You ARE okay with shooting bantz at the table, right?

Why would I not be okay with table bantz?

My character is also ripe for it.

>tfw the dwarf paladin player repeatedly threatens to rape my 50-year-old human wizard for reasons beyond my comprehension.

Call his bluff.

>he's so low energy he can't handle friendly banter
Cheer up, nigger

That aside, of course. If a group don't take it, that's points off on them. I gotta shoot the bull with 'em, y'know?

I really don't want to: he's enormous, obese, and smells perpetually like onions. He's essentially Shrek.

My entire last campaign had people calling me a coward for using cover and tactics as a sniper.

Joke's on them though, my character turned to the dark side and took over half the galaxy.

Rape him first establish dominance.

...

Isn't this basically saying that the 51% have the right to take away the rights of the 49%?

The player or his character?

>Kuroku no Galactic Heroes

He's a staunch believer in democracy, even if democracy never lives up to expectations.

All my players have been my best friends since we were 8 - 14. We're 25 now an all we do is bants each other. The only one of my friends who cant take the bants is the only one we dont invite to game night.

Tfw small town friends for life

The player. I'm not sure what paladins are supposed to smell like but I'm relatively sure it isn't salisbury steak.

LoGH is overrated, Yang is a cuck and I'm glad he had an untimely death due to his own stupidity, and you sound like a friendless faggot.

I immediately hold up my X card if it looks like someone is about to start saying some "banter". I'm here to have fun, not to listen to hate speech.

>they ruined KIRCHEISU

Yellow subtitles are fine

To quote an user on /a/:

>Piss yellow subs are absolutely required for the proper LoGH viewing experience.

Y-yeah I'm cool...

He's saying that only the 51% have the right to take away rights at all. Contrast this with systems like dictatorships, aristocracies, monarchies, and oligarchies, where your rights can be taken away because it would be convenient for a single dictator or oligarch. Your rights are far more secure under a democracy than a dictatorship.

>Your rights are far more secure under a democracy than a dictatorship.
Yeah, like the Weimar Republic.

That depends. Are we talking two friends shitting on each other light heartedly, or actual malice?

The former is commonplace with my friends- the hardest I've seen hit was me, and it hard enough that I got drunk and spent 150 dollars on a dating website.

Malice? Fuck you, anyone trying to deliberately hurt me can get fucked.

The fundamental problem that killed the Weimar Republic was that there was a mechanism by which the president could do things like appoint a chancellor himself, give himself emergency powers, suspend due process, and rule by dictate. Giving that to a single person is exactly what you shouldn't do, because it makes the nation into a dictatorship rather than a democracy. It's the very thing that is cautioning against. And it's why those provisions got removed from the post-war West German government, when otherwise it was largely a reboot of the Weimar Republic.

>tfw no real life friends

All I ever wanted was to be popular and have a large circle of close friends

>democracy is bad because it can lead to autocracy in extreme circumstancess so we need to get rid of democracy and replace it with an autocracy

Anyone who is legitimately against democracy in the 21st century is an edgelord.

Nigga go outside more it's not hard.

Democracy serves as being the most humane system of governance because of how ineffectual it is.

It's own incompetence helps make the process for absolute, potentiality corrupting power such a slog.

>implying democracy is good
encouraging uneducated and power-hungry populists to make a grab for the power, rule for a term, and get scot-off free without any consequences is a bad idea
the alternative of "an enlightened monarch making educated decisions for his country for his entire life because he knows he will have to rule for more than a decade and will suffer consequences if shit happens" is much better

Why do all their faces look the same?

Democracy is the most humane system because it is the best at creating an incentive to be humane. Tying maintaining power to the approval of the people creates at least some incentive, even if it is small, to govern in a way that makes life more bearable for the people. In a dictatorship, there is no such incentive. The people you need to please in a dictatorship are the select few generals, spies, bureaucrats, and businessmen that you need to maintain control, and their desires have little to do with the welfare of the people.

