Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On October 22 2024 11:24 BlackJack wrote: Bill Maher has a theory that Republicans love the crazy politicians even more because it sends it even stronger signal to the left that "literally anything is better than what you're offering."
If that theory is correct, then it proves that Republicans are indeed delusional and out of touch, because those Republican politicians aren't better for our country or our people. Republicans are just plain wrong, if that theory is correct. I don’t know if that theory is correct or not, and I have no idea if some Republicans are trolling with purposely terrible leaders just to stick it to the libs, but they'd be hurting themselves too.
As dogmeat said, they are arguably less delusional and out of touch than the people believing a man is a woman because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits.
Just gave yourself over to the media machine, huh. Nuance, understanding, and empathy be damned. You hate to see it.
I don't know what the media machine is, but I would argue that since it would be considered inappropriate any other time in history for a man to show up to teach kids with Size Z prosthetic tits, and now we have a school board that was willing to defend it then they are the ones that are ideologically captured by some kind of machine.
My guess about "the media machine" is that you just finished making a huge deal out of the media drawing logical inferences about what Trump said about Harris and the radical left, claiming that what you wish they would do instead is to just quote Trump's exact words verbatim... but now you just made up a bunch of nonsense about what DogMeat totally didn't say, in an attempt to rescue his hateful rhetoric. You completely changed his actual post by qualifying it with "because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits". Don't pay any mind to DogMeat and his nonsense. He'll probably just continue to get warned and then eventually get banned for his shitposting. + Show Spoiler +
On October 17 2024 08:30 Razyda wrote: The same people who were few months ago in "Ave Biden" camp, now complain about not having Trump medical records. The only explanations are either shamelessness, or having memory span of a drone ant.
There was also a stark contrast between Clinton's and Trump's too, making this the third straight presidential election where Trump is hiding things: "Dr. Bardack’s letter shows what a real letter of evaluation from an internist should look like, instead of the sloppy note from Donald Trump’s doctor, Harold Bornstein. In fact, that superficial note—dashed off in five minutes while Trump’s limo waited—was so filled with superlatives that it sounded like something Trump himself likely said. Trump’s results were “astonishingly excellent” and he would be the “healthiest individual ever elected.” Little substance, big bravado and YUGE ego." https://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2016/09/14/the-surprises-in-hillary-clintons-newly-released-medical-records/
srsly?
pReSiDeNt BiDeN iS a HeAlThY, aCtIvE, rObUsT 81-yEaR-oLd MaLe, WhO rEmAiNs FiT tO sUcCeSsFuLlY eXeCuTe ThE dUtIeS oF tHe PrEsIdEnCy, To InClUdE tHoSe As ChIeF eXeCuTiVe, HeAd Of StAtE aNd CoMmAnDeR iN cHiEf.
To be clear, your ideology dictates that you accept that teacher as a woman simply for saying she is a woman. The wig and prosthetic breasts aren't even a necessary component of my post.
Fixed that for you.
Again, what's the problem here, exactly? Does your world fall apart if people don't have the genitalia you expect them to have? Do you inspect people and have them strip to verify they have the correct ones? How do you have this authority, and who gave it to you? What do you do if they have the wrong genitalia? If someone does have the wrong genitalia, but you don't find out, or they manage to escape your investigation, what happens? How do you respond to someone who changes their name? How do you respond to someone who refers to their significant other as a partner, regardless of whether they're putting the correct genitalia together?
I'm genuinely curious as to how this is supposed to work according to you.
You must be unfamiliar with this story because it was revealed later that he was indeed trolling. You've rushed to his defense by editing my post to change "he" to "she" but ironically all you did was misgender him.
Edit: to answer your question, "the problem" here is we have a troll that's permitted to wear giant prosthetic breasts with rock hard nipples that made students uncomfortable and distracted. All of this defended by a school board more keen on appearing tolerant than ensuring their children are educated.
I would be unfamiliar with that story. I suspect part of the reason is that I don't consume the same kind of media that you do. The rest of the reason I'm not familiar with your story is because you didn't cite anything for me to become familiar with. If your intent was to hold it close to your (presumably flat) chest so you could gotcha "the woke left" on the internet, it's cute, but I'm already bored. If you honestly wanted me to be aware of the context that was apparently central to your post, it's not my job to cite your sources for you. That's your problem, not mine.
I didn't include the context because it's irrelevant. My point that we should not allow teachers to wear Size Z prosthetic breasts with rock hard nipples regardless if they are man, woman, transgender man or transgender woman. Apparently some people think giant prosthetic breasts are okay for 1 of these 4 groups. The only reason I included the context now is because you felt the need to incorrectly edit my post.
On October 22 2024 11:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: [quote]
If that theory is correct, then it proves that Republicans are indeed delusional and out of touch, because those Republican politicians aren't better for our country or our people. Republicans are just plain wrong, if that theory is correct. I don’t know if that theory is correct or not, and I have no idea if some Republicans are trolling with purposely terrible leaders just to stick it to the libs, but they'd be hurting themselves too.
As dogmeat said, they are arguably less delusional and out of touch than the people believing a man is a woman because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits.
Just gave yourself over to the media machine, huh. Nuance, understanding, and empathy be damned. You hate to see it.
I don't know what the media machine is, but I would argue that since it would be considered inappropriate any other time in history for a man to show up to teach kids with Size Z prosthetic tits, and now we have a school board that was willing to defend it then they are the ones that are ideologically captured by some kind of machine.
My guess about "the media machine" is that you just finished making a huge deal out of the media drawing logical inferences about what Trump said about Harris and the radical left, claiming that what you wish they would do instead is to just quote Trump's exact words verbatim... but now you just made up a bunch of nonsense about what DogMeat totally didn't say, in an attempt to rescue his hateful rhetoric. You completely changed his actual post by qualifying it with "because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits". Don't pay any mind to DogMeat and his nonsense. He'll probably just continue to get warned and then eventually get banned for his shitposting. + Show Spoiler +
On October 17 2024 08:30 Razyda wrote: The same people who were few months ago in "Ave Biden" camp, now complain about not having Trump medical records. The only explanations are either shamelessness, or having memory span of a drone ant.
There was also a stark contrast between Clinton's and Trump's too, making this the third straight presidential election where Trump is hiding things: "Dr. Bardack’s letter shows what a real letter of evaluation from an internist should look like, instead of the sloppy note from Donald Trump’s doctor, Harold Bornstein. In fact, that superficial note—dashed off in five minutes while Trump’s limo waited—was so filled with superlatives that it sounded like something Trump himself likely said. Trump’s results were “astonishingly excellent” and he would be the “healthiest individual ever elected.” Little substance, big bravado and YUGE ego." https://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2016/09/14/the-surprises-in-hillary-clintons-newly-released-medical-records/
srsly?
pReSiDeNt BiDeN iS a HeAlThY, aCtIvE, rObUsT 81-yEaR-oLd MaLe, WhO rEmAiNs FiT tO sUcCeSsFuLlY eXeCuTe ThE dUtIeS oF tHe PrEsIdEnCy, To InClUdE tHoSe As ChIeF eXeCuTiVe, HeAd Of StAtE aNd CoMmAnDeR iN cHiEf.
To be clear, your ideology dictates that you accept that teacher as a woman simply for saying she is a woman. The wig and prosthetic breasts aren't even a necessary component of my post.
Fixed that for you.
Again, what's the problem here, exactly? Does your world fall apart if people don't have the genitalia you expect them to have? Do you inspect people and have them strip to verify they have the correct ones? How do you have this authority, and who gave it to you? What do you do if they have the wrong genitalia? If someone does have the wrong genitalia, but you don't find out, or they manage to escape your investigation, what happens? How do you respond to someone who changes their name? How do you respond to someone who refers to their significant other as a partner, regardless of whether they're putting the correct genitalia together?
I'm genuinely curious as to how this is supposed to work according to you.
You must be unfamiliar with this story because it was revealed later that he was indeed trolling. You've rushed to his defense by editing my post to change "he" to "she" but ironically all you did was misgender him.
Edit: to answer your question, "the problem" here is we have a troll that's permitted to wear giant prosthetic breasts with rock hard nipples that made students uncomfortable and distracted. All of this defended by a school board more keen on appearing tolerant than ensuring their children are educated.
I would be unfamiliar with that story. I suspect part of the reason is that I don't consume the same kind of media that you do. The rest of the reason I'm not familiar with your story is because you didn't cite anything for me to become familiar with. If your intent was to hold it close to your (presumably flat) chest so you could gotcha "the woke left" on the internet, it's cute, but I'm already bored. If you honestly wanted me to be aware of the context that was apparently central to your post, it's not my job to cite your sources for you. That's your problem, not mine.
I didn't include the context because it's irrelevant. My point that we should not allow teachers to wear Size Z prosthetic breasts with rock hard nipples regardless if they are man, woman, transgender man or transgender woman. Apparently some people think giant prosthetic breasts are okay for 1 of these 4 groups. The only reason I included the context now is because you felt the need to incorrectly edit my post.
