I mean, you might as well call it the Walmart expansion model
I mean, you might as well call it the Walmart expansion model
And they say you guys are humourless!
I wasn’t being too serious tbh. However, as we’re here, I feel like fairytales might have been around a little bit longer than nazis.
You should read about how the Franks “christianised” German saxons and then cross reference that with the time period those kinds of fairytales come from, as we’re swapping reading ideas. It’s just a guess on my part of course.
Apologies for interrupting your work.
Burned alive for using the wrong sewing technique / burned alive for worshiping the wrong god or maybe the “right” God but, in the wrong way, who knows?
Either way, somehow, someway, the idea of being burned alive for not following rules seems to be almost literally burned deep into the Germanic saxon psyche.
They’re not a humourless people. They’re just terrified someone might catch them not working or following the rules and laughing isn’t working.
They know how much control they can assert of the population through controlling social media. They’re not about to allow anyone else to use that, if they can help it. Also, it’ll dilute their messaging, even if it wasn’t as problematic as something like tiktok.
It makes sense the second you stop presuming any good faith.
deleted by creator
Its estimated that this will stop underage people accessing porn for at least 30 seconds while they download tor browser
Again, you don’t understand what a false equivalence fallacy is. So, you should really stop attempting to use it because doing so is make you look like a fool.
Whatabouting and false equivalences aren’t the same thing. I feel like I’m witnessing the death of irony here.
No, something wrong is still wrong, even if you feel bad about historical injustices. The power imbalance does not change this and also ignores every other intersection a white person could have.
You even drew a false equivalence the BLM which is the only actual false equivalence on this chain.
See the wiki pages of the fallacies you clearly don’t understand.
God damn bougouise feminists.
My point is that is that both are wrong, not that they are or are not both equally wrong. So, would you mind explaining where the equivalence is please?
I mean, I know its more of a case that some people don’t like that both of those things are wrong to do but I’m gonna need a little more than that and a misunderstanding of an informal fallacy, sorry.
The easiest way to see if it’s OK is to swap out “men” with any other protected characteristic. If, having done that it suddenly becomes problematic, it was always so and they should’ve known better.
I think youre right not to engage them though. For all their talk of equality, anyone who talks like that just wants to be at the top of a new hierarchy. Remove or subjugate the men and most women (who haven’t decolonisated their minds) will just replicate the same power structures, adopting the position of patriarch without a hint of self awareness. The way forward is to help other men see the pain caused to them by the patriarchy, as its only then that we can see the pain we cause through the patriarchy, due to the rituals of disregard and empathy killing we go through as boys.
I’ll finish by saying the same thing I said to my dad, shortly after he lost his job" "yes dad, of course I’ve heard of the phrase ‘sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.’ However, you can’t always do that, especially when you’re meant to be firefighter, you doughnut.
Don’t worry, as the Internet is forever, you’ve already criticised dear leader. We just have to hope they don’t get into power.