I DONT GIVE A FUCK WHO RUNS THE GOVERNMENT; I JUST WANT YOU TO KILL ALL THE FUCKING ABBOS ALREADY

> the alternative of "an enlightened monarch making educated decisions for his country for his entire life because he knows he will have to rule for more than a decade and will suffer consequences if shit happens" is much better
And I'm sure that communism, if it actually worked, would be even better. But it doesn't, it's a pile of shit in reality, and your fantasy enlightened monarchy is just as divorced from reality as communism.

god fucking hell

Monarchs generally maintain power not by helping the people, but by helping the people in monarch's court. The thing that a monarch is most often worried about as a potential consequence is generally a coup from within the upper class, not a revolution of the lower class. As a result, monarchs govern in ways that benefit the upper class at the expense of everyone else, because that is how they head off being deposed and maintain power.

oh holy fuck i didnt read this thread until it was too late lmao this is some good shit

still kill all abbos tho, delet natives

>He's saying that only the 51% have the right to take away rights at all.
But that's wrong, because it says ANYONE has that right.

In the real world, someone always lays claim to that right no matter what system you live in. If you want it to remain unused, better to leave it in the hands of a lot of people who can't agree on the color of an orange.

itt: yankees who have never come into contact with an actual democratic system and who think their own presidential votes don't just go into a big dumpster fire

Only because we haven't reached the age of recreational nukes.

And then no one can lay claim to that right because everyone is dead, and thus there are no people left with rights to take away.

The idea (if you can call it that) is that if you give literally everyone their own nukes, no one will fuck with anyone else because of the chain reaction of consequences.

Americans are very proud of the fact that they don't live in a democracy. Literally none of their federal government actually represents the people, which is one of the reasons why they insist it's the best system in the world.

This is such a fedora post. American democracy fails because it's forcibly framed within narrow liberal centrism which is completely defined by the massive military industry that it built during world war 2 and forgot to dismantle. Only in America could someone as clinically corporate as Hillary Clinton unironically be accused of being a socialist or a communist. America's failures are completely unique to its history. America's "left" is centre right-ish in almost anywhere else in the world.

That being said, only a dipshit American whose only ever known middle class comfort and stability would possibly think an "enlightened monarch" was realistic, forgetting tht 99% of monarchs throughout history were petty psychopaths who sent people to their deaths in pointless wars because they had holes in their brains.

And then someone fucks with someone else anyway, because not every human being is a perfect rational actor. In fact, many of them aren't. And then you get a chain reaction that leaves everyone dead. The idea is so clearly stupid that it is only appealing to autists, trolls, and economists.

Some ideas are so stupid that only an academic can believe in them.

Exactly. Most people are fucking stupid, so we rely on most of them not voting, as well as cheesing the districts so that "good" people (with "good" differing if you're a dem or a rep) have more influence.

All that said, universal suffrage was and is a terrible mistake.

>That being said, only a dipshit American whose only ever known middle class comfort and stability would possibly think an "enlightened monarch" was realistic, forgetting tht 99% of monarchs throughout history were petty psychopaths who sent people to their deaths in pointless wars because they had holes in their brains.
>t. frog scum
70% of all statistics are made up on the spot

>That being said, only a dipshit American whose only ever known middle class comfort and stability would possibly think an "enlightened monarch" was realistic
Not true, there's also oligarchs who always fancied having power supreme.

>t. Frog scum

Are you calling me French?

America isn't even a democracy. In America, the politicians pick the voters rather than the other way around. The same parties putting up candidates are the ones drawing the lines to determine who gets to vote for each seat, allowing them to decide those election beforehand just by drawing the lines around the right combination of voters so that they win. Then you've got an upper house of the legislature that isn't remotely representative, with two votes per state regardless of population, and a presidency where you can win even if you get fewer votes.

Yes you cowardly surrender monkey

>America's "left" is centre right-ish in almost anywhere else in the world.
Woah. Americans actually believe this?

>itt Euroshits thinking that "proper representation" is good
The less power the plebes have, the better.

Our politicans are almost all centrist to extreme right. The people have more left leaning views but they aren't in office.

