For this reason, it is imperative that anything that they want is resisted, even if you consider it inconsequential, or even just. Getting those things, they will just move on to ever more insane things.
For example, I supported same-sex marriage, but it turns out that this was just preventing the pronouns left from lessening the punishment for intentionally spreading AIDS, having pedophile 'drag queens' spread propaganda to children, pretending that sex is a social construct, etc.
If it were about legal benefits, people would have been happy with civil unions. They weren't. It's about the stamp of approval of society.
Ideally, folks like Dave Rubin would be treated like the decent people that they are, while mad dogs like Philip would be treated like what they are - instead of like they are now, allowed to expose themselves to women in the locker rooms and showers.
If it were about legal benefits, people would have been happy with civil unions.
Civil unions have never granted all the same legal benefits of marriage, and there was nothing to say that once they did, they would continue to do so.
They don't care about decency. I'm serious, they don't.
Jonathan Haidt's Moral Foundation Theory work showed that. Of the 5-6 foundations (care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, sanctity/degradation as the originals, and adding in liberty/oppression more recently), moderates and Conservatives will use all of them (to varying degrees) but the modern-day left does not care about any except care/harm and fairness/cheating. Call it whatever you want, purity, decency, sanctity, whatever. It does not factor in the worldview of the modern left to any significant degree.
Lesbians have, but that is because predatory autogynephiliacs branded themselves as 'women' to try to guilt them into having sex with men.
Trans supposed men, being women and therefore generally far less aggressive than trans supposed women, are also generally midgets and far less strong than men and not in a position to try to demand sex from - even gay - men.
If these literal cunts were more aggressive in demanding that gay men date them, I think there would be a lot more open resistance.
Also, I think you underestimate how many people who resist this are members of the BLT community. E.g. several people on this sub, as well as me. I am bisexual, but I am interested in men and women. Not mentally ill, delusional people who hack off their breasts or dick because their fantasies told them to do.
Went and searched this tweet because I was sure it either couldn't be real, or would have been deleted by now even if it was. But nope. It's still there. And now it's archived.
There's no point to hating them. One's hatred does not harm them, and is therefore completely pointless. It's far better to advocate for ways to against whatever it is that they want.
Sorry, dude, but if Christmas is canceled because it carries too high of a risk of spreading infectious disease, well then indiscriminate gay sex is definitely canceled.
Didn't you hear? Playing hockey outside is strictly prohibited, but sex is totally fine as long as you wear magic face napkins. The virus is very smart and only bypasses face cloth when the activity is not encouraged by leftist politics.
These homos in the picture aren't wearing their cloth, so I can only assume that the very smart virus has sexuality and morality checks and only attacks alphabet people when beneficial for propaganda purposes.
Can you think of anything more harmful (aside from pro-pedo arguments, and that comes next anyway) to non-political gays than "let us fuck in public or you just don't accept gays?" Because, if that becomes mainstream, a lot of people are going to just say "fine, I don't accept gays. Get (figuratively or in private!) fucked, and get out of my face."
Then again, we've also seen how sheeplike people are. I'd imagine a surprising number of people (although nowhere near as high as compliance to other issues) would start cheering on public gay sex, because, hey, at least I'm not racist or homophobic.
I hope it doesn't happen, of course, but it would be funny to see progressives - and, even funnier, compliant and uncomfortable normies - in regular conversations try to make "you're a bigot if you won't watch queers fuck in the streets" a thing. Heck, I hope the chans don't get hold of this. They could probably make this shit happen in six months or less.
Can you think of anything more harmful (aside from pro-pedo arguments, and that comes next anyway
The very same degenerate screenshot here has admitted to being sexually attracted to children.
than "let us fuck in public or you just don't accept gays?" Because, if that becomes mainstream, a lot of people are going to just say "fine, I don't accept gays. Get (figuratively or in private!) fucked, and get out of my face."
People are so terrified worn down that I think they will accept anything. It's more than overdue that homosexuals be told "no".
I'd imagine a surprising number of people (although nowhere near as high as compliance to other issues) would start cheering on public gay sex, because, hey, at least I'm not racist or homophobic.