The context was apparently highly relevant, because you singled out a corner case which makes the context relevant. This is a joke, right? My changing of the gender in your post is only incorrect because of context you knowingly withheld. You still haven't cited the story, either.
On October 23 2024 01:49 oBlade wrote: How about when they break the law? + Show Spoiler +
"Economic interests" is an interesting invocation. Remember, having economic interests is not a bad thing per se. You have them. In Twitter's case, their economic interests possibly took a huge hit, because their value as a private company is nothing near their value as a publicly traded meme stock that didn't earn a profit in 15 years. So whatever Elon has done at X must be an incredibly selfless and laudable thing, going against their own economic interests like that. But we generally do strive to prosecute companies for wrongdoing - they can't do whatever they want.
For example RTX (Raytheon) just got hit with a billion dollars in fines for corruption. Imagine how much business at usual corruption is still under the hood of the MIC. From the revolving door of government employees and lobbyists giving themselves juicy noncompetitive contracts to deliver bad shit late and over its already inflated budget. The Department Of Government Efficiency should clean this up this pattern.
The law is an ever changing thing. Social media wasn't around forever and we now live in a situation where everyone can say whatever they want all to time to everyone else. I think this can be harmful. Corruption is least of my worries at the moment. I think mis- and disinformation is one of the most pressing issues we need to tackle now because it's tearing apart social fabric. Or, maybe more aptly, it's allowing everyone to show their true colors. I don't know if that necessarily a good thing. It's something where I'm not sure we already know if everyone should be able to show their true colors all the time. But it is also platforming instances that take advantages of this possibilities to drive ideologies, to scam, to polarize etc. I don't like polarization. I like to believe I can live side by side someone I don't agree with on how to organize education for example, not to know that this person thinks the education system is a left oriented cult to brainwash our children into becoming the opposite sex so that they'll keep the plastic surgery business running.
I'm very disorganized in my thoughts right now regarding these topics because I'm trying to figure it all out, so sorry if it's not coming out all clean or formatted or even correct vocabulary or grammar. The USA, at the momemt, is basically a proof of concept for how we should go about free speech/information and it might be close to having run its course.
Also, "When they break the law" is such a low-level analysis of the situation. The question is not if corporations should be allowed to break the law. It is what the law should say about what they can or cannot do.
The law is no god-given eternal thing. It is made by people. Ideally to the benefit of all. And that warrants discussion. Saying people or corporations should just follow the law adds no value to any discussion.
I take it back. As new technologies come out, I am in favor of all new laws explicitly forbidding the government to openly or collude under the table and regulate speech and press on the new technology, to content moderate on it, to police misinformation, to fact check, or do anything other than ensure fair publishing and block monopolies according to already established law and precedent.
Otherwise, there's no reason to suggest a law per se is a good thing, that'd be a bias held by law writers, and by people under the misapprehension laws are the only way to change the world, when as you say they're written by people and the people can just as easily do different things.
By the way, out of curiosity, about how much of this thread do you think would be illegal if it were hosted on a German platform?
On October 22 2024 11:24 BlackJack wrote: Bill Maher has a theory that Republicans love the crazy politicians even more because it sends it even stronger signal to the left that "literally anything is better than what you're offering."
If that theory is correct, then it proves that Republicans are indeed delusional and out of touch, because those Republican politicians aren't better for our country or our people. Republicans are just plain wrong, if that theory is correct. I don’t know if that theory is correct or not, and I have no idea if some Republicans are trolling with purposely terrible leaders just to stick it to the libs, but they'd be hurting themselves too.
As dogmeat said, they are arguably less delusional and out of touch than the people believing a man is a woman because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits.
Just gave yourself over to the media machine, huh. Nuance, understanding, and empathy be damned. You hate to see it.
I don't know what the media machine is, but I would argue that since it would be considered inappropriate any other time in history for a man to show up to teach kids with Size Z prosthetic tits, and now we have a school board that was willing to defend it then they are the ones that are ideologically captured by some kind of machine.
My guess about "the media machine" is that you just finished making a huge deal out of the media drawing logical inferences about what Trump said about Harris and the radical left, claiming that what you wish they would do instead is to just quote Trump's exact words verbatim... but now you just made up a bunch of nonsense about what DogMeat totally didn't say, in an attempt to rescue his hateful rhetoric. You completely changed his actual post by qualifying it with "because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits". Don't pay any mind to DogMeat and his nonsense. He'll probably just continue to get warned and then eventually get banned for his shitposting. + Show Spoiler +
On October 17 2024 08:30 Razyda wrote: The same people who were few months ago in "Ave Biden" camp, now complain about not having Trump medical records. The only explanations are either shamelessness, or having memory span of a drone ant.
There was also a stark contrast between Clinton's and Trump's too, making this the third straight presidential election where Trump is hiding things: "Dr. Bardack’s letter shows what a real letter of evaluation from an internist should look like, instead of the sloppy note from Donald Trump’s doctor, Harold Bornstein. In fact, that superficial note—dashed off in five minutes while Trump’s limo waited—was so filled with superlatives that it sounded like something Trump himself likely said. Trump’s results were “astonishingly excellent” and he would be the “healthiest individual ever elected.” Little substance, big bravado and YUGE ego." https://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2016/09/14/the-surprises-in-hillary-clintons-newly-released-medical-records/
srsly?
pReSiDeNt BiDeN iS a HeAlThY, aCtIvE, rObUsT 81-yEaR-oLd MaLe, WhO rEmAiNs FiT tO sUcCeSsFuLlY eXeCuTe ThE dUtIeS oF tHe PrEsIdEnCy, To InClUdE tHoSe As ChIeF eXeCuTiVe, HeAd Of StAtE aNd CoMmAnDeR iN cHiEf.
To be clear, your ideology dictates that you accept that teacher as a woman simply for saying she is a woman. The wig and prosthetic breasts aren't even a necessary component of my post.
Fixed that for you.
Again, what's the problem here, exactly? Does your world fall apart if people don't have the genitalia you expect them to have? Do you inspect people and have them strip to verify they have the correct ones? How do you have this authority, and who gave it to you? What do you do if they have the wrong genitalia? If someone does have the wrong genitalia, but you don't find out, or they manage to escape your investigation, what happens? How do you respond to someone who changes their name? How do you respond to someone who refers to their significant other as a partner, regardless of whether they're putting the correct genitalia together?
I'm genuinely curious as to how this is supposed to work according to you.
You must be unfamiliar with this story because it was revealed later that he was indeed trolling. You've rushed to his defense by editing my post to change "he" to "she" but ironically all you did was misgender him.
Edit: to answer your question, "the problem" here is we have a troll that's permitted to wear giant prosthetic breasts with rock hard nipples that made students uncomfortable and distracted. All of this defended by a school board more keen on appearing tolerant than ensuring their children are educated.
I remember the story and I'm pretty sure the bomb threats and protests by outsiders were more distracting to students than the plastic nipples. IIRC the school didn't have a professional dress code, a biological woman could have done the exact same thing to troll or try to fish for a lawsuit.
Why? Is it so beyond your imagination that Size Z prosthetic breasts with rock hard nipples can be viewed as beyond something sexual?
There can be a limit to what we should allow or not for our children, but breasts are like so banal it's not even funny. I can understand it upsets people. I can understand it's not appropriate in a certain context. I can also understand that we can look beyond that. You only decide it's a big deal if it's a big deal for you.
You think it's a big deal if you understand all the insidious things that these size z prosthetic breasts can represent. You decide what these fake tits stand for. And when you understand that you decide what it stands for, you also have the power to not let it have any power. Again, social construct. Grow up.
On October 23 2024 01:49 oBlade wrote: How about when they break the law? + Show Spoiler +
"Economic interests" is an interesting invocation. Remember, having economic interests is not a bad thing per se. You have them. In Twitter's case, their economic interests possibly took a huge hit, because their value as a private company is nothing near their value as a publicly traded meme stock that didn't earn a profit in 15 years. So whatever Elon has done at X must be an incredibly selfless and laudable thing, going against their own economic interests like that. But we generally do strive to prosecute companies for wrongdoing - they can't do whatever they want.
For example RTX (Raytheon) just got hit with a billion dollars in fines for corruption. Imagine how much business at usual corruption is still under the hood of the MIC. From the revolving door of government employees and lobbyists giving themselves juicy noncompetitive contracts to deliver bad shit late and over its already inflated budget. The Department Of Government Efficiency should clean this up this pattern.
The law is an ever changing thing. Social media wasn't around forever and we now live in a situation where everyone can say whatever they want all to time to everyone else. I think this can be harmful. Corruption is least of my worries at the moment. I think mis- and disinformation is one of the most pressing issues we need to tackle now because it's tearing apart social fabric. Or, maybe more aptly, it's allowing everyone to show their true colors. I don't know if that necessarily a good thing. It's something where I'm not sure we already know if everyone should be able to show their true colors all the time. But it is also platforming instances that take advantages of this possibilities to drive ideologies, to scam, to polarize etc. I don't like polarization. I like to believe I can live side by side someone I don't agree with on how to organize education for example, not to know that this person thinks the education system is a left oriented cult to brainwash our children into becoming the opposite sex so that they'll keep the plastic surgery business running.
