Greatoneshere

2 minutes ago, 2user1cup said:

Mary never died you heretic!

I'm a Muslim you fucking infidel. Go fail at another Crusade heathen! 

1 minute ago, SaysWho? said:

 

Not only is it not wrong, but this also means the movement is gaining steam. Movement's start somewhere and gain steam somewhere and become a reality somewhere.

Precisely. 

America wants this. They've been duped to believe they can't have nice things and to accept a miserable status quo and believe it makes America "great". Medicare for All and College for All can actually, legit, logistically be done. I don't think anyone is against educating the young and healing the sick if it can be done for all reasonably. The great trick that we're sold is that it can't be done. It can be.

Things like 2020 Democratic presidential candidates not taking dark money and candidates like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez winning in the Bronx in NYC shows that the American people are a majority that want good, obvious things.

Where is that image of Hannity's board of Ocasio-Cortez's talking points, and he tried to make them look bad when it was all clearly all good? That was amazing.

43 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

It was filled with three human skeletons soaking in sewage that had leaked in.

YES BUT IS IT JESUS, MARY, AND JOSEPH MOTHERFUCKER

JESUS LIVED IN EGYPT FOR AWHILE DON'T YOU KNOW.

Just now, SFLUFAN said:

I simply don't have one.

But I matter! I'm a real boy!!

In all seriousness, I should probably be glad that the most emotion Pakistanis get out of you is neutrality. I'll take it good sir! 

4 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

It's too late for Crooked Killary to delete the server, libtard!

Looks like joke's on me!!

Libs get da bullet too. 

3 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

I don't have one because there's no way in hell you guys and the Indians could ever live in the same country because of the absolutely irreconcilable difference in religion.

 

The situation with Russians and Ukrainians is somewhat different in that the overwhelming majority share the same Orthodox religion though their languages are mutually intelligible (like Hindi/Urdu) and use the same Cyrillic script.

While I wanted this information as well(!), I meant your hot take on the Pakistani people in general (like your general view of Jews and Slavs, what do you think of Pakistanis?) heheh. 

Just now, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

I side with Kal and sbl on this, period. 

 

And y'all have argued for way too long on the topic.

That's fair, I was just explaining that what you said isn't something anyone on either side of this debate would disagree with is all. 

Just now, The def star said:

Taking it up the ass isn't strictly a gay thing. Girls do it too ?

To be fair, it's pejorativeness (negative relational dynamics) is different with a female context than it is a male one, though the idea of submissiveness remains. 

1 minute ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

I just feel there are other ways to get your insults across without being homophobic or using words that are offensive to groups of people, like "retarded." 

I don't think anyone here who is reasonable would disagree with that, but they have the right to say those things and it shouldn't inherently also mean it's homophobic. It's not the way I'd express myself either, but I don't think their homophobic either is all. 

2 minutes ago, finaljedi said:

Oh, cool.  So the Democrats are going to tea party themselves right before one of the shittiest Presidents goes up for re-election.

There's nothing super left about the Medicare for All program, so I'm not sure how that's tea partying themselves. Shaking up their base to align with what a majority of the American population wants anyway (something like 60%+ want Medicare for All) is a good thing.

15 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

Crimea was part of Russia up until the 1950s when Kruschev "gifted" it to Ukraine as "compensation" for Stalin's crimes against the Ukrainian people.  There is nothing "Ukrainian" about Crimea at all.  Just let Russia have it and be done with it, for Christ's sake.

 

It's just a bunch of fucking Slavs.

Real talk, as I'm curious: what's your hot take on Pakistanis? I don't think you've ever said before that I know of heh. 

43 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

I imagine that this will be a big talking point for 2020, and a kind of dividing line for Democrats.

I hope so - it should be. I think you're right.

42 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

No.

But I want nice things. Is that so wrong?!

53 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

Speaking of which,

 

House Republicans defeat attempt to subpoena Trump interpreter

I saw that earlier today and was like:

29 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

You could split an atom with the razor you’re using to split that hair.

But that's entirely the point. What CitizenVectron said is clear, no? It's a distinction with a huge difference (to me, obviously) even if it seems like a tightrope, it's still a tightrope and it exists. I'm not sure why you're assuming I'm giving them "too much" credit. Why is that? They're right about Trump being submissive to Putin and their sign indicates as much and yet at the same time I see no homophobia in their actions. Like I said, I'd like a gay person's reading on this, but I see we're going in circles and we agree to disagree. That's okay! I understand yours and sblfilms' points a lot better, and that helps.  