Coming up with things that normal people will not accept is not a bug, it is a feature. Read Sowell's Vision of the Anointed if you haven't. This has been going on in other forms for a very like time, like advocating for murderers and rapists. Anyone can advocate for a virtuous person, but the SJWs think that advocating for murderers and rapists sets them aside as being wise.
I'm not sure I quite caught on to the slippery slope concept when the gay marriage thing was at it's loudest, but that was what, ten years ago? I just wasn't as in tune to things then and I've always wanted to ignore politics anyway.
That and so many other things were a slippery slope, but I'm really starting to see them become more of an enormous cliff. That and they will make everything into one too. Every single happening is an opportunity to push their craziness.
Faggots aren’t being allowed to fuck public because of the da white man! On point, I will allow you to fuck in public, but you need to do so in front of open Mosques and only open Mosques.
Remember, proper insulation is important to fight global warming. It's crucial that all your doors and windows are airtight, or you're killing the planet.
Give leftists an inch and they take a mile. This was foreseeable to anyone.
For this reason, it is imperative that anything that they want is resisted, even if you consider it inconsequential, or even just. Getting those things, they will just move on to ever more insane things.
For example, I supported same-sex marriage, but it turns out that this was just preventing the pronouns left from lessening the punishment for intentionally spreading AIDS, having pedophile 'drag queens' spread propaganda to children, pretending that sex is a social construct, etc.
Resist everything, and rollback what you can.
If it were about legal benefits, people would have been happy with civil unions. They weren't. It's about the stamp of approval of society.
Ideally, folks like Dave Rubin would be treated like the decent people that they are, while mad dogs like Philip would be treated like what they are - instead of like they are now, allowed to expose themselves to women in the locker rooms and showers.
Civil unions have never granted all the same legal benefits of marriage, and there was nothing to say that once they did, they would continue to do so.
Therein lies the problem. Communism and libertarianism exist in the same poisonous swamp.
Revanchism is the way forward.
Conservatism is simply concession.
I wouldn't give one 6 inches.
I recommend going into the next hood and present your disgusting fetish. I hear the demographic is really fond of queers.
It's steeped in decency you pathetic hedonist.
They don't care about decency. I'm serious, they don't.
Jonathan Haidt's Moral Foundation Theory work showed that. Of the 5-6 foundations (care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, sanctity/degradation as the originals, and adding in liberty/oppression more recently), moderates and Conservatives will use all of them (to varying degrees) but the modern-day left does not care about any except care/harm and fairness/cheating. Call it whatever you want, purity, decency, sanctity, whatever. It does not factor in the worldview of the modern left to any significant degree.
"But don't you DARE call me an "animal" for wanting to fuck in public."
Meanwhile, there are non-humans with more decorum and love of privacy.
Even my dog wants a bit of privacy when he takes a piss, but these animals have no sense of shame.
The T and the "activists" are ruining it for everybody.
The not-crazy gays packed up and went on to live their lives after equality under the law. The remaining activists are thus condensed insanity.
tell the non crazy gays they need to take their place on the wall holding back the hoards of chaos
we need "normal" gays to come out and say "yes I like getting my ass fucked and sucking cock, but men pretending they are women is too much"
the doesn't seem to have happened though
Lesbians have, but that is because predatory autogynephiliacs branded themselves as 'women' to try to guilt them into having sex with men.
Trans supposed men, being women and therefore generally far less aggressive than trans supposed women, are also generally midgets and far less strong than men and not in a position to try to demand sex from - even gay - men.
If these literal cunts were more aggressive in demanding that gay men date them, I think there would be a lot more open resistance.
Also, I think you underestimate how many people who resist this are members of the BLT community. E.g. several people on this sub, as well as me. I am bisexual, but I am interested in men and women. Not mentally ill, delusional people who hack off their breasts or dick because their fantasies told them to do.
well then I guess I'm getting my trench coat.
Anal Valens is a pedophile. Just a reminder.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EnIB1YCXIAAy1lP?format=jpg&name=large
Went and searched this tweet because I was sure it either couldn't be real, or would have been deleted by now even if it was. But nope. It's still there. And now it's archived.
https://archive.is/sPkcQ
Ana Valens has thoughts about fucking children.
That is what Philip admits to.
We don't know what he has done and has not admitted to.