I'm very disorganized in my thoughts right now regarding these topics because I'm trying to figure it all out, so sorry if it's not coming out all clean or formatted or even correct vocabulary or grammar. The USA, at the momemt, is basically a proof of concept for how we should go about free speech/information and it might be close to having run its course.
Also, "When they break the law" is such a low-level analysis of the situation. The question is not if corporations should be allowed to break the law. It is what the law should say about what they can or cannot do.
The law is no god-given eternal thing. It is made by people. Ideally to the benefit of all. And that warrants discussion. Saying people or corporations should just follow the law adds no value to any discussion.
By the way, out of curiosity, about how much of this thread do you think would be illegal if it were hosted on a German platform?
As dogmeat said, they are arguably less delusional and out of touch than the people believing a man is a woman because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits.
Just gave yourself over to the media machine, huh. Nuance, understanding, and empathy be damned. You hate to see it.
I don't know what the media machine is, but I would argue that since it would be considered inappropriate any other time in history for a man to show up to teach kids with Size Z prosthetic tits, and now we have a school board that was willing to defend it then they are the ones that are ideologically captured by some kind of machine.
My guess about "the media machine" is that you just finished making a huge deal out of the media drawing logical inferences about what Trump said about Harris and the radical left, claiming that what you wish they would do instead is to just quote Trump's exact words verbatim... but now you just made up a bunch of nonsense about what DogMeat totally didn't say, in an attempt to rescue his hateful rhetoric. You completely changed his actual post by qualifying it with "because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits". Don't pay any mind to DogMeat and his nonsense. He'll probably just continue to get warned and then eventually get banned for his shitposting. + Show Spoiler +
On October 17 2024 08:30 Razyda wrote: The same people who were few months ago in "Ave Biden" camp, now complain about not having Trump medical records. The only explanations are either shamelessness, or having memory span of a drone ant.
There was also a stark contrast between Clinton's and Trump's too, making this the third straight presidential election where Trump is hiding things: "Dr. Bardack’s letter shows what a real letter of evaluation from an internist should look like, instead of the sloppy note from Donald Trump’s doctor, Harold Bornstein. In fact, that superficial note—dashed off in five minutes while Trump’s limo waited—was so filled with superlatives that it sounded like something Trump himself likely said. Trump’s results were “astonishingly excellent” and he would be the “healthiest individual ever elected.” Little substance, big bravado and YUGE ego." https://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2016/09/14/the-surprises-in-hillary-clintons-newly-released-medical-records/
srsly?
pReSiDeNt BiDeN iS a HeAlThY, aCtIvE, rObUsT 81-yEaR-oLd MaLe, WhO rEmAiNs FiT tO sUcCeSsFuLlY eXeCuTe ThE dUtIeS oF tHe PrEsIdEnCy, To InClUdE tHoSe As ChIeF eXeCuTiVe, HeAd Of StAtE aNd CoMmAnDeR iN cHiEf.
To be clear, your ideology dictates that you accept that teacher as a woman simply for saying she is a woman. The wig and prosthetic breasts aren't even a necessary component of my post.
Fixed that for you.
Again, what's the problem here, exactly? Does your world fall apart if people don't have the genitalia you expect them to have? Do you inspect people and have them strip to verify they have the correct ones? How do you have this authority, and who gave it to you? What do you do if they have the wrong genitalia? If someone does have the wrong genitalia, but you don't find out, or they manage to escape your investigation, what happens? How do you respond to someone who changes their name? How do you respond to someone who refers to their significant other as a partner, regardless of whether they're putting the correct genitalia together?
I'm genuinely curious as to how this is supposed to work according to you.
You must be unfamiliar with this story because it was revealed later that he was indeed trolling. You've rushed to his defense by editing my post to change "he" to "she" but ironically all you did was misgender him.
Edit: to answer your question, "the problem" here is we have a troll that's permitted to wear giant prosthetic breasts with rock hard nipples that made students uncomfortable and distracted. All of this defended by a school board more keen on appearing tolerant than ensuring their children are educated.
I would be unfamiliar with that story. I suspect part of the reason is that I don't consume the same kind of media that you do. The rest of the reason I'm not familiar with your story is because you didn't cite anything for me to become familiar with. If your intent was to hold it close to your (presumably flat) chest so you could gotcha "the woke left" on the internet, it's cute, but I'm already bored. If you honestly wanted me to be aware of the context that was apparently central to your post, it's not my job to cite your sources for you. That's your problem, not mine.
I didn't include the context because it's irrelevant. My point that we should not allow teachers to wear Size Z prosthetic breasts with rock hard nipples regardless if they are man, woman, transgender man or transgender woman. Apparently some people think giant prosthetic breasts are okay for 1 of these 4 groups. The only reason I included the context now is because you felt the need to incorrectly edit my post.
The context was apparently highly relevant, because you singled out a corner case which makes the context relevant. This is a joke, right? My changing of the gender in your post is only incorrect because of context you knowingly withheld. You still haven't cited the story, either.
Quit the games.
To make matters worse, it's not even a corner case. It's not a case at all. BlackJack admitted that this person was a troll and not even a part of the trans community, so BlackJack (and, according to BlackJack, also DogMeat) have decided to attack trans-people because of something a cis-person did.
That would be like if Republican Person X pretended to be a sincere Democrat for a short while, said or did a bunch of terrible things as a (fake) Harris supporter, then got caught and revealed that they were truly a Republican, but then a bunch of people concluded that Democrats are bad based on what that Republican did.
On October 22 2024 17:13 Manifesto7 wrote: [quote]
Just gave yourself over to the media machine, huh. Nuance, understanding, and empathy be damned. You hate to see it.
I don't know what the media machine is, but I would argue that since it would be considered inappropriate any other time in history for a man to show up to teach kids with Size Z prosthetic tits, and now we have a school board that was willing to defend it then they are the ones that are ideologically captured by some kind of machine.
My guess about "the media machine" is that you just finished making a huge deal out of the media drawing logical inferences about what Trump said about Harris and the radical left, claiming that what you wish they would do instead is to just quote Trump's exact words verbatim... but now you just made up a bunch of nonsense about what DogMeat totally didn't say, in an attempt to rescue his hateful rhetoric. You completely changed his actual post by qualifying it with "because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits". Don't pay any mind to DogMeat and his nonsense. He'll probably just continue to get warned and then eventually get banned for his shitposting. + Show Spoiler +
On October 17 2024 08:30 Razyda wrote: The same people who were few months ago in "Ave Biden" camp, now complain about not having Trump medical records. The only explanations are either shamelessness, or having memory span of a drone ant.
There was also a stark contrast between Clinton's and Trump's too, making this the third straight presidential election where Trump is hiding things: "Dr. Bardack’s letter shows what a real letter of evaluation from an internist should look like, instead of the sloppy note from Donald Trump’s doctor, Harold Bornstein. In fact, that superficial note—dashed off in five minutes while Trump’s limo waited—was so filled with superlatives that it sounded like something Trump himself likely said. Trump’s results were “astonishingly excellent” and he would be the “healthiest individual ever elected.” Little substance, big bravado and YUGE ego." https://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2016/09/14/the-surprises-in-hillary-clintons-newly-released-medical-records/
srsly?
pReSiDeNt BiDeN iS a HeAlThY, aCtIvE, rObUsT 81-yEaR-oLd MaLe, WhO rEmAiNs FiT tO sUcCeSsFuLlY eXeCuTe ThE dUtIeS oF tHe PrEsIdEnCy, To InClUdE tHoSe As ChIeF eXeCuTiVe, HeAd Of StAtE aNd CoMmAnDeR iN cHiEf.
To be clear, your ideology dictates that you accept that teacher as a woman simply for saying she is a woman. The wig and prosthetic breasts aren't even a necessary component of my post.
Fixed that for you.
Again, what's the problem here, exactly? Does your world fall apart if people don't have the genitalia you expect them to have? Do you inspect people and have them strip to verify they have the correct ones? How do you have this authority, and who gave it to you? What do you do if they have the wrong genitalia? If someone does have the wrong genitalia, but you don't find out, or they manage to escape your investigation, what happens? How do you respond to someone who changes their name? How do you respond to someone who refers to their significant other as a partner, regardless of whether they're putting the correct genitalia together?
I'm genuinely curious as to how this is supposed to work according to you.
You must be unfamiliar with this story because it was revealed later that he was indeed trolling. You've rushed to his defense by editing my post to change "he" to "she" but ironically all you did was misgender him.
Edit: to answer your question, "the problem" here is we have a troll that's permitted to wear giant prosthetic breasts with rock hard nipples that made students uncomfortable and distracted. All of this defended by a school board more keen on appearing tolerant than ensuring their children are educated.
I would be unfamiliar with that story. I suspect part of the reason is that I don't consume the same kind of media that you do. The rest of the reason I'm not familiar with your story is because you didn't cite anything for me to become familiar with. If your intent was to hold it close to your (presumably flat) chest so you could gotcha "the woke left" on the internet, it's cute, but I'm already bored. If you honestly wanted me to be aware of the context that was apparently central to your post, it's not my job to cite your sources for you. That's your problem, not mine.
