everyone contributes as best they're able with no concern for getting value out of an exchange proportional to the effort put in

How much effort went into contacting your neighbor about their roof and how much value did you get out of it?

Which, I assure you, makes him the rare exception rather than the rule.

Using someone unnecessarily peppering insults into all their responses to people who disagree them as a "rare example of someone who cares" is an odd choice.

They don't care enough to be civil with people they disagree with and even they can be altruistic. How much more altruistic can we expect all the people who don't insult everyone who disagrees with them to be?

To start with, someone arguing in good faith does not open with: "If you read a little slower, and tried a little harder, you might understand what I actually wrote. I'm gonna go ahead and lay it out here, since you seem to be struggling..."

That's a sign of someone lacking a good argument and trying to hide it behind insults. Either the person gets offended and doesn't respond, or they focus on the insult instead of the argument. Either way it's a weak attempt to get them to focus on something other than the actual argument you are making.

Secondly, speaking of Strawmen: you are insisting something cannot work unless 100% of the people are maximally altruistic, which simply isn't true. If you have 100 people, 99 are altruistic and 1 isn't, things will work out just fine. Now, what that minimum percent of autistic people needs to be is up for debate, but it does not need to be 100%. So I agree that not everybody is altruistic, but not everybody to be.

Which brings me to the third point: you going on about your own personal altruism while claiming people aren't altruistic is a bizarre choice, and if you don't see how that undermines your argument I can't help you. My guess is you do see how obviously it undermines your argument and that's why you're trying to hide it under insults. You probably also want to feel like you're very special and nicer than everyone else, but given how rude you present yourself to people who disagree with you this undermines your argument even further. Most people are not this unnecessarily rude to people who disagree with them. So if even someone like you who is below average on politeness can be altruistic, it would imply people who care enough about others to be civil during a disagreement would be at least as altruistic if not more.

You being altruistic while also being a dick implies the majority of people are altruistic; as the majority of people are not dicks, and even dicks are altruistic.

So despite your earlier claim that expecting people to help others without getting something out of it themselves was "indicative of a failed home-school education and a lack of real world experience" you have a story where you spent an hour of your time and effort to help your neighbour without getting anything out of it yourself.

Did you do all that for your neighbour because of your failed home-school education? Or your lack of real world experience?

Yes, I said the US military protects ICE

So: if the US Military protects ICE, and ICE is following illegal orders, that would mean the military is being ordered to protect criminals doing crimes, which would therefore be an illegal order.

What gets me is that despite how often LLMs hallucinate a completely incorrect answer like this, for some reason people still blindly trust them and regurgitate their output without telling you where it came from.
You would think after the first time of encountering an output that is verifiably false people would at least have some hesitancy in the output, but they still keep blindly trusting the language guessing machine.

And the zombies said "all we want to do is eat your brains, maybe we can compromise..."

You were just talking about ICE.

Okay Grandpa, time to get you to bed.

If we're lucky Flock can be the catalyst for people turning against all of the other surveillance systems as well

Something easy to take off and stash in my bag.

They are reinforcing shitty behavior by charging the cop who reported the shitty behaviour.

This is exactly why ACAB, any who aren't are punished for it until they fall in line or leave the force.

Having a standard "uniform" tells the authorities who to watch and follow before anything happens.

Better to have a general strategy of "costume you can easily change / remove."

False dichotomy

Legally forcing women to stay in relationships they want to leave is how you get "accidently" poisoned husbands.

As usual the extreme right doesn't think things through to their logical conclusion.

Replace it with a better alternative.

He wants her to have no will of her own and only follow his.

It's about being able to easily demonstrate harm to their brand by making it difficult to find them with a normal search.

Y'allQueda is working hard to introduce Sharia Law

Then do that if they pull their phone out during class.

There wasn't even a crime and they got a confession.

This should make every confession they've ever received inadmissible.