That's not all.
https://www.womenarehuman.com/transgender-journalist-fantasizes-about-trans-girls-violently-raping-women/
https://twitter.com/acvalens/status/1300778782836523009?s=20
When you see the fuckers defending this sick, perverted piece of shit by "Uhm, this is satire". No, it isn't. He wants to do these things 100%.
I'm mostly done trying not to hate these people.
There's no point to hating them. One's hatred does not harm them, and is therefore completely pointless. It's far better to advocate for ways to against whatever it is that they want.
Sorry, dude, but if Christmas is canceled because it carries too high of a risk of spreading infectious disease, well then indiscriminate gay sex is definitely canceled.
Didn't you hear? Playing hockey outside is strictly prohibited, but sex is totally fine as long as you wear magic face napkins. The virus is very smart and only bypasses face cloth when the activity is not encouraged by leftist politics.
These homos in the picture aren't wearing their cloth, so I can only assume that the very smart virus has sexuality and morality checks and only attacks alphabet people when beneficial for propaganda purposes.
You might want to tell that to the Plinkett-in-drag in Pennsylvania whose office is giving pandemic orgy advice: https://archive.is/lWzRv
Same fellow who pulled his mother out a nursing home while letting other old people die.
It turns out that a delusional hog is not the best choice for Secretary of Health. Who could have guessed that?
It not being publicly acceptable, legal, and encouraged to throw these people off rooftops is islamophobic and anti-smetic.
Can you think of anything more harmful (aside from pro-pedo arguments, and that comes next anyway) to non-political gays than "let us fuck in public or you just don't accept gays?" Because, if that becomes mainstream, a lot of people are going to just say "fine, I don't accept gays. Get (figuratively or in private!) fucked, and get out of my face."
Then again, we've also seen how sheeplike people are. I'd imagine a surprising number of people (although nowhere near as high as compliance to other issues) would start cheering on public gay sex, because, hey, at least I'm not racist or homophobic.
I hope it doesn't happen, of course, but it would be funny to see progressives - and, even funnier, compliant and uncomfortable normies - in regular conversations try to make "you're a bigot if you won't watch queers fuck in the streets" a thing. Heck, I hope the chans don't get hold of this. They could probably make this shit happen in six months or less.
The very same degenerate screenshot here has admitted to being sexually attracted to children.
People are so terrified worn down that I think they will accept anything. It's more than overdue that homosexuals be told "no".
Coming up with things that normal people will not accept is not a bug, it is a feature. Read Sowell's Vision of the Anointed if you haven't. This has been going on in other forms for a very like time, like advocating for murderers and rapists. Anyone can advocate for a virtuous person, but the SJWs think that advocating for murderers and rapists sets them aside as being wise.
Funny, I kinda hope the chains do this because it would be "peaceful protest" levels in f delusion as people fuck behind newscasters
I'm not sure I quite caught on to the slippery slope concept when the gay marriage thing was at it's loudest, but that was what, ten years ago? I just wasn't as in tune to things then and I've always wanted to ignore politics anyway.
That and so many other things were a slippery slope, but I'm really starting to see them become more of an enormous cliff. That and they will make everything into one too. Every single happening is an opportunity to push their craziness.
Why do you want to fuck in public when the hormones have killed your dick, Phil?
This archive link is not safe for work, life, sanity, or much of anything except the kind of people who read the Daily Dot.
Because he needs the feeling of power that comes from forcing strangers (including children) to watch.
BAHAHAHAHAHA!
It's awesome when people get their just deserts.
This 41% Club member isn't even gay, although I am pretty sure that he is in a relationship with another delusional.
He has also admitted to being a pedophile, though he blamed it on some (possibly made-up) mental illness, so there you have it.
Faggots aren’t being allowed to fuck public because of the da white man! On point, I will allow you to fuck in public, but you need to do so in front of open Mosques and only open Mosques.
you're going back in the closet and the door's being welded shut.
Remember, proper insulation is important to fight global warming. It's crucial that all your doors and windows are airtight, or you're killing the planet.
Just let them fuck your kids, bigot!
Fuck off, degenerate.
That slope is lubed up with KY jelly.
This, this is why you reject anything these lunatics try to push through no matter what. It always somehow turns out crazy.
Sodomites have been having sex in public for the past 60 years if not longer. They are sick evil people.