The only difference between the conservative Burundi government and the conservative American government is what they think they can get away.

This was so awkward I had to check if you were joking but nope, actual conservative who got his feelings hurt and retaliated with the two most generic right-wing insults there are.

I could teach your entire personality to a bird.

they can give millions in subsidies direct to corporations

That’s exactly why they’re fighting it – every dollar they give to poor people is a dollar less they can give to rich people.

I also have to subscribe to and use Adobe software but suggesting it’s less buggy and less expensive than other apps is delusional.

The moment you try and do anything outside of basic image editing, Photoshop immediately shits the bed.

It’s riddled with features that were half developed or half removed. Tried using any of the 3D stuff? It pops up a box saying “We’ve abandoned this and it probably won’t work, but go ahead and try because we haven’t properly removed it”. Using artboards? Probably not, since half the app seems to break with them, including their brand new features like Live Gradients that rearrange themselves when you save.

Looking for a filter? Well there’s 2 places to look since they seem to have lost interest in the filter gallery half way through, then piled mediocre AI filters on top. It’ll be a slow search, since for some reason some popup windows take fully 3 seconds to open, probably due to their 4 different UI systems in various states of abandoned.

Photoshop is widely used today because it was good 15 years ago. If someone hasn’t already creating a leaner, more stable, better designed, more ambitious piece of software, it’s only a matter of time until they do.

We also have no idea what measures they take to stop the system being manipulated (if any).

The far-right could be working to ensure they’re recommended as often as possible and if it just shows up as “engagement” or “impressions” on their stats, YouTube is unlikely to fight it with much enthusiasm.

Libertarians are mostly just neoliberals who are upset they’re not allowed to be more psycopathic.

Their new utopia will tear itself apart with greed, drugs and sex abuse just like all the old ones.

But he was naive thinking he could store that much data with a tech giant, his “life’s work”, risk free.

Google made a promise they didn’t keep and articles like this are the consequence of that.

It’s not ideal, but it still feels better than “let them lie and then blame their victims for believing it”.

I’ve listened to songs with suicidal lyrics, I’m not suicidal

A song with “suicidal lyrics” is not even remotely comparable to the albums this site sells, which is why they don’t need a dedicated pro-suicide website to sell them on.

Would you rush to defend an album put out by ISIS, that pushed the agenda of ISIS, with all profits going to ISIS?

It’s getting exhausting seeing people become increasingly unhinged and justifying it because “well, they’re baddies.”

Then maybe you should explain your exhaustion to the group responsible for their overwhelming majority of mass shootings, who openly celebrate the killing of black and LGBT+ people, rather than someone you’ve decided isn’t appropriately sad that neo-nazis got exposed for doing a thing they did.

You don’t need to be a fascist to make excuses for fascists, but it’s bizarre that you read my comment about all the apologists the decided “he just hasn’t heard my brilliant apologise yet”.

You can drop the “it could happen to you” act because it almost certainly won’t. For this site and those albums, “I just didn’t have time to unpick what the lyric ‘until every kike is dead’ meant” isn’t even a remotely plausible excuse.

Stop defending them.

Music is an extremely important part of my life but there isn’t a single band that would make me give money to neo-nazis.

I don’t know why everyone is so eager to absolve them. If they have something to say in their defense, they can say it themselves.

He got off lightly considering he did so “despite previous threats by his son to harm himself and loved ones”.

Of course it’s rare for “responsible gun owners” to be held accountable when a family member uses their unsecured firearm to kill as many people as they can, so being punished at all is a start.

I suspect for many of these parents, they’re just thrilled to see their right-wing opinions are blooming in their child.

Whatever helps you self soothe.

They’re a lost cause too because before I called you a fuckwit, I pointed out that you were only interested in being misleading in your favor, not actually stopping people from being mislead.

You took “ad hominem” as an easy out and as an added bonus, you were misleading about what ad hominem means.

I’m sure that reply was fascinating but you’ve already revealed that you’re full of shit, so I’m not going to read it.

This isn’t high school debate class. Ad hominem means you’re not inherently wrong just because you’re a fuckwit. You can still be wrong and you can still be a fuckwit.

That doesn’t make a murder/suicide a “mass shooting”. I’m sorry apporoaching this rationally has you so upset

Thanks, I love this reply. It’s only two sentences, but its so fantastically revealing.

The first sentences calls your very own example a “murder/suicide”, a term which is unquestionably more misleading than “mass shooting”. The “murder” isn’t even plural, despite there being 4 of them.

If you gathered up a million people, told half of them it was a murder/suicide and half of them it was a mass shooting, then asked them to guess the number of people killed, the latter would easily be closer to the truth.

The second sentence just makes it clear you’re a fuckstain.

My agenda is “words mean things”

If that was actually your agenda, this wouldn’t be your position. You want to lower the statistic using semantics and as an added bonus, take away the vocabulary needed to discuss a huge percentage of gun violence.

The difference is, in scenario #1, nobody went to the party intending to shoot anyone. You can’t say the same for scenario #2.

5 people were shot. Intentional vs accidental, premeditated vs impulse, none of that changes the fact that 5 people were shot and the event was a mass shooting.

Even in your own example that you made as contrived as you needed, 3 innocent people were still shot and swept under the rug.

The organizations you’re rallying against are completely open about their definitions, making them far more honest than you’re being.

I’m sorry if that hurts your guns feelings.

It matters because the Gun Violence Archive and the uncritical mass media are inflating the statistic to make people scared so they can push an agenda

Bullshit. You’re attacking it because it’s counter to your agenda.

Republicans, right-wing media, the gun lobby and the pro-gun community routinely fearmonger as a way to boost their own profits and power.

Not only do you not care when they do it, you’ve enthusiastically put yourself and your own family in more danger because of it.

You’re hopelessly compromised and your thoughts about how gun violence statistics are about as trustworthy as a cops views on police brutality statistics.

You have no idea how badly you’ve outed yourself as living in a little bubble where you think it will never happen to you, so you don’t care.

Because you’ll never be in a relationship with a domestic abuser that executes a house full of people will you? You’re the gun owning male, so you get to decide who around you lives or dies.

4 innocent people were killed – a number that is much more difficult to achieve without a gun – but you don’t want them counted because they knew the gun owner.

You’ve let the gun lobby turn you into a fucking sociopath.

While it’s not quite “throw a dart board at a map”, it’s pretty close.