I didn't include the context because it's irrelevant. My point that we should not allow teachers to wear Size Z prosthetic breasts with rock hard nipples regardless if they are man, woman, transgender man or transgender woman. Apparently some people think giant prosthetic breasts are okay for 1 of these 4 groups. The only reason I included the context now is because you felt the need to incorrectly edit my post.
The context was apparently highly relevant, because you singled out a corner case which makes the context relevant. This is a joke, right? My changing of the gender in your post is only incorrect because of context you knowingly withheld. You still haven't cited the story, either.
Quit the games.
To make matters worse, it's not even a corner case. It's not a case at all. BlackJack admitted that this person was a troll and not even a part of the trans community, so BlackJack (and, according to BlackJack, also DogMeat) have decided to attack trans-people because of something a cis-person did.
That would be like if Republican Person X pretended to be a sincere Democrat for a short while, said or did a bunch of terrible things as a (fake) Harris supporter, then got caught and revealed that they were truly a Republican, but then a bunch of people concluded that Democrats are bad based on what that Republican did.
I was very clearly attacking the ideology of the school board but I understand it's necessary for you to frame that as an attack on trans people for the sake of the arguments you wish to use
I don't know what the media machine is, but I would argue that since it would be considered inappropriate any other time in history for a man to show up to teach kids with Size Z prosthetic tits, and now we have a school board that was willing to defend it then they are the ones that are ideologically captured by some kind of machine.
My guess about "the media machine" is that you just finished making a huge deal out of the media drawing logical inferences about what Trump said about Harris and the radical left, claiming that what you wish they would do instead is to just quote Trump's exact words verbatim... but now you just made up a bunch of nonsense about what DogMeat totally didn't say, in an attempt to rescue his hateful rhetoric. You completely changed his actual post by qualifying it with "because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits". Don't pay any mind to DogMeat and his nonsense. He'll probably just continue to get warned and then eventually get banned for his shitposting. + Show Spoiler +
On October 17 2024 08:30 Razyda wrote: The same people who were few months ago in "Ave Biden" camp, now complain about not having Trump medical records. The only explanations are either shamelessness, or having memory span of a drone ant.
There was also a stark contrast between Clinton's and Trump's too, making this the third straight presidential election where Trump is hiding things: "Dr. Bardack’s letter shows what a real letter of evaluation from an internist should look like, instead of the sloppy note from Donald Trump’s doctor, Harold Bornstein. In fact, that superficial note—dashed off in five minutes while Trump’s limo waited—was so filled with superlatives that it sounded like something Trump himself likely said. Trump’s results were “astonishingly excellent” and he would be the “healthiest individual ever elected.” Little substance, big bravado and YUGE ego." https://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2016/09/14/the-surprises-in-hillary-clintons-newly-released-medical-records/
srsly?
pReSiDeNt BiDeN iS a HeAlThY, aCtIvE, rObUsT 81-yEaR-oLd MaLe, WhO rEmAiNs FiT tO sUcCeSsFuLlY eXeCuTe ThE dUtIeS oF tHe PrEsIdEnCy, To InClUdE tHoSe As ChIeF eXeCuTiVe, HeAd Of StAtE aNd CoMmAnDeR iN cHiEf.
To be clear, your ideology dictates that you accept that teacher as a woman simply for saying she is a woman. The wig and prosthetic breasts aren't even a necessary component of my post.
Fixed that for you.
Again, what's the problem here, exactly? Does your world fall apart if people don't have the genitalia you expect them to have? Do you inspect people and have them strip to verify they have the correct ones? How do you have this authority, and who gave it to you? What do you do if they have the wrong genitalia? If someone does have the wrong genitalia, but you don't find out, or they manage to escape your investigation, what happens? How do you respond to someone who changes their name? How do you respond to someone who refers to their significant other as a partner, regardless of whether they're putting the correct genitalia together?
I'm genuinely curious as to how this is supposed to work according to you.
You must be unfamiliar with this story because it was revealed later that he was indeed trolling. You've rushed to his defense by editing my post to change "he" to "she" but ironically all you did was misgender him.
Edit: to answer your question, "the problem" here is we have a troll that's permitted to wear giant prosthetic breasts with rock hard nipples that made students uncomfortable and distracted. All of this defended by a school board more keen on appearing tolerant than ensuring their children are educated.
I would be unfamiliar with that story. I suspect part of the reason is that I don't consume the same kind of media that you do. The rest of the reason I'm not familiar with your story is because you didn't cite anything for me to become familiar with. If your intent was to hold it close to your (presumably flat) chest so you could gotcha "the woke left" on the internet, it's cute, but I'm already bored. If you honestly wanted me to be aware of the context that was apparently central to your post, it's not my job to cite your sources for you. That's your problem, not mine.
I didn't include the context because it's irrelevant. My point that we should not allow teachers to wear Size Z prosthetic breasts with rock hard nipples regardless if they are man, woman, transgender man or transgender woman. Apparently some people think giant prosthetic breasts are okay for 1 of these 4 groups. The only reason I included the context now is because you felt the need to incorrectly edit my post.
The context was apparently highly relevant, because you singled out a corner case which makes the context relevant. This is a joke, right? My changing of the gender in your post is only incorrect because of context you knowingly withheld. You still haven't cited the story, either.
Quit the games.
To make matters worse, it's not even a corner case. It's not a case at all. BlackJack admitted that this person was a troll and not even a part of the trans community, so BlackJack (and, according to BlackJack, also DogMeat) have decided to attack trans-people because of something a cis-person did.
That would be like if Republican Person X pretended to be a sincere Democrat for a short while, said or did a bunch of terrible things as a (fake) Harris supporter, then got caught and revealed that they were truly a Republican, but then a bunch of people concluded that Democrats are bad based on what that Republican did.
I was very clearly attacking the ideology of the school board but I understand it's necessary for you to frame that as an attack on trans people for the sake of the arguments you wish to use
On October 22 2024 11:24 BlackJack wrote: Bill Maher has a theory that Republicans love the crazy politicians even more because it sends it even stronger signal to the left that "literally anything is better than what you're offering."
If that theory is correct, then it proves that Republicans are indeed delusional and out of touch, because those Republican politicians aren't better for our country or our people. Republicans are just plain wrong, if that theory is correct. I don’t know if that theory is correct or not, and I have no idea if some Republicans are trolling with purposely terrible leaders just to stick it to the libs, but they'd be hurting themselves too.
As dogmeat said, they are arguably less delusional and out of touch than the people believing a man is a woman because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits.
On October 22 2024 21:18 DOgMeAt wrote: except this is about tim waltz and tampons for mens toilets and locker rooms. so you are either uninformed or deflecting
Nice try though! That's what you get for tying your wagon to this other anti-trans person.
I don't know what the media machine is, but I would argue that since it would be considered inappropriate any other time in history for a man to show up to teach kids with Size Z prosthetic tits, and now we have a school board that was willing to defend it then they are the ones that are ideologically captured by some kind of machine.
My guess about "the media machine" is that you just finished making a huge deal out of the media drawing logical inferences about what Trump said about Harris and the radical left, claiming that what you wish they would do instead is to just quote Trump's exact words verbatim... but now you just made up a bunch of nonsense about what DogMeat totally didn't say, in an attempt to rescue his hateful rhetoric. You completely changed his actual post by qualifying it with "because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits". Don't pay any mind to DogMeat and his nonsense. He'll probably just continue to get warned and then eventually get banned for his shitposting. + Show Spoiler +
On October 17 2024 08:30 Razyda wrote: The same people who were few months ago in "Ave Biden" camp, now complain about not having Trump medical records. The only explanations are either shamelessness, or having memory span of a drone ant.
There was also a stark contrast between Clinton's and Trump's too, making this the third straight presidential election where Trump is hiding things: "Dr. Bardack’s letter shows what a real letter of evaluation from an internist should look like, instead of the sloppy note from Donald Trump’s doctor, Harold Bornstein. In fact, that superficial note—dashed off in five minutes while Trump’s limo waited—was so filled with superlatives that it sounded like something Trump himself likely said. Trump’s results were “astonishingly excellent” and he would be the “healthiest individual ever elected.” Little substance, big bravado and YUGE ego." https://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2016/09/14/the-surprises-in-hillary-clintons-newly-released-medical-records/
srsly?
pReSiDeNt BiDeN iS a HeAlThY, aCtIvE, rObUsT 81-yEaR-oLd MaLe, WhO rEmAiNs FiT tO sUcCeSsFuLlY eXeCuTe ThE dUtIeS oF tHe PrEsIdEnCy, To InClUdE tHoSe As ChIeF eXeCuTiVe, HeAd Of StAtE aNd CoMmAnDeR iN cHiEf.
To be clear, your ideology dictates that you accept that teacher as a woman simply for saying she is a woman. The wig and prosthetic breasts aren't even a necessary component of my post.
