But they don’t make law. Only rule on what is lawful. Congress can change the rules at any time and the SCOTUS would be required to uphold it.

In a functioning democracy…

This is a waste of time for us both it seems. Allow me to recap.

I was making a response to clarify that that was not the correct/common spelling people would associate with the term in the context you tried to use it in. Then you posted a response that literally proved my point. Then I pointed that out with screenshots and links. Now you’re deep into this trying to double down on a broken argument for something that really doesn’t matter man.

You don’t want to learn something you (almost certainly) weren’t aware of before this exchange. That’s fair. That’s your bag to carry, not mine. It’s not my job to force you agree with very minor misuses of esoteric bits of language that I happen to know a fair bit about and can (and have) backed up.

Nobody really cares, and I really should take my own advice here and stop responding, so I probably will after this.

I’m not interested in trying to sort through your hangups with a free therapy session. 🙂

Good luck.

Edit: and it appears you’ve just gone back and downvoted me. Well done. You’ve really showed me who was right here.

This is heartwarming and wholesome somehow

If you look at the definition you provided, right there on the second line underneath the word, it says: “Less common spelling of narc”

And if you pull up the definition for narc: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/narc

It contains all the different ways to use it in exactly the way I described in my first response to you :)

That is the correct spelling of it. Nark might be acceptable by webster’s standards as a less common alternative, but it’s not how that word was spelled or used until people started colloquially mis-spelling it. That is what merriam-Webster’s does, they keep up with language as it evolves.

But to be clear, Nark is not the canon spelling for this. Narc is. Nark is a misspelling that became colloquially accepted. That does not make it the correct spelling 🙂

deleted by creator

Bro, shut the fuck up. We do not cater to fascists here. We do not encourage people to roll over to their demands. You do not win social battles by being a weak, capitulating piece of shit.

Support your fellow humans. Don’t throw them under the bus when it’s convenient.

People did nazi that coming

Agreed.

Unrelated, but it’s narcing. Narc is short for narcotics officer.

So… You’re sure you want to go with option number 2? You don’t want to trade that for what’s behind door number 3?

Disappointing how incredibly predictable you’ve been. It’s like you’re not even trying here.

Good luck with what all you’ve got going on in your life then. For you, I doubt it’s going to get much better.

You have proof of it not being a conspiracy theory? Go ahead and link it. I’ll check my account for replies. If the next reply to this isn’t a link with irrefutable proof of the things you’ve said that people have (repeatedly) asked for proof (and in fact those that “googled” found evidence refuting your claims); we’re done here.

Stop playing with rhetoric and link whatever it is you claim to have that 100% makes your case for you.

If you cannot, and if your reply to this never happens or doesn’t contain the articles and evidence to support your claim, then you’re a conspiracy theorist. That is exactly how that works. That’s how conspiracies work. You just started one, and/or perpetuating one.

You don’t even seem to grasp the difference between facts, and a conspiracy theory, so I suspect the kind of response I’ll be receiving is:

1. Nothing
2. More personal attacks with rhetoric trying to shift the blame and burden of proof onto the people asking for it to cover for the fact that you are indeed perpetuating a made-up conspiracy theory without any actual evidence or facts.

So which one is it, #1, or #2 here? You could always try for the #3 option and post evidence to your claims, but you’ve had hours, and dozens of interactions to do that with people and you haven’t yet. It would have taken you a fraction of the time to gather the data yourself and post, than whatever song and dance routine you think you’ve been doing to throw people off.

Something tells me you’re not going to take door #3.

Do I really need to? It takes 5 minutes of Google and so me level of critical thinking to only review sites that aren’t trash.

Jesus.

This again?

There is no world that anyone lives in where the burden of proof is on the person asking for proof. That isn’t how this works. That isn’t how any of this works.

We did not get into space, to the moon, and back, by entertaining that thought terminating cliche of “Just Google it” in answer to people asking for proof of a claim.

You made the claim. You. Not me. Not the guy above you. You.

Several people in this thread have done the “googling”, didn’t find what you said, in fact found articles that paint a very different picture; and yet here you are, back to defending the worst fucking logical fallacy known to mankind. And you’re also adding the Ad Homenim attacks to boot.

From what you’ve displayed today, I believe you to be a passionate but misguided individual and you will continue to struggle to get anyone to view the world from your perspective that you are unable to browbeat into believing you. This will be a significant bottleneck in whatever path in life you’ve chosen, if it hasn’t become one already.

There is nothing you can show or teach me in life with an attitude and disregard for research and debate like you’ve exhibited in this thread and I will learn nothing by continuing the conversation.

Good luck out there mate, you’re going to need it.

deleted by creator

On this same thread this guy is attacking me for pointing out the similar.

I just think he’s a bit unhinged. Heart’s in the right place (I assume, if he really believes Affleck is as bad of a guy as he’s claiming), but I haven’t found any concrete evidence supporting a single one of the claims sartalon has made here. Mostly it’s speculation and a lot of conspiracy theory level nonsense.

