It's amazing how dumb the Feds are. One should wait a while as to not make it look suspicious, but yeah, they probably were chomping hard at the bit over the border, more so than the Twitter Files.
I wasn't implying they should be allowed to continue their behavior, but okay
If one of them chops off his dick, then later regrets it and attempts to detransition like some horror stories have, are they still a demon? No chance at redemption from repentance of sin? Or if they repent, they become human again? Argueably these "humans" could be possessed, but what explains the ability to turn back? A good chunk of these troons seem to have been either groomed or allowed by lack of societal pressure, or even encouraged to be such.
Demons don't feel remorse for their actions and sure, many of these freaks may never return. But humans have let society slip so far that it's easy for anyone to fall into this. If the majority of society went back to ostracizing them, in addition to society as a whole repaired, many could and probably would convert back or never make the attempt. As far as I'm concerned, these creatures are a sympton of Man sleeping at the wheel of civilization.
So this the second dog they've had to take away from the Potato? That should be pretty damning of his position, but you know...
(Not sure if true, but I've heard there's pictures of him kicking this or the previous dog, which I'm surprised that he's gotten away with that as well)
don't realise the last two words of the term TERF
It's always in the back of my mind when the tranny stuff comes to a head against the unaware sheep. They forget the timeline of: Men bad (90s) -> medicate the boys (00s) -> "toxic" masculinity bad (2010s, which honestly was just "men bad" again, but added "being woman is best" and resulted in the trannies)
In hindsight, it was being spearheaded by the same radfems. They helped create this outcome.
So are the FtMs banned from the male wards in turn?
No? So it's more TERF nonsense rather than complete reversal...? Because the article quotes "women's voices" more than once
EDIT: Reading the DailyMail article more thoroughly, one line implies that the changes will keep the trannies where they belong, with their real biological sex. Barclay is still framing around "women's rights", so it threw off the context
I'd like a full-on tax revolt to dry up the government trough and I think single men checking out would be the easiest way to get the ball rolling, if it's not happening already. That's part of why media/government are demonizing single men the most right now. Less wage slaves, less fostering of new wage slaves, less wealth to extract.
This whole thread and the following comments are fascinating.
Have one really bad opinion or use the wrong choice of words on this forum, then try to defend yourself hard. Post history gets ignored, get lambasted as a jew, nigger or anything else. Seems to happen to quite a few users.
I knew Newsom was going to pick someone nasty that doesn't align with voters, but Carpetmuncher Bagger wasn't in my bingo card.
I know it's evil, it's just that Swift's case was used as a means of acting like she overcame it all herself, a victory for wimminz, even though she already had a leg up over most other musicians that ever tried.
Any artist in pop, rock or major genre where big money is involved is guaranteed to get royally fucked in the industry. Niche genres along with metal and indie I'm not sure, maybe even small time groups have similar issues. Although the industry has given us good music, it pushes a lot of garbage (moreso in the past 25 years)
she Trojan Horsed her way
If her daddy wasn't in major Finance and they hadn't moved to the Heart of Country Music where she magically got gigs with session musicians, then yeah, she wouldn't have been the Trojan horse she is.
When she appeared on the scene in the mid-late 00s, it was obvious to people who understood the industry that she was targeted crap. First for execs to try and disrupt the country music scene (country was beginning it's death spiral anyway), then to pivot into a feminist pop star (which she succeeded in doing).
The most recent bullshit from her before this NFL thing was that, since she didn't own the rights to her recordings (boo fucking hoo), she went and rerecorded a bunch of her albums, released them last year, and by golly looks like they sold like hotcakes because grrrlpower (I only know this because the places where I buy music were showing her at the top for sales last year). Swift got to do what almost any artist never has the time or money (or care) to do, but because she had the resources, got patted on the back for being a AWFL fighting back against the ebul music industry.
Well I get it now since my last shreds of hope for them disappeared during the plandemic. I would at least think these crooks want to maintain the illusion, but now they just don't seem to care as they feel close to a perceived victory over humanity (or maybe it's just panick disguised as lack of sympathy).