Fixed that for you.
Again, what's the problem here, exactly? Does your world fall apart if people don't have the genitalia you expect them to have? Do you inspect people and have them strip to verify they have the correct ones? How do you have this authority, and who gave it to you? What do you do if they have the wrong genitalia? If someone does have the wrong genitalia, but you don't find out, or they manage to escape your investigation, what happens? How do you respond to someone who changes their name? How do you respond to someone who refers to their significant other as a partner, regardless of whether they're putting the correct genitalia together?
I'm genuinely curious as to how this is supposed to work according to you.
You must be unfamiliar with this story because it was revealed later that he was indeed trolling. You've rushed to his defense by editing my post to change "he" to "she" but ironically all you did was misgender him.
Edit: to answer your question, "the problem" here is we have a troll that's permitted to wear giant prosthetic breasts with rock hard nipples that made students uncomfortable and distracted. All of this defended by a school board more keen on appearing tolerant than ensuring their children are educated.
I would be unfamiliar with that story. I suspect part of the reason is that I don't consume the same kind of media that you do. The rest of the reason I'm not familiar with your story is because you didn't cite anything for me to become familiar with. If your intent was to hold it close to your (presumably flat) chest so you could gotcha "the woke left" on the internet, it's cute, but I'm already bored. If you honestly wanted me to be aware of the context that was apparently central to your post, it's not my job to cite your sources for you. That's your problem, not mine.
I didn't include the context because it's irrelevant. My point that we should not allow teachers to wear Size Z prosthetic breasts with rock hard nipples regardless if they are man, woman, transgender man or transgender woman. Apparently some people think giant prosthetic breasts are okay for 1 of these 4 groups. The only reason I included the context now is because you felt the need to incorrectly edit my post.
The context was apparently highly relevant, because you singled out a corner case which makes the context relevant. This is a joke, right? My changing of the gender in your post is only incorrect because of context you knowingly withheld. You still haven't cited the story, either.
Quit the games.
To make matters worse, it's not even a corner case. It's not a case at all. BlackJack admitted that this person was a troll and not even a part of the trans community, so BlackJack (and, according to BlackJack, also DogMeat) have decided to attack trans-people because of something a cis-person did.
That would be like if Republican Person X pretended to be a sincere Democrat for a short while, said or did a bunch of terrible things as a (fake) Harris supporter, then got caught and revealed that they were truly a Republican, but then a bunch of people concluded that Democrats are bad based on what that Republican did.
I was very clearly attacking the ideology of the school board but I understand it's necessary for you to frame that as an attack on trans people for the sake of the arguments you wish to use
If railing against "men who think they're women" isn't supposed to be an attack against trans people, then you need to re-evaluate what "very" and "clearly" mean. 'cus you don't got it.
Still no citation of the story, either, all we're going off of is your description. Must've forgotten to source your story that I was somehow supposed to be aware of when I was being Incorrect On The Internet when you were busy shifting them goalposts instead.
Its a common refrain to reference statements they made as facts and BJ loves reframing the argument until you have no idea what he's talking about anymore.
If you remember back to when I called trump saying that electric trucks were going to be two and a half times the weight of gas trucks he quoted a statement of engineers saying that heavier vehicles were going to damage roads more. I showed him the math where electric trucks were two and a half tons heavier and I showed it as him dementia addled confusing it for two and a half times the weight. It didn't address the clearly insane part of what Trump was saying but he still considered it a win and that he successfully argued against it. He refuses to respond to questions in any way they're asked of him and instead substitutes the question for one he would rather answer.
On October 23 2024 02:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: [quote]
My guess about "the media machine" is that you just finished making a huge deal out of the media drawing logical inferences about what Trump said about Harris and the radical left, claiming that what you wish they would do instead is to just quote Trump's exact words verbatim... but now you just made up a bunch of nonsense about what DogMeat totally didn't say, in an attempt to rescue his hateful rhetoric. You completely changed his actual post by qualifying it with "because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits". Don't pay any mind to DogMeat and his nonsense. He'll probably just continue to get warned and then eventually get banned for his shitposting. + Show Spoiler +
On October 17 2024 08:30 Razyda wrote: The same people who were few months ago in "Ave Biden" camp, now complain about not having Trump medical records. The only explanations are either shamelessness, or having memory span of a drone ant.
There was also a stark contrast between Clinton's and Trump's too, making this the third straight presidential election where Trump is hiding things: "Dr. Bardack’s letter shows what a real letter of evaluation from an internist should look like, instead of the sloppy note from Donald Trump’s doctor, Harold Bornstein. In fact, that superficial note—dashed off in five minutes while Trump’s limo waited—was so filled with superlatives that it sounded like something Trump himself likely said. Trump’s results were “astonishingly excellent” and he would be the “healthiest individual ever elected.” Little substance, big bravado and YUGE ego." https://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2016/09/14/the-surprises-in-hillary-clintons-newly-released-medical-records/
srsly?
pReSiDeNt BiDeN iS a HeAlThY, aCtIvE, rObUsT 81-yEaR-oLd MaLe, WhO rEmAiNs FiT tO sUcCeSsFuLlY eXeCuTe ThE dUtIeS oF tHe PrEsIdEnCy, To InClUdE tHoSe As ChIeF eXeCuTiVe, HeAd Of StAtE aNd CoMmAnDeR iN cHiEf.
To be clear, your ideology dictates that you accept that teacher as a woman simply for saying she is a woman. The wig and prosthetic breasts aren't even a necessary component of my post.
Fixed that for you.
Again, what's the problem here, exactly? Does your world fall apart if people don't have the genitalia you expect them to have? Do you inspect people and have them strip to verify they have the correct ones? How do you have this authority, and who gave it to you? What do you do if they have the wrong genitalia? If someone does have the wrong genitalia, but you don't find out, or they manage to escape your investigation, what happens? How do you respond to someone who changes their name? How do you respond to someone who refers to their significant other as a partner, regardless of whether they're putting the correct genitalia together?
I'm genuinely curious as to how this is supposed to work according to you.
You must be unfamiliar with this story because it was revealed later that he was indeed trolling. You've rushed to his defense by editing my post to change "he" to "she" but ironically all you did was misgender him.
Edit: to answer your question, "the problem" here is we have a troll that's permitted to wear giant prosthetic breasts with rock hard nipples that made students uncomfortable and distracted. All of this defended by a school board more keen on appearing tolerant than ensuring their children are educated.
I would be unfamiliar with that story. I suspect part of the reason is that I don't consume the same kind of media that you do. The rest of the reason I'm not familiar with your story is because you didn't cite anything for me to become familiar with. If your intent was to hold it close to your (presumably flat) chest so you could gotcha "the woke left" on the internet, it's cute, but I'm already bored. If you honestly wanted me to be aware of the context that was apparently central to your post, it's not my job to cite your sources for you. That's your problem, not mine.
I didn't include the context because it's irrelevant. My point that we should not allow teachers to wear Size Z prosthetic breasts with rock hard nipples regardless if they are man, woman, transgender man or transgender woman. Apparently some people think giant prosthetic breasts are okay for 1 of these 4 groups. The only reason I included the context now is because you felt the need to incorrectly edit my post.
The context was apparently highly relevant, because you singled out a corner case which makes the context relevant. This is a joke, right? My changing of the gender in your post is only incorrect because of context you knowingly withheld. You still haven't cited the story, either.
Quit the games.
To make matters worse, it's not even a corner case. It's not a case at all. BlackJack admitted that this person was a troll and not even a part of the trans community, so BlackJack (and, according to BlackJack, also DogMeat) have decided to attack trans-people because of something a cis-person did.
That would be like if Republican Person X pretended to be a sincere Democrat for a short while, said or did a bunch of terrible things as a (fake) Harris supporter, then got caught and revealed that they were truly a Republican, but then a bunch of people concluded that Democrats are bad based on what that Republican did.
I was very clearly attacking the ideology of the school board but I understand it's necessary for you to frame that as an attack on trans people for the sake of the arguments you wish to use
On October 22 2024 11:24 BlackJack wrote: Bill Maher has a theory that Republicans love the crazy politicians even more because it sends it even stronger signal to the left that "literally anything is better than what you're offering."
If that theory is correct, then it proves that Republicans are indeed delusional and out of touch, because those Republican politicians aren't better for our country or our people. Republicans are just plain wrong, if that theory is correct. I don’t know if that theory is correct or not, and I have no idea if some Republicans are trolling with purposely terrible leaders just to stick it to the libs, but they'd be hurting themselves too.
As dogmeat said, they are arguably less delusional and out of touch than the people believing a man is a woman because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits.
On October 22 2024 21:18 DOgMeAt wrote: except this is about tim waltz and tampons for mens toilets and locker rooms. so you are either uninformed or deflecting
Nice try though! That's what you get for tying your wagon to this other anti-trans person.
I don't even know what your point is. Quoting a post I made followed by some unrelated post dogmeat made about tampons as if to say "aha! got you!" okay...