It may be true, but nothing they’ve said or shown so far has changed my opinion here. It just sounds like they’re latching onto a conspiracy theory around Weinstein and Affleck that doesn’t really exist. They did not like each other. Nobody really liked Weinstein, and every interview I’ve seen with Affleck is that he’s a deeply troubled individual who doesn’t know how to deal with the stress and issues his fame has created in his life, but I haven’t seen any indication that he’s a sleezy rapist, other than some wild rumors.

We can only make choices with the data available to us. I’m not defending Affleck at all here. If he did those things, then he deserves to burn. But sartalon would like to send him to El Salvador without trial based on their misunderstanding of an interview it seems.

Now, if only we had an administration that also wanted to end due process, then sartalon and they might get along, despite their protestations that they’re nothing like each other.

Officially this was the case, but nobody really paid that. Capital gains were still around 20%, around where they’re at today, and that’s how most of them got wealthy.

Did you provide links? Did you provide irrefutable proof of your assertions? If so where are they?

Without those, I’m free to believe your words as much as any other random person on the internet.

You could be telling the truth, you might not. I don’t really care because I don’t care about Affleck as much as you it seems.

Not sure if you’ve keep up with the news, but we’ve got heavier shit happening in the world that’s not related to whether or not an actor was worried about being on a list somewhere that sexual abused people.

To be clear, I don’t think anyone here is a celebrity suck up. They’re just empathetic humans seeing other humans struggle and wanting them to be OK or see how we can help. It’s the human condition, we shouldn’t discourage that.

Separately Ben Affleck may or may not be a shitty human being if what you said was true, but in the moment he still showed he was a depressed human, and other humans want to help. Not because they’re sycophants, but because they’re good people who want to help.

People are downvoting you, and as much as I would like it to not be true, you are right. There’s too many male dems I’ve talked to that didn’t vote for Kamala because she was a woman. It was shocking, and disappointing to say the least.

So I can’t, in good conscience, downvote you, because you’re not wrong, as much as I don’t like it.

Edit: I also should have expected people also downvoting me just because they don’t like the message. I don’t like it either, but downvoting me does not make it less true. I voted for Hillary and Kamala and campaigned for them both, so don’t downvote me just because I’m the messenger of observations about shitty behaviors I’ve encountered among my fellow dems.

Yup, I agree with your points. It’s where I landed too. I always just try to see it from the perspective of people who like the hallucination theory.

It’s like the Ferris Bueler was in the head of his friend and wasn’t real theory. At first glance, kinda explains a lot. But it’s absolutely not true, and the are breaks in the movie that would happen if it were, additionally the director said that wasn’t true straight up.

But people still believe it. I try not to antagonize, but to show how unlikely that theory is to hold up.

People all collectively forgot that that was the piece that made America great in the 50s.

I don’t think that was the takeaway from the American Psycho book. There’s a lot of unknowns that the author leaves up to the reader, but at no point did I get the impression the whole thing was a hallucination. It can go a lot of ways from an interpretation standpoint, but there is no definitive ending in either the book or the movie (I believe the movie is even made more ambiguous on purpose).

There’s just as good of a chance that he killed everyone and got away with it because he’s rich and powerful (a satirical characteristic of 80’s “power” businessmen the book was trying to expose).

Most assume he killed at least the prostitutes, because there are callbacks and some police records indicating that in the background. It’s only very slightly questionable if he killed his peers/business associates.

Here’s an article that breaks it down from the movie standpoint

I’ll call out an excerpt from the end:

A popular theory is that Patrick did in fact kill everyone he copped to in his phone call to Harold, including all the ones we saw with our own eyes — that is, except for Paul Allen. This theory is most likely the closest to the truth when we take into account Paul Allen’s vacant apartment, with no signs of Patrick’s murderous rampage to be found. This theory would also explain Harold’s claim that he just had lunch with Paul Allen, so there is no way Bateman could have killed him.

On the flip side, another theory is that Patrick killed everyone, including Paul Allen. We do know that Patrick has a vendetta against Paul Allen, yet another pretentious yuppie with a superior business card. It is also possible that Harold had lunch with someone he thought was Paul Allen — we know how common it is for Bateman’s superficial crowd to mistake each other for someone else.

Both primary competing theories on the movie are that he killed almost everyone, or everyone. In the books it’s similar, even less ambiguous that he killed at least several people.

I would say the less popular and less supported version of the story is that he hallucinated everything. It’s kind of one of those theories that makes sense, but the “facts” in the story don’t add up and force a break of character. It also fights against the narrative of the author who was intending it to be a satire of the power-mad, power-hungry, grab-them-by-the-pussy businessmen of the 80’s, and what they could get away with.

I know everyone’s exhausted by politics, but truthfully, people like trump, the playboy “billionaire” tycoons of the 80’s was who Patrick was supposed to be emulating.

And we all know trump could shoot someone on 5th ave and get away with it at this point.

Looks like the author knew their stuff.