Oh, so you guys believe people on Twitter now?

It's certainly news to me. You mean the headline, or the conclusion of the survey it is referencing?

"Of the 63 studies in the review, 46 were cross-sectional, meaning they measured cannabis use and violence at one point in time. This makes it difficult to tell whether cannabis use came before the violence, followed it, or simply occurred alongside other circumstances that contributed to it. These studies found the strongest link between cannabis use and violence.

Studies that follow people over time – called longitudinal studies – can help establish which came first. These studies found a much weaker link between cannabis use and violence than the cross-sectional studies."

Rest of the article goes on, but this is about the quality of research I'd expect from a Catholic associate college to a conservative university. Wonder what motivated this review.

Right, obnoxious as always. Have fun waiting for the miracle that you don't even want to fix things.

Not sure what that's meant to refer to tbh. People are supposed to get banned for this?

Edit: Oh, I'm supposed to be a Russian bot for criticizing liberalism (the system that smashes babies to create billionaires), and then saying that humanity is capable of more than this. Yeah dude, totally, of the two of us, I'm the most bot-like.

Oh, this is genuinely a problem for them. They want to normalize the kind of violence that targets vulnerable groups disproportionately, such as disabled people, but they need a "deserving" victim to remain palletable enough to the liberal masses so that they can gradually normalize this kind of public violence. But, now if they pull out of this after international pressure, it'll look weak and make it even harder to try again.

That's obviously the problem. They want to normalize the kind of violence that targets vulnerable groups disproportionately, such as disabled people, but they need a "deserving" victim to remain palletable enough to the liberal masses so that they can gradually normalize this kind of violence.

There is a particular sort of pessimism that liberals always surprise me with. Something actually magical happens in this scenario, and the best they can imagine is what we currently have, just with some incentive to not get famously rich. No wonder so many of them resort to doomerism, they think it'd take two actual miracles for people to even question a system that produces millionaires.

For anyone who sees this and gets upset because they liked the comic, is this really what you think humans are capable of? Just this?

See, and whenever I make up bad guys that only exist in my shower argument fantasies, you guys all get mad about it. Is it the colours I use?

Try talking to people about things you like rather than about things you dislike, and you'll see there's a lot of value in the breadth of perspective we have access to. Even bad opinions on things you like can be learned from.

Bud, it isn't an assumption when the action is both reliant on liberal beliefs, and the individuals openly express liberal values.

Also, you don't get to pick that moral value for other people. As much as I believe we are obligated to exercise whatever power we are afforded, which includes a vote, I could never in good conscience tell someone they're a problem for refusing to participate in a system that has committed genocide against their people. Colonizers don't just colonize by explicitly and intentionally dominating other groups, they often do so by asserting that their "moral" philosophy is in everyone's best interest, even if that means the "unfortunate" reality that necessitates them deciding for others.

The narrative you just created requires us to forget that vulnerable people have revolted against the US state for centuries. You're saying that their resistance only counts as something to put faith in when the privileged white people join in, and conveniently, that means we should just do what the privileged white people wany out of practicality. This is not the mindset of a reasonable, empathetic person, it is of someone whose politics are oriented around their own comfort; many of us do not enjoy that privilege.

If the sole survivor of a Palestinian family does not want to vote, who the fuck are you or I to tell them they're immoral if they don't want to help their family's murderers do anything for some fake "greater good." For fuck's sake, you'd refuse them even that? Why should you have any right to tell a closeted trans person who's skirting through genocide that they aren't allowed to maintain some feeling of power or self-authorship by refusing this system their participation? What, them giving away their less than one percent of the vote gonna make all the privileged people listen to trans people for the first time fucking ever?

These are people who have lost and given more than what we could ask of anyone simply by being victimized by this system, and they do not represent dominant voting trends even in the minority groups they represent. You want them to vote for your benefit, don't act like it is anything else. This discourse didn't become prominent in liberal discourses until they wanted to blame victims for not supporting the "good guys," and it's disgusting. If you're going to act like this is from whatever, socialist and/or anarchist voters, I'd love to see either stats that proves some sleeping giant lives among us, or an argument that targets them specifically without presuming to speak on the moral purity of victims.

Fuck off with this fake shit.

That has literally already happened to me on here multiple times. Liberals do not have solidarity, that's kind of their problem.