On October 23 2024 02:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: [quote]
My guess about "the media machine" is that you just finished making a huge deal out of the media drawing logical inferences about what Trump said about Harris and the radical left, claiming that what you wish they would do instead is to just quote Trump's exact words verbatim... but now you just made up a bunch of nonsense about what DogMeat totally didn't say, in an attempt to rescue his hateful rhetoric. You completely changed his actual post by qualifying it with "because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits". Don't pay any mind to DogMeat and his nonsense. He'll probably just continue to get warned and then eventually get banned for his shitposting. + Show Spoiler +
On October 17 2024 08:30 Razyda wrote: The same people who were few months ago in "Ave Biden" camp, now complain about not having Trump medical records. The only explanations are either shamelessness, or having memory span of a drone ant.
There was also a stark contrast between Clinton's and Trump's too, making this the third straight presidential election where Trump is hiding things: "Dr. Bardack’s letter shows what a real letter of evaluation from an internist should look like, instead of the sloppy note from Donald Trump’s doctor, Harold Bornstein. In fact, that superficial note—dashed off in five minutes while Trump’s limo waited—was so filled with superlatives that it sounded like something Trump himself likely said. Trump’s results were “astonishingly excellent” and he would be the “healthiest individual ever elected.” Little substance, big bravado and YUGE ego." https://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2016/09/14/the-surprises-in-hillary-clintons-newly-released-medical-records/
srsly?
pReSiDeNt BiDeN iS a HeAlThY, aCtIvE, rObUsT 81-yEaR-oLd MaLe, WhO rEmAiNs FiT tO sUcCeSsFuLlY eXeCuTe ThE dUtIeS oF tHe PrEsIdEnCy, To InClUdE tHoSe As ChIeF eXeCuTiVe, HeAd Of StAtE aNd CoMmAnDeR iN cHiEf.
To be clear, your ideology dictates that you accept that teacher as a woman simply for saying she is a woman. The wig and prosthetic breasts aren't even a necessary component of my post.
Fixed that for you.
Again, what's the problem here, exactly? Does your world fall apart if people don't have the genitalia you expect them to have? Do you inspect people and have them strip to verify they have the correct ones? How do you have this authority, and who gave it to you? What do you do if they have the wrong genitalia? If someone does have the wrong genitalia, but you don't find out, or they manage to escape your investigation, what happens? How do you respond to someone who changes their name? How do you respond to someone who refers to their significant other as a partner, regardless of whether they're putting the correct genitalia together?
I'm genuinely curious as to how this is supposed to work according to you.
You must be unfamiliar with this story because it was revealed later that he was indeed trolling. You've rushed to his defense by editing my post to change "he" to "she" but ironically all you did was misgender him.
Edit: to answer your question, "the problem" here is we have a troll that's permitted to wear giant prosthetic breasts with rock hard nipples that made students uncomfortable and distracted. All of this defended by a school board more keen on appearing tolerant than ensuring their children are educated.
I would be unfamiliar with that story. I suspect part of the reason is that I don't consume the same kind of media that you do. The rest of the reason I'm not familiar with your story is because you didn't cite anything for me to become familiar with. If your intent was to hold it close to your (presumably flat) chest so you could gotcha "the woke left" on the internet, it's cute, but I'm already bored. If you honestly wanted me to be aware of the context that was apparently central to your post, it's not my job to cite your sources for you. That's your problem, not mine.
I didn't include the context because it's irrelevant. My point that we should not allow teachers to wear Size Z prosthetic breasts with rock hard nipples regardless if they are man, woman, transgender man or transgender woman. Apparently some people think giant prosthetic breasts are okay for 1 of these 4 groups. The only reason I included the context now is because you felt the need to incorrectly edit my post.
The context was apparently highly relevant, because you singled out a corner case which makes the context relevant. This is a joke, right? My changing of the gender in your post is only incorrect because of context you knowingly withheld. You still haven't cited the story, either.
Quit the games.
To make matters worse, it's not even a corner case. It's not a case at all. BlackJack admitted that this person was a troll and not even a part of the trans community, so BlackJack (and, according to BlackJack, also DogMeat) have decided to attack trans-people because of something a cis-person did.
That would be like if Republican Person X pretended to be a sincere Democrat for a short while, said or did a bunch of terrible things as a (fake) Harris supporter, then got caught and revealed that they were truly a Republican, but then a bunch of people concluded that Democrats are bad based on what that Republican did.
I was very clearly attacking the ideology of the school board but I understand it's necessary for you to frame that as an attack on trans people for the sake of the arguments you wish to use
If railing against "men who think they're women" isn't supposed to be an attack against trans people, then you need to re-evaluate what "very" and "clearly" mean. 'cus you don't got it.
I'm pretty sure that quotation is something you made up. Even dogmeat's original quote was "and ppl believing men can be women are the voice of reason [sarcasm]"
It's different than "railing against men who think they are women" because in dogmeat's wording it's a criticism that applies to anyone (including yourself) and in your version it's an attack directly targeted at trans people.
Although maybe I'm wrong and I just missed this quote railing against "men who think they are women." If not I think you should stop misquoting people, especially if you insist on using quotation marks.
To be clear, your ideology dictates that you accept that teacher as a woman simply for saying she is a woman. The wig and prosthetic breasts aren't even a necessary component of my post.
Fixed that for you.
Again, what's the problem here, exactly? Does your world fall apart if people don't have the genitalia you expect them to have? Do you inspect people and have them strip to verify they have the correct ones? How do you have this authority, and who gave it to you? What do you do if they have the wrong genitalia? If someone does have the wrong genitalia, but you don't find out, or they manage to escape your investigation, what happens? How do you respond to someone who changes their name? How do you respond to someone who refers to their significant other as a partner, regardless of whether they're putting the correct genitalia together?
I'm genuinely curious as to how this is supposed to work according to you.
You must be unfamiliar with this story because it was revealed later that he was indeed trolling. You've rushed to his defense by editing my post to change "he" to "she" but ironically all you did was misgender him.
Edit: to answer your question, "the problem" here is we have a troll that's permitted to wear giant prosthetic breasts with rock hard nipples that made students uncomfortable and distracted. All of this defended by a school board more keen on appearing tolerant than ensuring their children are educated.
I would be unfamiliar with that story. I suspect part of the reason is that I don't consume the same kind of media that you do. The rest of the reason I'm not familiar with your story is because you didn't cite anything for me to become familiar with. If your intent was to hold it close to your (presumably flat) chest so you could gotcha "the woke left" on the internet, it's cute, but I'm already bored. If you honestly wanted me to be aware of the context that was apparently central to your post, it's not my job to cite your sources for you. That's your problem, not mine.
I didn't include the context because it's irrelevant. My point that we should not allow teachers to wear Size Z prosthetic breasts with rock hard nipples regardless if they are man, woman, transgender man or transgender woman. Apparently some people think giant prosthetic breasts are okay for 1 of these 4 groups. The only reason I included the context now is because you felt the need to incorrectly edit my post.
The context was apparently highly relevant, because you singled out a corner case which makes the context relevant. This is a joke, right? My changing of the gender in your post is only incorrect because of context you knowingly withheld. You still haven't cited the story, either.
Quit the games.
To make matters worse, it's not even a corner case. It's not a case at all. BlackJack admitted that this person was a troll and not even a part of the trans community, so BlackJack (and, according to BlackJack, also DogMeat) have decided to attack trans-people because of something a cis-person did.
That would be like if Republican Person X pretended to be a sincere Democrat for a short while, said or did a bunch of terrible things as a (fake) Harris supporter, then got caught and revealed that they were truly a Republican, but then a bunch of people concluded that Democrats are bad based on what that Republican did.
I was very clearly attacking the ideology of the school board but I understand it's necessary for you to frame that as an attack on trans people for the sake of the arguments you wish to use
Hmmmm....
On October 22 2024 12:05 BlackJack wrote:
On October 22 2024 11:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On October 22 2024 11:24 BlackJack wrote: Bill Maher has a theory that Republicans love the crazy politicians even more because it sends it even stronger signal to the left that "literally anything is better than what you're offering."
If that theory is correct, then it proves that Republicans are indeed delusional and out of touch, because those Republican politicians aren't better for our country or our people. Republicans are just plain wrong, if that theory is correct. I don’t know if that theory is correct or not, and I have no idea if some Republicans are trolling with purposely terrible leaders just to stick it to the libs, but they'd be hurting themselves too.
As dogmeat said, they are arguably less delusional and out of touch than the people believing a man is a woman because he put on a wig and stuffed his shirt with giant inflatable tits.
On October 22 2024 21:18 DOgMeAt wrote: except this is about tim waltz and tampons for mens toilets and locker rooms. so you are either uninformed or deflecting
Nice try though! That's what you get for tying your wagon to this other anti-trans person.
I don't even know what your point is. Quoting a post I made followed by some unrelated post dogmeat made about tampons as if to say "aha! got you!" okay...
Usually you don't admit things like this, but I think you just accidentally gave away the ball game. Your excuse that you're simply "attacking the ideology of the school board" is indeed unrelated to what you and DogMeat were talking about from the start, with the anti-trans rhetoric. Still not sure why you lied about what DogMeat actually said though.
