They are absolutely civilians, although they no longer believe they are. Technically the military is supposed to be under civilian control as well (e.g., the governor is supposed to have control of the national guard in their state, the president is supposed to control the six branches of the military).

Look at it this way: the military is not supposed to be used for civilian law enforcement. That very, very strongly implies that police are not military, and are hence civilian.

Remove the bag limit, put a bounty on them. Anyone that murks a billionaire wins a 2000 ft^2 home (or condo, whatever) in the location of their choice, with all taxes, fees, and utilities paid for as long as they live there.

What, they’re enjoying the outdoors? And that’s somehow bad? If that offends you, maybe you should avert your eyes.

Then I came to my senses.

Except you didn’t. You rationalized, and thought that someone else would save you, instead of you and the people you care about saving yourself. The floodwaters are rising, and you’re on the roof; you either have to get your own ass to safety, or drown, because FEMA’s been defunded, and no one is coming.

I think that the left should absofuckinglylutely be getting strapped.

The good news is that leftists have been strapped for years. The bad news is that, 1) they’re mostly using Mosin-Nagants and Makarovs because they’re red fudds, and 2) most people that are politically left of center are not leftists. (I’m a leftist; I do have a Mosin-Nagant, but it was a gift, and I hate shooting it. I prefer my AR-15 and AR-10.)

US here.

I think that if the police are allowed to have it, everyone should be allowed to have it. Police are not the military; they’re civilians. So all other civilians should have the same access cops get, or cops should get the same access that everyone else does.

I never had a chance to try Earthdawn, but it looked like a lot of fun.

Have you tried just not exploding? Like, maybe turn your emotions off so that instead of exploding in rage you just feel a vague annoyance? It’s called alexythymia, and I highly recommend it; it makes shitty things much easier to deal with.

I’m a fan of old-school Shadowrun (2nd ed.); it didn’t matter how bad-ass your character was, you could get killed by a lucky shot from a punk with a zipgun. It kept the grime of Cyperpunk, and added fantastical elements to it. IMO, it required more role-playing than is strictly necessary in a lot of D&D games, because going in guns blazing all the time was almost certain to lead to death; properly played (IMO), the GM should be brutal in how they handle stupid players.

The downside was so many six sided dice.

IIRC, this hasn’t been debunked per se, but it was a very small, very limited study, and doesn’t really do a great job of explaining homophobia in a broader population. (I mean, you’re talking about 64 people in total; depending on your inclusion criteria, that could be a meaningless sample size.) Penile plethysmography is a proxy for sexual arousal; it’s useful in some instances–like predicting whether or not someone will commit more sexual offenses in the future–but isn’t even that great in those instances. If I remember correctly, there’s strong evidence that disgust is a trait strongly associated with conservatism, and homophobia is a an extreme disgust reaction.

FWIW, I was casually–but quite virulently–homophobic when I was younger. I’d been raised in a very conservative, evangelical religious group, and I believed all the bullshit that I’d heard about gay people. That changed once I lost religion, and actually met people that were gay. That, of course, is only anecdotal evidence, and does assume that I’m neither gay nor bisexual (and I don’t believe that I am), but it fits with what I’ve seen from conservative thought.

It depends on how you’re looking at homosexuality; are you looking at it as sexual attraction, or as behaviour? If you’re talking about behaviour, then a lot of that is certainly environmental, e.g., if you’re raise a non-permissive location, you’re much, much less likely to engage in homosexual behaviour. But if you’re talking about sexual attraction, then it seems very unlikely that it could be anything other than primarily genetic.

I think that the fact that there’s a difference between how people act, versus how people feel, is what confuses so many people about being straight, gay, bisexual, transgender, etc., and why conservatives feel like there’s a ‘gay agenda’ to make kids gay (or trans) when a permissive society allows more people to act freely on the way that they feel.

If you need to regularly scratch your anus, you probably have parasites. That’s one of the prime ways for some species of parasites (roundworms, I think?, probably tapeworms too?) to spread.

Finland first, New Zealand second. Both have gun rights. Finland has a lot of empty space in the north, and Finns are, in general, not super interested in being highly social, despite historically having pretty solid social safety nets (although I hear the right is rising there, and that may not last). The largest barrier is that Suomi is a very difficult language to learn.

Any sitcom or comedy.

By that ‘logic’ everyone needs a taste of white supremacy, Christian nationalism, Nazis, and so on.

Certain opinions aren’t worth giving any consideration to because they’re so stupidly, pig-headedly wrong. The street corner preacher frothing at the mouth over LGBTQ people is one, .ml and the former hexbear (world’s smallest violin plays a sad song for their passing) instances being prime examples.

Arrive to raids […] out of uniform.

…This is already happening.

I’ve read history books that aren’t full-blown propaganda. If you had read any, you would know that oppression and violence is the foundation of ALL western countries, and most non-western ones as well. The difference being that countries in the EU are more comfortable forgetting that their wealth was built on things like the exploitation of the Congo, the British East India Company, et al.

The founding document of the US though, which is what I was clearly referring to, established certain civil rights that the gov’t isn’t supposed to infringe. Religious liberty is one of those. This is notably not a right in most non-US countries; many EU countries have state-funded religions, and citizens are often taxes by the gov’ts to pay for those religions.

I’m an atheist and a Satanist. I agree that these people are, by the measure of what the Jesus Christ of the Christian Bible is claimed to have said, hypocrites. At best. And yes, Jesus said that you should pray in private, and that people who pray in public so that they can be seen to pray have already received their reward. (Matthew 6:5 - “And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.”)

But it’s still a foundational civil right.

Yeah, no. That was never the intent of 1A. Individuals, or groups, are more than welcome to pray in government buildings, as long as they aren’t forcing that religious expression on unwilling people, using it as a religious test, or something similar that would amount to the establishment of a state-sponsored religion.

Students can pray in schools; teachers can pray in schools. Teachers can not compel students to participate in prayers, nor are teachers supposed to lead students in prayer (as that’s implied compulsion).

Constitutional freedoms–including religion–are a foundation for our country. If that’s not what you want, feel free to repeal the constitution, or move to a country that has a state religion instead.