Treasonous. In the bad way. That's bad.

Final-fucking-ly. Now can something real happen?

5 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

Uhhhhh, yeah, yeah it does and yeah it should

 

You are necessarily saying the act of being sexually submissive is negative when you use it as a metaphor for the political relationship between Trump and Putin. Think about why being sexually submissive is a presumed negative in this metaphor.

Except: 

3 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

Because submission (in any context) is seen as weak by society, as someone else has power over you.

This.

More specifically, I'm not presuming negativity with submission, but I am presuming being submissive can be interpreted negatively, and there are contexts where submission is bad (submission is an inherently neutral concept, whether it is good or bad depends on the context). "Taking it up the ass" isn't inherently negative, but that is one potential context for negative submission, like many other contexts I could create. And there are many other contexts where submission is neutral, or good.  

14 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

I just don’t think it’s worth making. The implication is pretty clear. 

But the distinction is inherently in there, that's why some of us who are otherwise very liberal and progressive have no problem with those signs in those pictures. I mean, I have a problem with it because it's not clever, it's (as you said) lazy criticism, but it remains criticism without negative implications for the mere act but rather it's implication of submission. The negativity comes from it's negative political truth, not the act.

54 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

Again, I think this is giving the people saying this stuff far too much credit. Besides, even if you’re going to take that angle... there’s nothing negative about being a sub, either.

 

It’s a lazy fucking “criticism” all around.

It's lazy criticism, yeah, of course.  

There's nothing negative about being a sub, no one is saying that. There is something negative about being politically submissive in a situation you shouldn't be politically submissive in, and they are using a submissive act to indicate that. The act of being submissive isn't negative, but they are using it to indicate submission.

The act of being submissive IS negative in this context. It doesn't (or shouldn't) matter how that submission is being depicted. As CitizenVectron said, you can say to someone "he's not the boss of you!" to indicate that you should stand up for yourself without the negative relational dynamic that having a boss is a bad thing. You can do both at the same time and be logically consistent. 

Like I said, I see the argument - using it at all negatively implicitly means it's inherently negative due to the association and since the act itself isn't negative (or shouldn't be considered to be negative) then using it negatively means it is against that act. 

I think there's a distinction there. 

47 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

I think it’s certainly possible to say, “those two are gay for one another” without it being anti-gay, but the, “Trump and Putin are totally gay for one another,” is absolutely pejorative.

But they don't mean it pejoratively, so how can it be pejorative? It's meant as political commentary, not anti-gay. They are indicating that Trump is Putin's puppet in the most degrading way possible. Not because the act is degrading that they are mentioning ("taking it up the ass") but because it indicates how much Trump is under Putin's thumb in a vile way. 

26 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

There have been many signs with the same message, the person standing next to it is very influential among establishment Democrats, and there’s also the NYT video I posted.  Nice try but Trump/Putin homophobia is rampant among the #resistance. If the same message was directed at Obama, these people would be losing their shit.

Again, depends on how it's being presented/used. If it's as political commentary, then no, I do not believe most "liberals" would care (in fact, most didn't when things like that would come up as political commentary during Obama's tenure). It's when it's not political commentary, then it's bad.

25 minutes ago, ort said:

I could be wrong. If I wanted to form a more nuanced opinion on this I would need to read more and I really don't care enough to dive deeper.

Don't bother. It's like a reverse rabbit hole, where the deeper you go the less drugs you should do, but only more drugs is the way to cope.

Just now, Keyser_Soze said:

 

Don't worry, there are other gay people here you can consult!

I figured yes lolol.  

1 minute ago, SFLUFAN said:

He kinda/sorta "rage quit" on us.

Well, Komusha did do that from time to time . . . ah well damn.

2 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

Yeeeaaahhhh...about that...

Haha, what happened?

6 minutes ago, ort said:

I dunno, I understand what he was trying to say and don't find it offensive enough to care.

 

He's still a douchebag, but meh.

If he was trying to say he won't limit incorrect hate speech by users on his platform because the user(s) in question are so stupid they genuinely believe their hate speech rather than just peddling it to influence others or spread propoganda is the dumbest way to justify their continued ability to have a platform when they shouldn't have one, arguably.

That's a big deal, because Facebook is a huge platform that reaches many people and Zuck is discussing Facebook policy here.