Anyways, please post a source or two about the cis-teacher who pretended to be trans, that you've been using as ammunition to attack the trans community school boards ( ) . It would be nice to get fuller context. Thanks!
To be clear, your ideology dictates that you accept that teacher as a woman simply for saying she is a woman. The wig and prosthetic breasts aren't even a necessary component of my post.
Fixed that for you.
Again, what's the problem here, exactly? Does your world fall apart if people don't have the genitalia you expect them to have? Do you inspect people and have them strip to verify they have the correct ones? How do you have this authority, and who gave it to you? What do you do if they have the wrong genitalia? If someone does have the wrong genitalia, but you don't find out, or they manage to escape your investigation, what happens? How do you respond to someone who changes their name? How do you respond to someone who refers to their significant other as a partner, regardless of whether they're putting the correct genitalia together?
I'm genuinely curious as to how this is supposed to work according to you.
You must be unfamiliar with this story because it was revealed later that he was indeed trolling. You've rushed to his defense by editing my post to change "he" to "she" but ironically all you did was misgender him.
Edit: to answer your question, "the problem" here is we have a troll that's permitted to wear giant prosthetic breasts with rock hard nipples that made students uncomfortable and distracted. All of this defended by a school board more keen on appearing tolerant than ensuring their children are educated.
I would be unfamiliar with that story. I suspect part of the reason is that I don't consume the same kind of media that you do. The rest of the reason I'm not familiar with your story is because you didn't cite anything for me to become familiar with. If your intent was to hold it close to your (presumably flat) chest so you could gotcha "the woke left" on the internet, it's cute, but I'm already bored. If you honestly wanted me to be aware of the context that was apparently central to your post, it's not my job to cite your sources for you. That's your problem, not mine.
I didn't include the context because it's irrelevant. My point that we should not allow teachers to wear Size Z prosthetic breasts with rock hard nipples regardless if they are man, woman, transgender man or transgender woman. Apparently some people think giant prosthetic breasts are okay for 1 of these 4 groups. The only reason I included the context now is because you felt the need to incorrectly edit my post.
The context was apparently highly relevant, because you singled out a corner case which makes the context relevant. This is a joke, right? My changing of the gender in your post is only incorrect because of context you knowingly withheld. You still haven't cited the story, either.
Quit the games.
To make matters worse, it's not even a corner case. It's not a case at all. BlackJack admitted that this person was a troll and not even a part of the trans community, so BlackJack (and, according to BlackJack, also DogMeat) have decided to attack trans-people because of something a cis-person did.
That would be like if Republican Person X pretended to be a sincere Democrat for a short while, said or did a bunch of terrible things as a (fake) Harris supporter, then got caught and revealed that they were truly a Republican, but then a bunch of people concluded that Democrats are bad based on what that Republican did.
I was very clearly attacking the ideology of the school board but I understand it's necessary for you to frame that as an attack on trans people for the sake of the arguments you wish to use
If railing against "men who think they're women" isn't supposed to be an attack against trans people, then you need to re-evaluate what "very" and "clearly" mean. 'cus you don't got it.
I'm pretty sure that quotation is something you made up. Even dogmeat's original quote was "and ppl believing men can be women are the voice of reason [sarcasm]"
It's different than "railing against men who think they are women" because in dogmeat's wording it's a criticism that applies to anyone (including yourself) and in your version it's an attack directly targeted at trans people.
Although maybe I'm wrong and I just missed this quote railing against "men who think they are women." If not I think you should stop misquoting people, especially if you insist on using quotation marks.
To be clear, your ideology dictates that you accept that teacher as a woman simply for saying she is a woman. The wig and prosthetic breasts aren't even a necessary component of my post.
Fixed that for you.
Again, what's the problem here, exactly? Does your world fall apart if people don't have the genitalia you expect them to have? Do you inspect people and have them strip to verify they have the correct ones? How do you have this authority, and who gave it to you? What do you do if they have the wrong genitalia? If someone does have the wrong genitalia, but you don't find out, or they manage to escape your investigation, what happens? How do you respond to someone who changes their name? How do you respond to someone who refers to their significant other as a partner, regardless of whether they're putting the correct genitalia together?
I'm genuinely curious as to how this is supposed to work according to you.
You must be unfamiliar with this story because it was revealed later that he was indeed trolling. You've rushed to his defense by editing my post to change "he" to "she" but ironically all you did was misgender him.
Edit: to answer your question, "the problem" here is we have a troll that's permitted to wear giant prosthetic breasts with rock hard nipples that made students uncomfortable and distracted. All of this defended by a school board more keen on appearing tolerant than ensuring their children are educated.
I would be unfamiliar with that story. I suspect part of the reason is that I don't consume the same kind of media that you do. The rest of the reason I'm not familiar with your story is because you didn't cite anything for me to become familiar with. If your intent was to hold it close to your (presumably flat) chest so you could gotcha "the woke left" on the internet, it's cute, but I'm already bored. If you honestly wanted me to be aware of the context that was apparently central to your post, it's not my job to cite your sources for you. That's your problem, not mine.
I didn't include the context because it's irrelevant. My point that we should not allow teachers to wear Size Z prosthetic breasts with rock hard nipples regardless if they are man, woman, transgender man or transgender woman. Apparently some people think giant prosthetic breasts are okay for 1 of these 4 groups. The only reason I included the context now is because you felt the need to incorrectly edit my post.
The context was apparently highly relevant, because you singled out a corner case which makes the context relevant. This is a joke, right? My changing of the gender in your post is only incorrect because of context you knowingly withheld. You still haven't cited the story, either.
Quit the games.
To make matters worse, it's not even a corner case. It's not a case at all. BlackJack admitted that this person was a troll and not even a part of the trans community, so BlackJack (and, according to BlackJack, also DogMeat) have decided to attack trans-people because of something a cis-person did.
That would be like if Republican Person X pretended to be a sincere Democrat for a short while, said or did a bunch of terrible things as a (fake) Harris supporter, then got caught and revealed that they were truly a Republican, but then a bunch of people concluded that Democrats are bad based on what that Republican did.
I was very clearly attacking the ideology of the school board but I understand it's necessary for you to frame that as an attack on trans people for the sake of the arguments you wish to use
If railing against "men who think they're women" isn't supposed to be an attack against trans people, then you need to re-evaluate what "very" and "clearly" mean. 'cus you don't got it.
I'm pretty sure that quotation is something you made up. Even dogmeat's original quote was "and ppl believing men can be women are the voice of reason [sarcasm]"
It's different than "railing against men who think they are women" because in dogmeat's wording it's a criticism that applies to anyone (including yourself) and in your version it's an attack directly targeted at trans people.
Although maybe I'm wrong and I just missed this quote railing against "men who think they are women." If not I think you should stop misquoting people, especially if you insist on using quotation marks.
You wanna zoom back out and explain to me what the criticism is that can apply to anyone? Does the answer make a material difference to my point? So anyone can be criticized for believing that transitioning your gender is a real thing? You know that group includes trans people and their right to exist, right? You see how you twisted yourself up so much that in order to get out of your shitty argument, you backed into a bigger, even shittier version of that argument? I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by debating the smaller, already shitty argument, but you can blow it up if you really want.
"Oh, I'm not saying people are ridiculous who think they can jump over the moon, I'm just saying that anyone who thinks that jumping over the moon is possible is ridiculous." You see how that's not actually different, right? Do you want try and shift the goalposts again? Or do you wanna give it a rest?
The men formerly known as the Central Park Five before they were exonerated filed a defamation lawsuit on Monday against Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.
With Election Day two weeks away, the group accused the former president of making “false and defamatory statements” about them during last month’s presidential debate with Vice President Kamala Harris. The group is asking for a jury trial to determine compensatory and punitive damages.
“Defendant Trump falsely stated that plaintiffs killed an individual and pled guilty to the crime. These statements are demonstrably false,” the group wrote in the federal complaint.
The men are upset because Trump essentially “defamed them in front of 67 million people, which has caused them to seek to clear their names all over again,” co-lead counsel Shanin Specter told The Associated Press in an email.
The five men wrongfully convicted of a 1989 New York City assault who became known as the Central Park Five have filed a defamation lawsuit against former President Donald Trump.
The suit filed in Pennsylvania federal court was prompted by Trump's recent remarks during the September 10 presidential debate with Vice President Kamala Harris when he falsely claimed that the men were responsible for the crime and that the victim in the incident had died.
"They admitted, they said they pled guilty and I said, 'well, if they pled guilty they badly hurt a person, killed a person ultimately....And they pled guilty, then they pled not guilty," Trump said.
Trump appeared to be confusing guilty pleas with confessions. The victim in the case is still alive but reportedly deals with lingering health issues from the attack. ... "Defendant Trump's statements were false and defamatory in numerous respects," attorneys for the men, now all in their 50s, wrote in the lawsuit filed in federal court in Philadelphia. "Plaintiffs never pled guilty to the Central Park assaults. Plaintiffs all pled not guilty and maintained their innocence throughout their trial and incarceration, as well as after they were released from prison."
