Telling somebody to let another person simply be who they are, which was likely in reference to this:

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2F...

Is...waging a culture war...according to you. And here you are, yet again, going on about culture wars, prompted by a conversation started by somebody who isn't even remotely conservative, right wing, or whatever the hell label you feel like harvesting from your ass hairs today. Which definitely makes you a culture warrior, while you...go around griping about culture wars. Awful person? I don't know, but without a shadow of a doubt, there's definitely dog shit between your ears.

Well, because you didn't simply own your dumb mistake, I'll just work on the assumption that what you posted was your own original research, which actually makes you look even worse. The case you referenced is this:

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F...

So, now think carefully here: What the FUCK does the interstate commerce clause FROM THE US CONSTITUTION that ONLY APPLIES IN THE US have to do with anything between France and Australia? Because that's literally what this case was over, and somehow you got it in your shit for brain that it is in any way relevant. Just to make things clear: International Shoe was a US COMPANY IN THE US, incorporated in Deleware, being sued by THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. And that's literally where you got "minimum contacts" from, which has JACK FUCKING SHIT to do with any international laws or treaties.

Congratulations, you've just proved yourself to be retarded. Have a nice day.

You obviously haven't thought this through.

So first off, what's the penalty? A fine? If so, who do they collect from? And how do they collect it? In your head, are you picturing them putting a French policeman on a plane to Australia to kick the CEO's door in and demand the money? And if he doesn't pay, the policeman drags him back to France, turns him upside down, shakes him a bit, and waits for the money to fall out of his pockets? And more importantly, Australia would have nothing to say about that? Better hope he happens to carry around Euros in Australia.

Obviously not. So how do you imagine this works?

And why do you suppose France has not, and will not, do a damn thing about Kiwi Farms even though the content of that site is fully accessible to anybody in France, is accessed by people in France, likely receives money from people in France, while committing about every thought crime that France has a law for?

Correct.

Not relevant.

Only relevant insofar as:
- Is there a treaty between the two countries that says it's relevant?
- Is it even a crime in Australia? If not, then it's a civil matter because they lack dual criminality. That also means the victim, or in this case the victim's family, will have to travel to Australia and sue to recover damages, not the French government.

Totally false -- it's a very big distinction. Basically every country in Europe, in and outside the EU, have all sorts of laws against the content on Kiwi Farms, but there isn't anything they can do about it. All they can realistically do is complain, nothing more. There's no shortage of Europeans who access that site, either, and everybody knows it. The reason they can't do anything about it is because A: They lack jurisdiction, B: Nothing that site is doing is illegal in the US, so there's no dual criminality, meaning no extradition treaties are applicable either.

That has nothing to do with it. And I doubt you even came up with that on your own.

I don't even know where to begin explaining why this isn't relevant. In fact, the more I read your post, the more I think you just asked chatgpt to refute my post, and it failed miserably. Go read about that case, and then tell me why you think it's relevant.

Australia in...an Australian case, argued in an Australian court? Are you from the department of redundancy department? Or are you just high? /facepalm

And that case doesn't even say what you think it says. All it says is that Gutnic has standing to sue Dow Jones in civil court from within Australia instead of having to travel to the US. I'd wager that is due to Dow Jones having a physical presence in Australia, but I'm not going to bother looking into it further because this is honestly very low effort on your part, so why would I put any serious effort into it?

It may not have been that at all.

But it wasn't just the parents who didn't notice.

Also, I don't know about all of LGBT but I do know that, at least for the last letter there, narcissism is a very common comorbidity, and a common manipulation tactic among narcissists is to threaten suicide if they don't get their way. But they don't just go and do it like this kid did, they just habitually threaten it and only very rarely follow through, which sounds like the case you mentioned in your previous post, but from past experience, I can tell you that there's highly likely more to even that than you realize.

Either way, the shoe just doesn't really fit here. A common theme among the survivors of relatives and friends who have successfully committed suicide, among which I am, is that you really have no idea why they actually did it. They may even leave a note, but often that note doesn't even make any sense. Some people even suspect foul play when there really is no evidence of that and/or that narrative makes even less sense than that they simply wanted to die.

Some will, in their suicide note, literally blame it on another person as a sort of final, ultimate act of revenge just to make that person feel guilty and/or make that person become ostracized because they supposedly drove this person to suicide, which could be either completely false, or in some cases that other person could have been their persistent harassment victim.

It's IMO likewise also unwise to blame any suicide on politics. Politics are never going to go completely your way, full stop. Democracy is and always has been about compromise, and that will never change. Not only will this not do you any favors, but it may even encourage other people to build up a martyr complex over time, and that's only going to lead to one outcome. And if that happens, then whose hands are bloody?

I kept hearing that and treating it with skepticism. After being a network engineer and a security analyst for six years, I got my first job (security engineer) where the primary role is software development, in a state I never lived in, at age 41, at a company known for being very highly selective.

A lot of questions I got were "didn't you have to know somebody there first?" Didn't know anybody. "But that must have been years ago, nobody does that anymore!" Well, 2022, but the first some somebody said that to me was literally within months of when I started.

Same shit, different decade. Every decade has its rsilverguns: People who never made it where they wanted to in life, so instead of asking themselves where they went wrong and how they can improve, they blame it all on things they can't control, usually in the form of other people they the don't even know, thus dooming themselves to be chronic underachievers, maybe even chronic unemployment.

Did you even read my post?

I'll spell this out for you: Why is a company in Australia required to follow European laws?

Broader context: EU countries, especially France, tend to make demands of foreign websites that don't have anything to do with Europe other than Europeans can access them. They don't have to have a presence in Europe at all for that to happen.

Does this company have a presence in Europe? Summary doesn't say.

Most of them aren't. This story is as old as time: The older generation usually doesn't understand the newer one, and when they don't, one of two things happen:

1) Old man who was clinically depressed his whole life believes we're living in the worst of times ever, talks about how the younger generation is doomed because things only get bad, and from the moment you're born you start dying
2) Old man who remembers dealing with harder times in the past who has a much easier life now says the younger generation is spoiled

You're obviously type-1.

Rose tinted glasses

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FUSHis...

You guys have been saying that over 40s are unemployable for decades now. What changed your mind to make you say that they're the only ones that are employable?

Well you're awfully triggered by that. Either way, that's not something he needs to get into their heads over, as some of them, like you, misuse words. If they're missing a lot of other soft skills, that's a safe conclusion to reach, and going any further is simply a waste of time.

Last I checked, Australia isn't part of the EU. Either there's a lot missing from here, or somebody failed to proofread.

It's not like you will either. Every time anybody conclusively proves you wrong on any given thing, all you ever do is double down. Life is really only as good or as crappy as you think it is, and you won't be satisfied until everybody is as clinically depressed as you are, namely because you've got it in your head that your life can't improve until every perceived social ill you have is turn down and remade in your image. But every time somebody has succeeded in exactly what you're trying to do, the end result has been a disaster. Either they got their way and their absolutism created a dystopia, or they didn't but still killed a lot of people in the process before ultimately killing themselves. Fortunately most of them, including you, never get anywhere.

And as much as you really don't like to hear it because you'll only have to find something else to define your misery around, this (Trump) too will pass.

A war takes two to tango. It seems like you're just as much a belligerent in said culture war, and this isn't even the first time I've seen it out of you. From where I sit, the only difference between you and him is which side you're on.