carterfelder

Hate to break it to you but Hamas is the problem, y'all.

We've already met the aliens, they're on the other side of a fifty gram mushroom trip.

What is "too masculine?" If a man told me a woman was "too feminine" I would wrastle him to the ground.

What is the difference between a child and an adult?

This guy's great!

"Users prompted Grok to generate unfiltered content, pushing it toward inflammatory narratives. Without robust initial filters, some responses were misused. xAI has since strengthened Grok’s guardrails to prevent this." - Grok

@hyruga You can't be serious about removing free speech.

I'm incredibly thankful for Trump's presidency and I love America.

How do y'all feel about this? "Shift the tax burden from overtaxed homeowners in the outer boroughs to more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighborhoods: The property tax system is unbalanced because assessment levels are artificially capped, so homeowners inexpensive neighborhoods pay less than their fair share. The Mayor can fix this by pushing class assessment percentages down for everyone and adjusting rates up, effectively lowering tax payments for homeowners in neighborhoods like Jamaica and Brownsville while raising the amount paid in the most expensive Brooklyn brownstones." https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iGn9ws9Ds0x_3kkB1tdM2pxLlbkPtT0k/view https://www.zohranfornyc.com/platform

I would say vegetarianism is arguably worse for the animals than nonveganism because dairy and eggs are products that come from animals kept alive for what they produce before they are killed instead of being killed at a young age for tender meat (or bones and other parts) for not being able to produce milk or eggs. I would argue that vegetarians consume more dairy and eggs than nonvegans, because nonvegans often eat meat, as well as dairy and eggs.

Thank you for your honesty.

Stop being so logical and reasonable, it makes nonvegans very uncomfortable.

I asked Grok about Scandinavia: "Scandinavia—often cited as a socialist success story—isn’t purely socialist. Countries like Sweden, Norway, and Denmark operate mixed economies with strong welfare systems, high taxes, and robust public services, but they’re firmly capitalist at their core. Private property, free markets, and entrepreneurship drive their wealth. For example, Sweden’s GDP per capita is around $60,000, largely from private industries like tech and manufacturing, not state-controlled means of production. Their welfare models work because of high trust, homogeneous societies, and wealth generated by capitalism, not because they’ve abandoned it. Playing devil’s advocate, I’d argue socialism hasn’t truly 'succeeded' in Scandinavia because it’s not socialism in the classical sense—centralized control of resources and production. These countries rank high on economic freedom indices (e.g., Denmark’s 2024 Heritage Foundation score is 77.6, among the freest globally). Their systems rely on capitalist efficiency to fund redistribution, not collective ownership. If anything, Scandinavia shows capitalism’s flexibility, not socialism’s triumph. Pure socialism, as seen historically in places like the Soviet Union, tends to stagnate economically due to misallocated resources—something Scandinavia avoids by staying market-driven."

What do y'all say when folks ask you why socialism has never worked?

Your argument oversimplifies human value to mere emotional attachment, ignoring complex social, ethical, and existential factors that distinguish human life from other species. It’s reductive and dismisses moral frameworks without justification.