Ha. No, I suppose not. It's closed for me too. The negative expression "fuck you" (and all its derivatives) is a horribly regrettable development, though an unintentional one. It is as if a certain class of influential people had decided to make the word "love" also mean "shit," and had succeeded in making it the dominant usage.

Not only does it require theft, it IS theft. Fractional reserve banking reminds me of the anti-free-speech laws in effect in many European countries. You are essentially required to believe (or feign belief) in something that is manifestly not true: Your deposits are simultaneously "lent out" and also "still there in your account" at the same time.

When a word has multiple recognized meanings, we have to determine which meaning is intended from context.

It's rather strange that in "f___ you" the message is one of extreme dislike, even hate, yet the actual meaning of the verb in this context is totally unclear, which I think allows a suggestion of the sexual meaning to always hover somewhere in the consciousness.

I speculate that this expression started simply as a means to shock, by using language that was at one time more or less forbidden.

Yes. Never access Facebook or Instagram or any Meta property, except through a virtual machine. Even doing that more than a few times a century is probably a bad idea. The bastards even read your device's mac address.

Anything less than total submission to their spyware and abusive behavior is a "threat," just like even the slightest questioning of the self-styled elite's narrative is "hate" to them.

Because the word has that meaning, a well-recognized meaning, and even if the speaker's intent is something else, that meaning resonates and registers in the minds of many hearers. I will persist in strongly disliking these expressions, while stoically accepting that there's not much I can do about it.

So it would be okay and "democratic" to imprison people who say that National Socialists are basically good, or who write novels portraying them as basically good?

Thanks for making it clear. You DO think it's okay to imprison people who say or believe certain things. Thanks again!

I am not an anarchist, but there is deep truth in what you say. There have been many times in human -- and pre-human -- history when the more highly evolved separated themselves from the more primitive, and went their own way -- no longer saddled with the endless drag of lower minds, lower abilities, and the kinds of social structures such types demand. Seen in such a light, those who, today or tomorrow, successfully throw off their fiat/fractional reserve chains may truly represent an evolutionary turning point.

Even people who disagree with you politically should back what you say about NOSTR 100%.

I understand your explanation, and see your point. I still think it is a bad idea on so many levels to make the sex act into an insult, which the common usage does, regardless of the speaker's intent or the expression's origin.

I have publicly criticized the current US President for about a decade now, so please never interpret anything I say to mean I support him -- I don't. But you bring up some interesting questions.

Is the US a democracy? No nation is. Democracy is always fake, except perhaps in small, ethnically homogenous states, like ancient Athens, before the invention of mass media and their capture by special interests and outsiders. So, since no nation is truly democratic, the US obviously isn't either. It would take a book or two to explain this in full, but the short explanation is: 1) The credulous are always ruled by the clever. No exceptions. 2) Sometimes the clever are of the same stock and have the same interests as, and good intentions toward, the rest -- but that (obviously) isn't always the case. 3) Modern "democracy" pretends that items one and two aren't true, and that "the people rule." This makes the entire social structure dishonest and fake and based on deception. Scoundrels love this, as it gives them many options for grift, and deceptive scoundrels inevitably rise to the top in such a dishonest system. 4) There could never be such a thing as "democracy" when a small elite has the exclusive right to create money out of nothing.

Lastly, does every country have the government it deserves? I have a hard time believing that the East Germans or Russians deserved decades of Communism and gulags and knocks on the door at midnight, or that the Cambodians deserved the killing fields, but maybe you can argue that they did, since they were a bit slow in making revolutions. I still find it difficult to accept.

So it's okay and "democratic" to imprison people who say the opposite of what you are saying?

Yet more proof that the West lost the big one. This is an occupation government.

When one group is hyper-privileged, one might even say chosen, to have the exclusive right to create money out of nothing, it isn't terribly surprising that they use some of that money to control the narrative. One way to do that is hire celebrities to stand in front of a camera and read or perform whatever our masters write on their little cue cards.

We need to reinstate the idea of absolute financial privacy. The people who pushed for KYC/AML laws are the criminals, invading our privacy in direct violation of our rights. Even if it weren't unconstitutional, everyone giving up his privacy so they can catch 25% more criminals is not a good trade. The purpose of the money system is not to "help the police." If you want to help the police, go ahead and help them.

It's horrible language, and not just for "Sunday school" reasons. Why make something that ought to be considered sacred into an insult? It corrupts our thinking. It comes from crude people with crude thinking, and I want nothing to do with it.

Web sites inherently are always hosted at IP addresses, not domain names. But most of us go through the DNS layer to reach them, because that lets us use nifty and memorable names instead of strings of numbers.

Six, man. Number Six. Be seeing you!

Numerous people, including Ursula Haverbeck, Ernst Zundel, and David Irving, have criticized the (centralized) control of the historical narrative, and have been imprisoned in "liberal democracies" for doing that. In some countries, it is a crime to criticize "democracy" itself. In the United States, where I live, powerful entities may not be able to directly throw you in jail for saying things they don't like, but they can and do trump up fake charges against you and imprison you just the same. James Alex Fields is a prime example of that.