Clearly, you weren’t paying attention when I told you to pay attention. You have no idea what’s going on in this conversation.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/27/trump-speech-no-need-to-vote-future

“You know what? It’ll be fixed! It’ll be fine. You won’t have to vote any more, my beautiful Christians,” he said with a slight shake of his head and his right hand pressed against the left side of his chest.
He added: “I love you. Get out – you gotta get out and vote. In four years, you don’t have to vote again. We’ll have it fixed so good, you’re not gonna have to vote.”
Trump’s remarks – delivered not far from his Mar-a-Lago resort and home – were immediately met with consternation in some political quarters.
The constitutional and civil rights attorney Andrew Seidel, for instance, replied to video of Trump’s comments circulating on X by writing: “This is not subtle Christian nationalism. He’s talking about ending our democracy and installing a Christian nation.”

The stakes are a little higher this time than in 2016. The plan is bolder. The future will not be like the past.

I am not. I am a trans person saying that I shouldn’t be told to kill myself. I suggest you try paying attention to the words in front of you instead of running a keyword search for topics to get mad about.

Insurrection against a liberal government is easier than insurrection against a fascist government. I don’t want to have to deal with Trump’s Proud Boy Gestapo on top of all the challenges the revolution already faces.

Removed by mod

You voted for one genocide instead of two. And it worked. Good job. You helped. Please keep helping.

I’m sure the donkey is much more upset about losing an election than you and I are about dying in a concentration camp

deleted by creator

No, killing is still wrong when it’s pointless. You need to pay attention and take this discussion seriously. Killing that doesn’t benefit murderers is better than killing that benefits murderers, because murder shouldn’t be profitable.

Yes. I would rather the animals’ deaths be entirely pointless and bring zero revenue to the animal killers.

People will see the high price, decide not to get a turkey, and make roast potatoes or something instead. Hopefully something vegan, like roast potatoes.

I like it better when the dead animal rots on the shelves. Because it means that the company that killed an animal made a financial loss, and next quarter they might decide to reduce their stock, since people aren’t buying. If people buy the dead animal, then the animal killers make money and they keep killing animals. If it becomes more profitable to kill half the turkeys and sell at double the price, then I’m glad. That’s half as many dead turkeys. That’s a good thing. I hope the economy is going that way. And I hope people realise due to this economic trend that they don’t actually need to eat meat every day.

Oh nooo, now paying someone to take an animal’s life is expensive. Oh, the horror!

How is monke formed

Oh, the reason I moved past that subject was because I assumed that when you stopped your aggressive behaviour, it was your way of apologising. A lot of people feel shame about the idea of saying sorry, so I thought you wanted to move past your mistakes and put them behind you. I was ready to forgive your behaviour. If you still want to talk about your aphobic actions, then I’ll reiterate my earlier point that you’re erasing queerness and that your entire argument serves to vilify a child for not having sex.

I will also remind you that you accused a fellow asexual of aphobia based on completely misunderstanding what I said, and you also tried to ignore that without apologising. I’ve been very forgiving of your mistakes. While I would sincerely like to receive an apology, I also understand if it’s too difficult for you, and am happy to live and let live.

The myths say Narcissus rejected Eros and all lovers. Ancient Greeks didn’t have the word “asexual”. Expecting them to describe things in modern language is a failure of your ability to interpret things from their point of view and understand cultural differences. You’re holding ancient peoples to an impossible standard. The work of a historian or archaeologist is to understand ancient cultures well enough to interpret their words, and not to take everything literally.

There is no evidence that Narcissus was allosexual. What you’re doing is treating straight as the default, and demanding an unreasonable standard of proof to confirm that a character is queer. You’ve internalised queerphobia. And the reason I was aggressive with you, is because you began by attacking me and calling me queerphobic. You seem to have calmed down, so now let’s talk facts. Narcissus displays zero evidence of any sexual or romantic desires in the text, except for when he’s being cursed by a god who was told to make him love.

Sure you do. 90% of religious violence is done by bottoms, arguing over which imaginary top everyone should bottom for. Tops only cause problems in places like ancient egypt, where the pharaohs are gods. But in most of the world, religion is pushed not by leaders but by followers. Look at Christianity, Jesus didn’t tell anyone to worship him. In fact, if Jesus had been alive, he’d have said worshipping a physical manifestation of Elohim is idolatry. But Paul came along after Jesus died, telling everyone to worship Jesus, because Paul was the ultimate bottom. And it’s because of Paul that we have the crusades, the conquistadores, the stolen generations, and a whole lot of other acts of religious genocide. All because you bottoms couldn’t agree to disagree on which social construct to bottom for.

Is a chicken egg defined as an egg that will grow into a chicken, or as an egg laid by a chicken?

Trusting in the socially constructed idea of a higher power to keep you sober is a valid strategy according to chaos magick, but it only works if you’re a bottom. You have to have the kind of personality that wants to be dominated by Daddy. Doesn’t work if you’re a top.

in Thespeia of Boeotia (a city not far from Helikon) a child was born, Narcissus, very handsome and dismissive of both Eros and lovers.

Can you explain in what bizarro universe this is not asexuality? And can you also please explain what Narcissus did that meant he deserved to die?

You right wing trolls always want to find some excuse to say us leftists are the real bigots. So on your way to erase asexuals, demand children get into sexual relationships, and make apology for sexual harassers, you have to include some quip about your made up 4D mental gymnastics that say us asexuals are evil for admitting that one of our own might tell a sexual abuser to go commit unalive.

So although you won’t admit it upsets you when I say this, I will still offend you with the statement “asexual people deserve to be allowed to live.”