At this rate there will be an anti-white holocaust before 2039…
It will be led by whites, against whites, and then the first whites will go willingly to their deaths while lamenting that even death will not absolve them of the sin of whiteness.
I think he was joking, but you lived up to your username for sure.
I really don't think it is based to persecute people for having consensual sex or owning rainbow watches, but LGBT shit has become so psychotically degenerate and authoritarian in the west, and is pushing so hard for the same globally, it's easy to cheer for any sort of pushback.
Sadly, defense mechanisms against LGBT encroachment have become very necessary. But for the sake of individual citizens, I hope this will be one of those laws that is in the books to act as a deterrent and won't actually be enforced too strictly.
I was surprised—people were very upset about things that we would never have thought would be dangerous
Haven't we been saying this since like 2014? That trigger warnings and safe spaces (i.e. pathologizing and avoiding sources of discomfort) just create an illusion of danger and harm your ability to cope?
my job is safe
lol
So why are they allowed to play white people, then?
They don't comprehend anything about the way you think, or about reality in general. They are not working with a full complement of brain cells.
Never allow the public to cool off.
Bitch, you're the one who chose to throw, and is still choosing to throw, a never ending tantrum over the guy. This one is squarely on you.
Are driverless cars legal now?
women and girls the world over are suffering due to the actions of men
No. They are suffering due to the actions, and inactions, and lies, and weakness, of politicians. 90% of their REAL problems comes back to that. And men are suffering just as much, if not more.
Maybe turn the gaze inward, Humzy.
The character sitting on top of the ramp is the same height as all the standing characters. The 'artist' couldn't even get that right.
'Basic human decency' is another one of their nonsense buzzwords. They don't even know what it means, because it doesn't actually mean anything.
It's just the magical combination of words they employ to conjure a moral bludgeon and hit you with it so you'll be shamed into meeting their ridiculous, openly harmful demands.
I don't see a call for censorship here, and I wouldn't support such a thing, but the writer is right about the game being 'too horny'. I'm no prude either, but from everything I've read and seen about the game it's just too much. They made a sequel to a beloved series and bragged about how 'horny' it is, and boy is it ever. In quite a 'progressive' way as well, despite being a rare modern game that allows women to be sexy. But the aggressiveness of its sex and fetishes is completely inappropriate for the series and the genre. It is, quite frankly, degenerate.
I still would not support censorship of it. But I do believe it's yet another example of the decline of gaming and our society as a whole.
Thankfully most of them aren't in STEM (yet), but the social sciences, bolstered by the facade of 'authority' given to by these degrees, are horribly destructive in their own right.
Define 'Full LGBTQ rights'. They demand this while never explaining what it actually means, and I can only infer it means mandating the use of their pronouns, mandating males in women's sports and locker rooms, and mandating sex with transgenders.
Their omission from pop culture is not an accident.
These are the people who call you conspiracy theorists.
The United States aims to be the ESG of international relations, using money, shaming, sanctions and cultural supremacy to subvert what the people of any given nation actually want.
It's evil.
If he did, the current administration would just let him have it. One less red state to defraud, and it would avoid wasting resources that would be better spent on Ukraine!
I completely agree that monogamy is good for gay males (for their sake and and ours!), I'm just not sure how much gay marriage helped with that. The monogamous ones have always been able to have stable relationships, albeit not with the perks that marriage provides, such as tax benefits and family rights. It could be said that the ability to marry encourages monogamy but I'm just skeptical about how much of a difference it's actually makes, especially compared to the damage it's led to. I can't help but think the push for gay marriage was more about 'sticking it to the straights' and advancing a much broader progressive agenda than it was about gaining any benefit.
You're absolutely right about the degenerate state of modern society being about incentivization, although I would add disincentivization and relentless propaganda to the list. Get rid of those and things will go back to normal in time. Most of our problems are fabricated in subtle and insidious ways, whether by malicious intent or as the result of policy that's too incompetent to understand its own long term impact. Barely any of the people in power are actually capable of thinking ahead more than a year or so, let alone factoring in the impact of logistics and social pressures. It seems that the few who do understand these things are maliciously using that knowledge to their own advantage.
