happy to loan out any amount of money to anyone regardless of credit worthiness, because they take on literally zero risk.

Then colleges realize the same, and jack up their prices in turn. The feedback loop brings us to where we are today. There is no market (or other) force putting any downward pressure on tuition costs, at all. This is the inevitable result.