AncapFTW

In a sense, yes, they do it because they can get away with it, and in many cultures they can. Just look at the number of times the government criminals get away with it. There are also areas where criminals know they can get away with it because they know that people look down on "snitches". There are genes, however, that alter this. Having a predisposition towards schizophrenia, for example.

I already said. Race isn't behavior. Behavior is cultural, not a result of their genetics. Even if they more likely to behave a certain way because of genetics, that wouldn't make them behave that way. Also, gypsies, to answer your question about other groups that could do that. Also, you are determined to define groups of people by race, not common culture, and think that each race should have its own area, so yes, you are judging people based on race.

congratulations, you picked a definition which supported your argument. since you used part of dictionary.com's definition though, here's the rest of that definition: 2) abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members of another race on the basis of such a belief and since you are arguing that they are the enemy at least in part because they aren't white, that could be considered aggressive behavior based on those beliefs. You didn't answer my question. Why does the part of the globe their ancestors came from even matter to you? Why is a trait they are born with more important to you than their behavior which they are responsible for when trying to group people together?

At first I saw "college humor" and thought "this isn't left wing bs?", then I realized it was someone else's material. Good points though.

Some people have have an intense emotional reaction to being called out on their BS. Does that mean it's abusive to point it out? Also, how is this that different than refusing to do business with someone you don't like? If I tell one of my customers that I won't deal with him because I just learned that he beat his wife, he will have an intense emotional reaction to that. I would be guilty of using that "apparent soft spot or "weakness"" to try and get him to stop. Does that mean that I'm psychologically abusing him?

I saw this video on youtube and, while I normally agree with this guy on most of his videos, this one seemed a bit ridiculous, especially when he said that withholding sex is a form of abuse. Personally, I don't see how it qualifies as abuse. Does anyone have any comments on his statement or the hashtag in general?

I'm currently watching people play tabletop RPs on youtube that don't seem like that, but they don't use D&D, they use Rifts and 13th age, and one used Pathfinder. Maybe it's the system, but the D&D group I saw didn't seem too "leftist" either, just a bit unstable. Maybe that's the kind of characters they prefer.

That still exists, plus everything from Harry Potter to Pokemon got added to it. I actually wasn't allowed to play until I was 18 pokemon because my parents thought it was demonic. Strange thing, though, is that I bought Morrowind when I was 17 and they didn't have a problem with it. Possible demon-like creatures? Banned. Literal magic, summoning, a pantheon of deities and demonic beings you can work for? That's fine.

I haven't really dealt with this in text RPGs, though I have seen several people who create a very specific character for some reason. For example, one time I had a neo-nazi join two of my RPs. The first was a super hero thing where he basically played a skinhead, and the second was a fantasy where he was a dragon that didn't like the dragons assimilating into a combined culture with other sentient races and tried to rebuild Dragon culture in a xenophobic way. I've never seen someone ban "God", but I treat all deities identically in my games, with a bit of game balancing.

In its current form, sure. In the Turkish empire a few hundred years ago there were four different forms of Sharia, and people chose which version they would follow. The judge would only weigh the different sides of the case based on which type of Sharia you said you were going by. This could become a form of DRO system fairly easily, by simply accepting non-sharia rulesets and making the Judge be a neutral arbiter instead of a government official.

So your friend participated of his own free will, yet holds no responsibility for his own actions or his decision to risk his life in the committing of the crime? If the shopkeeper died, then yes, you attacked him first, which was part of the plan, but the death of someone else who chose to attack him? If I get together with a few of my buddies together to go bear hunting and one of them gets mauled by a bear, did I kill him too?

Reminds me of chatterbots I used to play around with in high school. Most of the ones on the website would cuss at you, say racist/sexist things, etc. I tried to get a new one to act like a butler, since the others were too far gone, but I didn't do enough with it.

See my post above. Also, why are you telling people what they believe in and don't believe in? Property rights are the basis of anarchism. The government violates those rights, especially self ownership, and is therefore wrong.

Shouldn't your buddy be responsible for his own death, unless it can be shown that you forced or coerced him into the situation?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGc7yCZQ8CE

No idea, though the top tweet by the guy who you linked to was "seems like the right to bear arms ought to be outweighed by the right to go to school and come home alive." Apparently that's relevant somehow? Also, how is that even a coherent statement?

How do you know what their beliefs are? Maybe they are ignorant of parts of the Holy book of the religion they converted to, but just because they don't believe the same way you do doesn't make them no longer christian. You don't believe it the same way as every other Christian and there are views that people in ancient times held that you don't. For example, the OT allows slavery and Jesus even defends it, but you don't believe that it is ok. "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's", plus passages about submitting to rulers because God placed them there, etc. seems to make a strict adherence to this belief incompatible with the idea of Anarchy.

Doesn't that bode ill for an anarchist society, then? Especially if it's established near a statist society. After all, you could very well end up with different cultures operating in different areas in an anarchist society, and the different laws/ courts thing isn't that different than a DRO model.

You could try setting up a download site, like Steam, which okymek mentioned above, and then use social media to get the word out. Sure, the schools would learn about it, but it would get the kid's attention first. Once it's popular enough on social media, schools might try to use it, but by that time it's got its own reputation which they aren't tied to, so it would be harder for them to tarnish it. Or you could just refuse to license it to public educational facilities, but that would cause other issues.

Can you turn them on/unblock them individually, say if I need a laugh or think that one of them might be neutral on a topic?

I would say that the very fact that you are referring to groups of people by their skin color and not social commonality make you a bit racist. Why does "race" even matter to you? I look at people and the way they act, not what area of the planet they or their ancestors are from.

the water pressure would drop, if not fall off completely. Not sure how many millions of gallons and minute the NYC sewage system can produce, or the rate at which the average toilet would refill. Also, the resulting pressure shift and consequent rapid return of pressure could rupture the lines, as happens sometimes due to pressure surges. Why did you ask, though? Was this the beginning of a joke?

anyone heard of it or anything like it?

I especially like how he said that the Great Depression happened because the US Government didn't bail out the banks. He did The Onion proud. Wait, this wasn't a parody?

You could, however, create a guide to help Atheists get understand religious people and systems, or help them find a religion, assuming it doesn't include a mandatory belief in deities. Buddhism for example doesn't require you to believe in deities. Now imagine that a national religion was going to be forced on everyone, or that everyone would be forced to choose a religion. Such a guide could be useful. Of course, if that were the case, Pastafarianism would become really popular, but that's a different topic.