Picking and choosing who gets to vote produces worse results, not better ones, because that definition of "good" has fuck all to do with intelligence and everything to do with party loyalty. Universal suffrage is far better because the barrier it places on being able to vote is being assed to vote. That's a much better criteria than whether you happen to be in the party of the people drawing the district lines.

Then why are democracies consistently better places to live than dictatorships, monarchies, oligarchies, and the like? Look at the best places in the world to live, and you'll notice that the list is dominated by some of the most democratic nations in the world.

It's plainly obvious that the military runs the United States. All domestic institutions are cut in service of the military. Every American president is too cowardly to stand up to It

There is literally no mainstream left in the United States. America is run by socially right and left liberals and liberals are by definition centrists on the political spectrum. The republicans are liberals too by definition who are autistic for business and Wall Street and into Christian identity stuff

You actually do believe it. Incredible.

Bzzzt. Wrong. The best places in the world to live are REPUBLICS, not democracies. Democracy is nothing but 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. A republic, with respect for the rights of the minority, is a MUCH better place to live than any democracy.

>Picking and choosing who gets to vote produces worse results, not better ones
Wrong

You can't seriously believe that even giving poorfags the option to vote is better than restricting it to an actually valuable portion of the population, right?

Because all of the most developed and prosperous nations in the modern era drank the democracy meme a few centuries ago and are starting to feel the ill effects today.

Okay, look at the government of the US.
President: Donald Trump
Speaker of the House: Paul Ryan
Senate Majority Leader: Mitch McConnell
Republican majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
A Conservative majority on the Supreme Court.
Total Republican control in a majority of the states, with Republicans holding the vast majority of state legislatures and governorships.

America is firmly in the hands of the center-right, and the only people challenging them are the right wing of their own party.

He's right. Social issues in America are what determines whether someone is "left" or "right" but that's because America is too brainwashed by corporations to think of any alternative to the bleak economic neoliberal hellscape they live in currently.

That's why you have people in America who think having women CEOs of banks, natural gas companies and weapons manufacturers is somehow "progressive"

> You can't seriously believe that even giving poorfags the option to vote is better than restricting it to an actually valuable portion of the population, right?
Yes, I do, because to do that you need to give someone the authority to decide who is the "valuable portion of the population." And once you do that, they're not actually going to use it to restrict voting to the intelligent or the qualified. They always have and always will use it to restrict the vote to their own supporters.

>being a legitimate, unironic leftist
All commie scum.

So criticizing rampant corporatism makes someone a marxist?

Hmm, sounds like an inherent flaw in democracy/republicanism!
You either give every worthless plebe the right to vote, or you run the risk the powers that be solidifying their rule for all eternity.

Really activates my almonds.

Thats only at this very moment. Fact is people became so disgusted with previous leadership that the Democratic party lost House/Senate and the presidency in a matter of what, 1 year? Unless it stays that way forever, it isn't indicative of what all Americans think, just that they're so disgusted of the alternative they're currently unwilling to consider it.

No, but complaining about stuff not being "(actually) progressive" along with complaining about corporatism implies that you are.

> Republicans
> center-right
Bullshit. I'll believe they're anywhere near the right when they get rid of niggercare. Until then, they're the same liberal establishment that gave us that train wreck.

Yeah, it's a problem. You basically just have to accept that some number of dumb people will vote and roll with it. Otherwise, you end up with an oligarchy that produces far worse results than a democracy where everyone gets to vote.

You do realise the reason ACA failed was because they compromised with Republicans and gutted the government option which would have functionally kept premiums low, right? It was incomplete legislation

>Otherwise, you end up with an oligarchy that produces far worse results than a democracy where everyone gets to vote.
>worse results

If you don't make the ruling class' power beholden to the whims of the plebes, the rulers have no direct incentive to pander to the plebes.

The democrats only ever got into power in the first place because the Bush administration royally screwed up enough that in 2006 and 2008 the democrats were able to make big gains. And even then, their majorities relied on running conservative democrats in order to actually put together a majority. But as soon as the democrats actually did anything, all that imploded in a wave of conservative outrage against healthcare reform and all those conservative democrats in precarious districts lost their seats. The democrats being able to have a say for a few months in which they had a supermajority was a fluke that only happened because of how unpopular the GOP had become in the last years of the Bush administration. Then after a few months the voters in swing states forgot all about that and went back to voting for republicans.

