"Because drugs" is probably the closest were gonna get to context.

Yeah it does. Sure you can't have literally all the facts known to mankind, but it's quite easy to have all the facts on a given topic.

You can want to be as specific all you want. Doesn't mean the person you initially replied to is wrong, especially given there's a couple of American dictionaries who list that definition. And I'd temper your rhetoric about there being such a divide a bit too, especially when Ohio and Indiana voted for Trump the year he won. Sure seems like there were a bunch of northerners who were thinking along the same lines as those in the south...

Also, no need to apologise for being a prick, you shouldn't give two fucks about what people think of you here. I mean, why should you censor yourself for some randoms who don't know you from a bar of soap? We all have opinions, we should be able to express them how we want. We should also expect criticisms of those opinions though.

To be fair, they didn't actually say that what the others called it was smart or correct, just that they did call it that. But given nuance can be deduced from people's words, I think we can both assume that the person you're engaging with isn't playing with a full deck of cards...

Your first sentence is somewhat correct, I'd argue that dealing with any kind of absolute like you have done is incredibly dumb though. Of course being outspoken can get you bullied. It may be less likely in a university/college setting, but it's definitely gonna happen. And your second second sentence is so wrong it's almost comical. Bullying at a tertiary education level is so common that I guarantee there's a bunch of studies done on it and probably a wiki page for it too.

Edit: lol, yep, shit loads of studies (and there's plenty more to be found than just these few), and the wiki exists.

Honestly, it's worse, if you're thinking of the Chappelle's Show skit. At least the character Clayton Bigsby is also blind so he literally doesn't know he's actually white.

How can that be a classic behaviour? For one, they haven't done it, as illustrated by how hard they've cracked down on any facist behaviour since the cessation of WII. And wouldn't they have had to have done it more than once for it to be a classic behaviour? They've literally been nazists once. They'd have to have been nazists more than once, and gone through the phases you've described for any normal person to call it a "classic".

You know what is an example of a classic behaviour though? Internet "experts" who just trust what they're given and don't do any research about it. Like you've done. Want proof? Read the other reply to the comment you've replied to here. And if that's not enough, explain to me why the German foreign minister hasn't been jailed/charged/etc for these remarks. Never trust just one source.

Nah, it's easy to imagine that. Multiplayer. The Nazi team wins. Swastikas everywhere. Pretty sure it's why cod no longer has swastikas in multiplayer anymore (and if I'm remembering rightly, they kept it in the single player as they felt it wasn't offensive as it is given with a hell of a lot of context that multiplayer rounds simply don't have).

Actually, she did have HIV in the movie, the screenwriter confirmed it a few years ago. She did have hep-c in the book though.

Which is totally fine. Your usage of them as you did would be called a scare quote.

You sure as shit don't. They used the quotation marks just fine. So fine in fact, that this usage you are so against is a well established grammatical device, look up "scare quotes".

If you're American, they're not yanks as they aren't Yankees. But to the rest of us, everyone who is a citizen of the US is a yank, regardless of if they're a Yankee or not. Fair point on the rest though.

I didn't accuse them of trying to get the last word in. I love it when people do that, means I can just keep replying and frustrated them. I accused them of not being as truly offended as they claimed to be. If they were, they just would've walked away.

And you tried to insult my intelligence before, but then think that calling an Australian a cunt is insulting? Glasshouses indeed... I know what you meant though, and so what? I might be a cunt, but that doesn't change shit. They were wrong, then said more wrong stuff. I coulda been nicer about it all, and like you said, that may make me a cunt. But at least I have the decency to accept people for who they are and not try to change them, unlike you you sanctimonious prick...

Yeah, they admitted they were wrong, then they doubled down and plowed right on ahead with being wrong. Which is still more than you've contributed.

So? I never claimed it wasn't. Maybe me being able to point out someone is being an arsehole is cos I'm one. Doesn't change the fact that they're still an arsehole.

I could say the same to you. At least I contributed to the conversation. What have you done besides try and show off how small your metaphorical dick is?

We don't have the reputation Americans have. Especially online. We may be just as bad, which is a matter of personal opinion, but we sure as shit don't prove it online so often and readily as those yanks do.

They don't. Go and reread what I wrote, then come back here and quote the part of my comment where I said that.

And I again refer you back to what I previously wrote, your priorities change as you age. Mine did. I'm far more likely to have sex with a partner who's company I enjoy than someone who's company I don't enjoy. That aside, I didn't say you're gonna just start solely having sex with only people you have good company with. I didn't even say that you'd stop trying to have sex with people you were physically attracted to. I said your standards will change. Which insinuated that maybe you might not have slept with someone when you were 18yo cos they didn't meet your criteria of being attractive back then, but you might now cos your standards have changed.

Bandcamp, qobuz, bleep, Beatport, theres a number of options out there to pick up cheap digital music. And then you also have the aforementioned eBay and discogs etc. Which, true, is second hand. But even splitting the amount the artist makes from that physical release between you and the person who previously bought it, they are still making way more from you than they would from just your streams.

And sure, 216 albums doesn't seem like much. But they'd be all yours. Nobody could take them from you (well, besides if you got physically robbed I guess). There's a bunch of stuff that has disappeared off of there. Big Black, Neil Young, Joni Mitchell, Joanna Newsom, off the top of my head. You also have artists that have never been on there, Tatsuro Yamashita comes to mind. It also used to be a real problem with artists like Tool, The Beatles, AC/DC just not being there at all too. Then there's other times where I've been playing albums, and tracks are just straight up missing (I presume due to licensing issues). I remember being royally annoyed with A Cross The Universe missing a bunch of tracks ages ago, and it used to happen frequently enough with other releases that it made an impression. Plus all the classic hip-hop that is missing cos of sample clearance issues. And heaven forbid if you wanna listen to classical music, or traditional music from around the world, it's as if Spotify has never heard of the genre (both genres are represented, but it's such a poor showing that they would've done better if there was just none at all). And I understand that this isn't all on Spotify, but I've never had any of those issues with my personal collection.

Is it perfect? No. Does it reward the artist fairly? Undoubtedly. Would I take it over Spotify? Every day of the year for the rest of my life.

To be pedantic, there was DRM on music purchased on iTunes prior to 2009. Was a bit of a ballache converting that back in the day. Could've been worse though, I do like to buy most of my music physically so I didn't have to convert too much of my collection (still a ballache though cos it was still way more files than I wanted to convert).