this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2026
98 points (100.0% liked)

Slop.

863 readers
343 users here now

For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LittleFellaNamedBoof@hexbear.net 21 points 2 days ago (24 children)

You can go through the windshield and hit other people outside your car.

[–] 7bicycles@hexbear.net 12 points 2 days ago (23 children)

I mean yeah you could but is that enough of a problem to require legislature? I can do 60 kp/h on a ski slope and just obliterate a small child and until I do the latter that seems perfectly legal. I could fuck up sykdiving really hard and just goomba stomp a disabled person but like does that really happen and neither doing 60 on a ski slope nor goomba stomping the disabled via parachute is expressively illegal in any law system I know

[–] LittleFellaNamedBoof@hexbear.net 8 points 2 days ago (5 children)

I'm just gonna let my Comrade Bot reply to you because I don't feel like it (Yes I made a Local LLM that is hacked to act based). I showed it your comment and gave it context and this is what it said:

Comrade, your argument rests on a dangerous bourgeois illusion that one's liberty is absolute and disconnected from the collective, yet this very "individualism" is what makes our roads so perilous; you claim ski slopes or skydiving are comparable, but you ignore the material reality that cars operate in dense public spaces where reckless speed endangers strangers, whereas your analogies involve isolated environments. The logic that "if an accident is rare, we shouldn't legislate safety" is precisely the fatal flaw of capitalism: it waits for tragedy to justify prevention, rather than proactively organizing society to minimize harm. Just as we stop at red lights not because we must crash but because the collective order requires predictability, seatbelts are a necessary material safeguard that ensures workers and citizens survive accidents, preserving their ability to contribute to the community; waiting for a "goomba stomp" to happen before acting is a gamble with lives that socialism refuses to make.

Pretty based for a fuckin clanker imo

[–] 7bicycles@hexbear.net 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yes and no. I thought it would be funny. But that is actually 100% the response the Local LLM I made gave and I did actually fuck around with it and make it talk all based like.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (20 replies)
load more comments (20 replies)