No it's not Brad's vision.

I made a really funny joke with my 9/11 humor poll and I got the crazy blue haired response.

No reference to war. Even if WWIII is literally being funded by lobbiests wearing actual hamas headbands shipping violent thugs to a campus near u.

At some point you gotta make a stand for the right thing. Falling in line and pretending like nothing is wrong because we are afraid of losing privileges is 100% how Nazi take over.

P.s. I am not a rat in rat park. I'm a rabid feline with BPD. Tapeworms. And mange.

It's an uncommon 'sona.

https://furscience.com/wp-content/up...1-1024x772.png

The notion of soft-on-crime being desirable or that "tough on crime" is accordingly some kind of pejorative is insane. People do not seem to understand that criminals, by definition, will take ten miles if you give them an inch.

Advocates' argument is always "even with strict penalties people still commit crime!!" yeah no shit sherlock, but do they commit more or less? This is not, as they say, rocket science.

If a crime carries a penalty of 10 years in prison instead of a 100 dollar fine, people will obviously be much less likely to risk committing it, because most potential criminals still have basic rational self interest and are not completely insane schizophrenics.

Yep.

I thought you Americans were all about freedom

Some more than others.

Some people have a strange relationship with the concept, where they think you're violating their freedom to violate other people's freedoms. You're free to protest peacefully, for example. You're not free to block traffic and menace and intimidate other people, those things are crimes which impede the freedom of others. Depending on framing though, this scenario is spun as some kind of police state crackdown on free speech, which it isn't.