Something I recently came to understand was when the Christians say "this isn't something you can reason yourself into: you either 'get it' or you don't".
There's some reasoning involved for me, but it's mostly things like 'We as a species don't know nearly as much as we think we do,' which I use to navigate the obstacles my rational side tries to throw in the way of my faith. Intuition is still very necessary, and not just in matters of faith either.
Progressives only ever use reason as an argument when they want you to abandon your gut instinct. Most of the time they don't give a flying fuck about what's rational, they live by the creed 'my feels over objective reals, Nazi scum', but the second your healthy intuition rejects their sick web of propaganda, suddenly (their mangled version of) rationality is back on the menu!
When a communist tells fellow communists they want to be farmers, they get called names and told to fuck off. It's fucking hilarious.
Is there a single aspect of life in which they are not utterly, retardedly, hilariously delusional?
Like you, I think they'd rather avoid that. But assuming for a moment that the presidency holds real power, then they'd rather assassinate him than allow him to ascend to it while vowing "retribution".
It's true, also, that a cornered animal is desperate. If Trump does represent a real threat to them - and there may be some hope of that, since they're trying so hard to stop him, although I think that's more about the populism he represents - they might decide they have nothing left to lose.
Instead, they had to act like total psychos.
I resent them for that more than I express, but since it revealed their true selves, I'm glad they did. At least we know what we're fighting. Better yet, a significant amount of people are waking up to their ways. Their hubris is their downfall. I hope.
You don't want to do that because you are ceding control over reality and objectivity itself.
I struggle sometimes with whether it's the right move to adopt their weapons (after all, when the dust clears you want a healthy society) but I disagree that it would be ceding control. They're already redefining everything. They already have superiority in the realm of dishonest argument, because they engage in it all the time, and we try not to. But our insistent adherence to reality is one of our major strengths, and it would be risky to give that up.
However, I agree that driving a threat underground runs the risk of it proliferating unchecked. But there's a difficult balance to achieve. Some of what you describe occurring at Stonewall is indeed harmful to a wider society, but society was definitively stronger when homosexuality was segregated. It's when it become 'integrated' that the slippery slope came into full, alarming effect - admittedly at the hands of dishonest activists who wished it so. And really, has gay marriage helped homosexual men so much? Anecdotally, I don't see a great uptick in the amount of healthy, monogamous relationships. It certainly hasn't improved the moral rectitude of the gay community, which seems as degenerate and promiscuous as it ever was, and much more subversive.
Besides, I'm of the firm belief that society needs an underground scene as a sort of pressure valve for the misfits of said society, or even those who resent the growing regimentation of the west - as long as their harmful ways are kept localized to the underground scene. Which is difficult to achieve - like I said, it's a difficult balance.
As to whether we need laws against homosexuality, enforced or otherwise - I was really just playing devil's advocate, and I suppose acknowledging how much better things seemed to work in the semi-recent past, when 'unofficial tolerance' was the way. But I think removing propaganda and anti-speech cabals alone would put us in a much better position to keep the sickness in check. In truth, I legitimately do not care what gay people do to each other so long as they're not messing with kids or spreading disease to a wider society.
But thank you for the engaging and informative reply.
Not among the ruling class!
Yeah and once you realize this exists you start seeing it everywhere - people who have no idea of the meaning, use, or intention of words (or even actions) but invoke them anyway. They could be trying to create a result (crying racism for their own benefit), they could be using them habitually (like meaningless niceties in conversation) or they might use them in lieu of argument, as though they're imbued with some sort of sacred, infallible authority and are true just because (leftist academia buzzwords).
You see it with pedestrians waiting at a red light even though there are no cars, you see it with people using their turn signals for half a second before turning, because they don't understand the purpose of them, they just know they have to do it before turning the car.
It's depressing when you realize just how much of the population think like this, although it's kind of a spectrum. At one end you have people who never think at all, and by all accounts seem barely sentient; on the other end you have people who rigorously think and question, but will inevitably have a blind spot or two.