Just a simple question. Why are you so invested in convincing people that the guy who threatened a school for having a club with the name "Satan" in it isn't associated with christianity?

Bro did you really just try to "it's severely unlikely that a man who called in a shooting threat over a club named "After School Satan Club" is a Christian. Especially when his name sounds so foreign-y!" us?

*might have

*misread (it's one word)

https://www.lehighvalleylive.com/northampton-county/2023/02/north-carolina-man-threatened-to-shoot-saucon-valley-school-over-after-school-satan-club-da-says.html

>“He stated the After School Satan Club is trying to turn kids into devils, and he found out about it on Facebook,”

Please list non-secular organizations that are concerned about "trying to turn kids into devils".

Fucking plug your ears and close your eyes some more.

Nah dude. I'm afraid of morons like you having access to them. Guns aren't scary in the hands of responsible and mature people.

You guys should kiss.

You seem to have misspelled my name. It's "Pizza Pan Tifa" I know those three words seem scary when you put them together because of how big it makes my name, but we can break words down and sound them out to make things easier.

Hope this helps! :)

Sorry, I didn't mean to bully a child.

This comment is so stupid I thought it was satire.

Yet you couldn't help but dredge it up. 😏

Joking aside: Yep yep. That's one of many reasons I believe the stuff I believe.

If it can't be monetized, it's not valid. 😎👍

Is it really unbelievable though? Like.... really? :\

"I'm not gonna read that!"

"engaging with thesaurus rants makes me giggle."

🥱 thread muted. Learn to read and focus on peoples' communications instead of bIg WoRd MAkE Me MaD

I suppose it is much easier to dodge this and resort to insulting me than it is to support what you did say and address my criticisms.

I'm old enough to laugh at your repeated deflections.

Shouldn't you be doing something that would actually change anything instead of engaging with "thesaurus rants"? (Sorry, I'll avoid trisylla- words that make more than 2 sounds.)

🥱

wow you told me. 🙄

>Too bad I'm not reading em

🤔

>Same

Let me put down the thesaurus to find you a dictionary.

How would you know if you didn't read it?

I expected nothing more.

> Well then vote for an amendment to the 1A

lol

>What they're doing is legal today, and you haven't made any points to prove otherwise

I wasn't trying to prove it was illegal. I was criticizing the soft justification of encroaching on others space in public. I don't want it to be required nor do I find it reasonable to expect everyone to accept that they should have to tell people to "piss off" (as someone else put it) simply to gain access to a public space.

I don't really care if people refuse to see the validity in peoples' autonomy in public spaces nor do I care if people dismiss the term "harassment" as hyperbole. There is little difference between a nuisance call and this behavior (mind you many would find it more intimidating to have a stranger approach them in public than a strange number on their phone but you'd be hard pressed to find people who would defend robo callers behind the 1st amendment.)

>And honestly it's telling that you're mad at me

I wouldn't say mad and I wouldn't consider it at you specifically but, in general, my compatriots who hide behind "freedom" and worship the constitution like a cult to shrug away problems and elude to laws that protect negative behaviors do vex me, yes.

>instead of doing something that would actually change anything

I'm currently engaged in a discourse with you, I suppose this is you admitting that you refuse to listen to anything that you don't want to agree with and that's fine. You may believe there's no point in trying to convince others that we should be working towards curbing the constant toxic dumping of ads and subliminal messaging into every facet of our lives but you also have no idea what I do with my time and I find it a bit comedic you fancy yourself the authority on the validity of peoples' actions/activism.

>Rant at me all you want, I do not control the first amendment

Feel free to dismiss this as ranting but that's dishonest. You control your indifference at the first amendment's use to harass people in recreational spaces. You're a problem regardless of whether you choose to accept that or not and I'll continue to advocate for people to hold the well-being of individuals (regardless of their sensitivities) above the ability of organizations and corporations to co-opt what should be havens from their already gargantuan onslaught of rather obvious and intrusive psy-ops. (Yes, psy-ops. These groups employ psychologists expressly for the purpose of finding the most efficient manner to manipulate you and this has been going on for decades.)

Also continue to feel free to shrug your shoulders and say "Welp that's free speech!" But since my single vote means essentially nothing, I'll continue to use my voice, the one tool I do have, to bring others attention towards their lazy acceptance of this garbage and how it is what enabled the slow creep of constant time-vacuuming and devaluation of peoples' time and autonomy in the first place.

Sure my communications are likely fruitless here (as this exchange has exemplified) but if I can convince even a handful of others to spread awareness of how abused we are and how this is not how life has to be, maybe slowly I can convince my friends, neighbors and acquaintances to work towards piling our pathetically devalued votes together to affect change in this matter.

I don't think you sincerely value voting and if you meant what you said then your perception of the democratic process is tremendously naive.

Why is trying to convince others to work with me not valid? It's valid to interrupt peoples' daily rituals in a public recreational space with a clipboard because it's protected by the first amendment but it's invalid to communicate on a forum where I'm not intruding on anyone's physical being? Why is it invalid to discuss how problematic it is to consider ancient documents unquestionable authority when they were written by teenagers who wiped their asses with corncobs and legally considered other humans property?

> displaying

solicitation isn't display.

>And I gotta say, this dystopian "human captcha checkpoint" thing seems pretty unlikely.

Seems then that your perception of a dystopia is likely rather cartoonish.

>asking passersby to sign nomination petitions

"Asking passersby" also means engaging with people not asking to be engaged with. "to sign nomination petitions" is solicitation.

>I think a dystopia would probably start with the government censoring political speech, don't you?

I think a dystopia is when the majority of a population consistently fights for others' rights to make life more unpleasant for everyone under the guise of freedom while propping their virtue signals up on a nearly 300 year old document.

Oh no, I can't harass people in a park? I suppose I can only run T.V. and radio ads, e-mail people, pay for adspace on youtube and facebook, put up billboards that block large swaths of beautiful landscape, send mailers, use huge marquees, litter roadsides with stupid little signs, knock on their door, and call their phone. I'm being oppressed.

> Political recruitment in a public space seems like a fine expression of speech

The fact that this comment has 16 upvotes right now (and I assume more later) is sad.

Vying for the co-opting of public spaces for solicitation is such a dystopian self-destructive perspective. I suppose if you're sincere you believe you're advocating for freedom when really you're only advocating for organizations' ability to pump money into solicitation in yet another space of our lives. Ads, billboards, mailers, robocalls, door-to-door solicitation and you now want to make it so I can't go to the park without having to solve a human captcha to gain access because they set up a checkpoint to intercept all inbound foot traffic.

Mine and countless others' exhaustion at the constant hurdles we have to clear for a sliver of comfort is valid. I assume I'll be considered unamerican for not just baselessly supporting this because you called it "free speech" so I'll accept that title.

I suppose I am unamerican. I support humanity and its wellbeing above this autofellating constitutionalist puritanical bullshit virtue signalling and slippery-slope moral panic nonsense. Do we not deserve at least one public sanctuary from the psychological warfare corporations and political organizations violently thrust in our faces if we participate in society? I think we can set up small concessions to protect the individuals' wellbeing without becoming Orwell's 1984 - or are we already living in 1984? Nobody around me seems to be able to make up their mind.

And your lukewarm explanation as to why a democrat signed the bill to end that conspiracy theory?

love how they always disappear to chudpost elsewhere when asked to try and make sense of the stupid shit they say.