If you don't make the ruling class' power beholden to the whims of the plebs, they'll just engage in a massive circlejerk that creates a country where only the ruling class have a decent standard of living.

And risk a plebeian uprising?
You put far too little faith in the systems that worked marvelously for the past few thousand years of human history, up until about 300 years ago or so.

Besides, Singapore is a pretty nice country.

> my leftist PoS law only failed because it wasn't leftist enough!!!!11!one!!1
And no, they didn't do a damn thing to compromise with republicans. Literally the only people who voted for the thing were dims, and they didn't even know what the fuck they were voting for. The dims rammed it through without even letting anyone see the bill, and they certainly didn't try to compromise on it with anyone.

Well the republican media in America also managed to, with aid of obscure millionaires and billionaires who funded the insane tea party shit, masterfully weave neoliberal economics in with the culture war. Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reily unironically managed to convince millions of poor people that universal healthcare is literally the same as gulags or concentration camps.

>Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reily unironically managed to convince millions of poor people that universal healthcare is literally the same as gulags or concentration camps.

>poors
>people

Fuck off with your commie bullshit.

Yeah, you have two political parties which are voted in only because none other are viable (thanks FPTP voting) and a deeply polarized population and a non-insignificant centre which swings the vote either way every 1-3 elections, resulting in a pendulum effect where the population consistently hates the current party in power, meaning theres no real repercussions for any of the policies enacted and politicians have free reign over the fate of your country and the "power of the people" is all but an illusion.

I digress though, the point is, you do have a significant leftist population, and yes, its left by the standards of other countries. Also, your political situation is completely fucked. Kind of sad, I actually like America, despite its flaws.

Rape is the go-to uncreative "joke" for people who never developed a real sense of humor.

> Besides, Singapore is a pretty nice country.
Singapore is a single city-state. Exceptions exist, but the existence of a few small outliers does not disprove a trend. Meanwhile, the vast majority of dictatorships and oligarchies in the world are fucking awful places to live compared to their more democratic counterparts. Even among democracies, the ones that are better places to live in also happen to be the ones that are more democratic.

are you daft, have you actually read what the original proposal was and what went through?

>Even among democracies, the ones that are better places to live in also happen to be the ones that are more democratic.
Looking at most of Europe and Canada, not for long they aren't.

>ACA
>leftist

You're talking to a guy who literally thinks we need to make food, power and housing free for anyone. The idea that some shitty milquetoast bill like the ACA was leftist is hilarious. The point still stands though that the republicans stamped their feet at the prospect of poor people not going bankrupt for going to the hospital refused to play ball until it was released in its current form

America does have a segment of the population that is leftist, sure. But that isn't what and is talking about. The country's government is pretty much center-right, and the few instances in which it swung to the left were pretty much immediately undone. A big part of the current administration's appeal is based on undoing everything that Obama and the democrats did, no matter what that was or who might be hurt in the process.

>You're talking to a guy who literally thinks we need to make food, power and housing free for anyone.
Neck yourself
You fucks were supposed to die off in the early 90's.

> not for long they aren't.
Even if Europe and Canada decline a long way, they're still significantly about oligarchies, monarchies, and dictatorships like Russia, China, and Saudi Arabia.

I think the argument was not that there weren't sincere leftists in America but rather there was no significant political representation for leftists in America. The closest it has is the Berniecrats who are still to the right of many mainstream leftists in other countries like say Jeremy Corbyn in the U.K. who is very openly a socialist

> You're talking to a guy who literally thinks we need to make food, power and housing free for anyone.
Fuck off commie shit.

>Even if Europe and Canada decline a long way, they're still significantly about oligarchies, monarchies, and dictatorships like Russia, China, and Saudi Arabia.
Not for long they aren't :^)

Also, consider that most democratic western nations also have the benefit of significant industrial buildup and infrastructure before they became democratic.

Even the US was fairly oligarchic in its early days, especially with Hamilton's nationalistic economic plans.