At this point I'm probably blackpilled on the whole structure of Western society, I don't know...
After the past few years I've come to the conclusion that all the rootless cosmopolitan demons at the top see humans as nothing more than resources for their gain. This is ultimate Greed. Any charity on their part is just a facade. If the citizens get uppity, well they'll just suppress us, undermine our access to resources and replace us. They hate the social contract and wish to rewrite the terms to favor them only
I was thinking just doubling it or more to rapidly cut down on the bribe- excuse me campaign donations and grift, but 100+ is a good start.
Now just waiting on Hoodie and the Turtle and we'll have a hat trick in the Senate. No member of Congress should be squatting on the seat past their expiration date.
(As an aside, the number in the House of Rep should be increased to curb all the other bullshit. 1 rep per 800k people is pretty shitty)
That's not what I was arguing. I was arguing against someone being persecuted by simple association.
Maybe I prefaced it badly, but don't put words in my mouth.
The multitude of Holocaust museums (including quite a number in the US) and half of the German nation suffering under Communism was never enough I reckon?
Nuremberg and additional trials of the time only convicted 179 people (with 37 of those being executed), but I guess we need to be hunting those who were SS members from a lifetime ago now? Statue of limitations, buddy.
(Edit: The number leaves out the other warcrime trials, like for Dachau etc, contemporary and long ex post facto, but it should be noted that a lot arrested didn't see trial)
1607, 1620, and 1865 aren't that hard because those are still sort of taught today.
But I actually had to look up 1849, and even then that year seems ancillary to now, but back in 1895 it would still be relevant. If anything from that year would be taught nowadays it probably would be Tubman escaping slavery
The fact that ESG is in trouble itself with it's backers not fully committing to it anymore
ESG would only work so long as the social engineering of the population works in favor of the agenda. Nobody wants to buy shit inundated with what some bigwig think tanks, completely disconnected from the plebs, think consumers should consume "for the betterment of humanity". The backers can't be this dumb. It's got to be a scam to ruin the economy further while profiting a little because, as you said, "a lot of these businesses were already running out of steam"
The "unrestricted" column says 21 for WA state. Above I said
...currently the No Restrictions ages of consent...
Add: This is what I meant by it being confusing. The whole "authority" thing throws it off and can make it seem like "unrestricted" is the one
so you don’t go to prison for banging your 15 year old girlfriend at 17
That's why I brought up said laws.
I don't want to get too deep into the details of this because it gets confusing and messy, but my understanding is there are three aspects to consent: Age difference (the Romeo-and-Juliet laws), Authority and then No Restrictions. Depending on the state, the first, the second, or both may not apply. (I believe the "authority" stuff is so teachers and instructors aren't molesting teens that just finished puberty)
From a quick look up, currently the No Restrictions ages of consent are 16 in 17 states, 17 in 5 states, 18 in 27 states, and 21 in the state of Washington. So 18 is technically the most common without special additions. 15 states have the "by authority" limit at 16yo which means for those states it is technically 16. It's 17 for two states, so that makes 17 states where it's actually not 18. (EDIT: My math was wrong here, it's 32-33 states)
I should have clarified that I meant 18 as "unrestricted" consent, because I wrongly assumed that was what consent meant. There's also the whole social aspect that throws a wrench in assumptions, where most people I come across view going at under 18 as pedophilia/gross, even if it's technically legal in a third two thirds of the nation.
I noticed that after posting this. Don't know why the reporting reason is different from the policy. Maybe they're intending to change the policy so this is just being done in advance.
age of consent is only 18 in a few states
(Not to undermine your point, adding clarification) Quite a few of the states where consent is not explicitly 18, they have Romeo-Juliet laws instead, where 16~18(-1 day) yo adolescents can consent if both male and female are in the range, but it's still 18 if one or the other is not.
I would agree in banning all sexual content on such a platform
If it's hard to read, I posted a link to the whole policy page on my own comment in this post
I'm on the west side of the Atlantic. I wasn't aware there were two ways of saying it.