"None of the victims of the Central Park assaults were killed," the attorneys wrote.
The members of the so-called Central Park Five filed a lawsuit against former President Donald Trump on Monday, alleging he made defamatory statements about them during the presidential debate with Vice President Kamala Harris.
Filed in federal district court in Pennsylvania, the suit claims that Trump falsely said during the debate last month that the five Black and Latino men who wrongly convicted for the rape of a White female jogger when they were teens in 1989 pleaded guilty to the crime and killed a person during a series of assaults that occurred in Central Park. ...
The Central Park Five were teenagers at the time of the assaults against Trisha Meili, the White female jogger, and two men, all of whom were attacked on the same night while jogging in Central Park. They were arrested and charged for the rape and assault of Meili and other crimes. The five pleaded not guilty and maintained their innocence throughout the trial, but were convicted in 1990.
But the five were exonerated and their convictions tossed out in 2002, when DNA evidence was matched to a different man who confessed to the assaults. They're now known as the "Exonerated Five."
The men formerly known as the Central Park Five before they were exonerated filed a defamation lawsuit on Monday against Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.
With Election Day two weeks away, the group accused the former president of making “false and defamatory statements” about them during last month’s presidential debate with Vice President Kamala Harris. The group is asking for a jury trial to determine compensatory and punitive damages.
“Defendant Trump falsely stated that plaintiffs killed an individual and pled guilty to the crime. These statements are demonstrably false,” the group wrote in the federal complaint.
The men are upset because Trump essentially “defamed them in front of 67 million people, which has caused them to seek to clear their names all over again,” co-lead counsel Shanin Specter told The Associated Press in an email.
The five men wrongfully convicted of a 1989 New York City assault who became known as the Central Park Five have filed a defamation lawsuit against former President Donald Trump.
The suit filed in Pennsylvania federal court was prompted by Trump's recent remarks during the September 10 presidential debate with Vice President Kamala Harris when he falsely claimed that the men were responsible for the crime and that the victim in the incident had died.
"They admitted, they said they pled guilty and I said, 'well, if they pled guilty they badly hurt a person, killed a person ultimately....And they pled guilty, then they pled not guilty," Trump said.
Trump appeared to be confusing guilty pleas with confessions. The victim in the case is still alive but reportedly deals with lingering health issues from the attack. ... "Defendant Trump's statements were false and defamatory in numerous respects," attorneys for the men, now all in their 50s, wrote in the lawsuit filed in federal court in Philadelphia. "Plaintiffs never pled guilty to the Central Park assaults. Plaintiffs all pled not guilty and maintained their innocence throughout their trial and incarceration, as well as after they were released from prison."
"None of the victims of the Central Park assaults were killed," the attorneys wrote.
The members of the so-called Central Park Five filed a lawsuit against former President Donald Trump on Monday, alleging he made defamatory statements about them during the presidential debate with Vice President Kamala Harris.
Filed in federal district court in Pennsylvania, the suit claims that Trump falsely said during the debate last month that the five Black and Latino men who wrongly convicted for the rape of a White female jogger when they were teens in 1989 pleaded guilty to the crime and killed a person during a series of assaults that occurred in Central Park. ...
The Central Park Five were teenagers at the time of the assaults against Trisha Meili, the White female jogger, and two men, all of whom were attacked on the same night while jogging in Central Park. They were arrested and charged for the rape and assault of Meili and other crimes. The five pleaded not guilty and maintained their innocence throughout the trial, but were convicted in 1990.
But the five were exonerated and their convictions tossed out in 2002, when DNA evidence was matched to a different man who confessed to the assaults. They're now known as the "Exonerated Five."
On October 23 2024 05:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: New defamation lawsuit against Trump:
The men formerly known as the Central Park Five before they were exonerated filed a defamation lawsuit on Monday against Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.
With Election Day two weeks away, the group accused the former president of making “false and defamatory statements” about them during last month’s presidential debate with Vice President Kamala Harris. The group is asking for a jury trial to determine compensatory and punitive damages.
“Defendant Trump falsely stated that plaintiffs killed an individual and pled guilty to the crime. These statements are demonstrably false,” the group wrote in the federal complaint.
The men are upset because Trump essentially “defamed them in front of 67 million people, which has caused them to seek to clear their names all over again,” co-lead counsel Shanin Specter told The Associated Press in an email.
The five men wrongfully convicted of a 1989 New York City assault who became known as the Central Park Five have filed a defamation lawsuit against former President Donald Trump.
The suit filed in Pennsylvania federal court was prompted by Trump's recent remarks during the September 10 presidential debate with Vice President Kamala Harris when he falsely claimed that the men were responsible for the crime and that the victim in the incident had died.
"They admitted, they said they pled guilty and I said, 'well, if they pled guilty they badly hurt a person, killed a person ultimately....And they pled guilty, then they pled not guilty," Trump said.
Trump appeared to be confusing guilty pleas with confessions. The victim in the case is still alive but reportedly deals with lingering health issues from the attack. ... "Defendant Trump's statements were false and defamatory in numerous respects," attorneys for the men, now all in their 50s, wrote in the lawsuit filed in federal court in Philadelphia. "Plaintiffs never pled guilty to the Central Park assaults. Plaintiffs all pled not guilty and maintained their innocence throughout their trial and incarceration, as well as after they were released from prison."
"None of the victims of the Central Park assaults were killed," the attorneys wrote.
The members of the so-called Central Park Five filed a lawsuit against former President Donald Trump on Monday, alleging he made defamatory statements about them during the presidential debate with Vice President Kamala Harris.
Filed in federal district court in Pennsylvania, the suit claims that Trump falsely said during the debate last month that the five Black and Latino men who wrongly convicted for the rape of a White female jogger when they were teens in 1989 pleaded guilty to the crime and killed a person during a series of assaults that occurred in Central Park. ...
The Central Park Five were teenagers at the time of the assaults against Trisha Meili, the White female jogger, and two men, all of whom were attacked on the same night while jogging in Central Park. They were arrested and charged for the rape and assault of Meili and other crimes. The five pleaded not guilty and maintained their innocence throughout the trial, but were convicted in 1990.
But the five were exonerated and their convictions tossed out in 2002, when DNA evidence was matched to a different man who confessed to the assaults. They're now known as the "Exonerated Five."
On October 23 2024 05:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: New defamation lawsuit against Trump:
The men formerly known as the Central Park Five before they were exonerated filed a defamation lawsuit on Monday against Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.
With Election Day two weeks away, the group accused the former president of making “false and defamatory statements” about them during last month’s presidential debate with Vice President Kamala Harris. The group is asking for a jury trial to determine compensatory and punitive damages.
“Defendant Trump falsely stated that plaintiffs killed an individual and pled guilty to the crime. These statements are demonstrably false,” the group wrote in the federal complaint.
The men are upset because Trump essentially “defamed them in front of 67 million people, which has caused them to seek to clear their names all over again,” co-lead counsel Shanin Specter told The Associated Press in an email.
The five men wrongfully convicted of a 1989 New York City assault who became known as the Central Park Five have filed a defamation lawsuit against former President Donald Trump.
The suit filed in Pennsylvania federal court was prompted by Trump's recent remarks during the September 10 presidential debate with Vice President Kamala Harris when he falsely claimed that the men were responsible for the crime and that the victim in the incident had died.
"They admitted, they said they pled guilty and I said, 'well, if they pled guilty they badly hurt a person, killed a person ultimately....And they pled guilty, then they pled not guilty," Trump said.
Trump appeared to be confusing guilty pleas with confessions. The victim in the case is still alive but reportedly deals with lingering health issues from the attack. ... "Defendant Trump's statements were false and defamatory in numerous respects," attorneys for the men, now all in their 50s, wrote in the lawsuit filed in federal court in Philadelphia. "Plaintiffs never pled guilty to the Central Park assaults. Plaintiffs all pled not guilty and maintained their innocence throughout their trial and incarceration, as well as after they were released from prison."
"None of the victims of the Central Park assaults were killed," the attorneys wrote.
The members of the so-called Central Park Five filed a lawsuit against former President Donald Trump on Monday, alleging he made defamatory statements about them during the presidential debate with Vice President Kamala Harris.
Filed in federal district court in Pennsylvania, the suit claims that Trump falsely said during the debate last month that the five Black and Latino men who wrongly convicted for the rape of a White female jogger when they were teens in 1989 pleaded guilty to the crime and killed a person during a series of assaults that occurred in Central Park. ...
The Central Park Five were teenagers at the time of the assaults against Trisha Meili, the White female jogger, and two men, all of whom were attacked on the same night while jogging in Central Park. They were arrested and charged for the rape and assault of Meili and other crimes. The five pleaded not guilty and maintained their innocence throughout the trial, but were convicted in 1990.
But the five were exonerated and their convictions tossed out in 2002, when DNA evidence was matched to a different man who confessed to the assaults. They're now known as the "Exonerated Five."
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/AZGiXda.jpeg)
) . It would be nice to get fuller context. Thanks! 
