Is an AK (assault rifle) necessary or not in principle? (poll)

I'd rather be in a cave than surrounded by slogans and the atmosphere of your "wave."

Are the emotions overwhelming you? :)

Your opinion might be interesting, but it's a dead end. You can't draw parallels or force analogies here. Honestly, the forum is dying because of the prevalence of opinions and approaches from these self-important guys, like Vic and Samurai. Everyone is constantly criticizing each other, and now we're all here to do the same.

I don't understand anything. Who is poking whom and where?

In my view of the world, people are poking each other the least on the forum – the moderation is purely symbolic, the formal hierarchy is practically non-existent, and there are all the conditions for self-realization.

But it's not quite like that here; there's more humanity, understanding, and respect.

Where do you see humanity, understanding, and respect here? I see a lot of hypocrisy.

On the forum, if I think someone is an idiot, I can openly tell them and explain why. It might be unpleasant for them, but at least they'll know that's what I think, and that my opinion is based on something. Or if it's not based on anything, they can say the same to me.

And, by the way, this doesn't prevent people from becoming friends later. There have been many examples of this – they start by swearing at each other, then they drink together and play on the same team.

Here, with all these procedural subtleties and overly sensitive moderation, it's even difficult to express your opinion. Everything is polished on the surface, but underneath, as the results of private discussions and the logs that occasionally appear on the forum show, there are many hidden conflicts.

Personally, I think your suggestion about "only tournament judges" is absolutely primitive, and so what?

The form of social organization is strongly tied to its size and the system of views of its members. People's desires are secondary; objective factors are primary.

Historical processes clearly demonstrate this. If you need to organize a million people living in a limited area, you need a strong dictatorship that suppresses local conflicts. If you need to organize a million nomads, you need a different structure, something like a representative democracy.

If you choose the wrong form, it can work, but it will be uncomfortable and, in some places, even break. The events of the last few weeks have shown an example of this. Yes, you can pretend that this is how it was planned, that ripped jeans are now fashionable, and that beauty requires sacrifice.

But history has a quality: it can judge disputing parties over time. And my personal experience shows that I am more often right in these matters than wrong.

The people created their own playground, elected AK, and support him, and you want to change everything because a few people think his decision is wrong... Isn't that crazy? Absolutely.

It's not crazy. Entire nations manage to make mistakes in presidential or leading party elections. And they do it with remarkable regularity – as soon as the old problems are solved, they immediately start looking for new adventures.

Difficult decisions will always be made, and there will always be dissatisfied people. I think there would be many more dissatisfied people if the opposite decision had been made.

You're thinking in black and white. There aren't just two solutions; there's a wide range of them. AK had many options that wouldn't have led to this mess. It's even surprising that they managed to find this particular option; I was a little shocked when, in the middle of the discussion, this particular verdict appeared. They could be nominated for a Darwin Award.