Oh no, the horrors of being given a slap on the wrist for posting porn

#oppressed

I got banned from my last political server a few months ago lmao, for "not fitting the mood of the server."

i made people angry without insulting them. exact quote from the owner

Who's looking forward to the 2020 elections?

I can't imagine how the democrats are going to keep anything cohesive this time around. Seems like there is a lot of splintering and internal fighting, at least from an outside point of view

Oh yea, unless something radical happens like a strong democratic / republic candidate then trump has this in the bag, especially since the dems are tripling down on the mueller report

r/politics is in full meltdown lmfao

The big thing right now is "Trump has dementia and is unfit"

That, and that mueller / barr are both in trump's pocket

Honestly though, it seems like everybody will lose no matter who wins this election

all good lol, and there ya go. chose myself a role

I mean, gender is a "social construct," and gender norms are as well, but they exist for a reason. If some want to break those gender norms then go for it, more power to ya, but the idea that we should simply pretend they are invalid when they function for the vast majority is mediocre.

In my mind, I couldn't care less what others do, therefore I don't need an opinion on it. Maybe others have an experience that I don't, idk, and frankly idc. As long as the person is doing it of their own free will and it doesn't harm others.

And yea I get what you're saying beepis

My issue comes in regarding specific cases, (https://savejames.com/all-about-james/) But other than that, whatever. I find entitlement to be annoying as well.

i,e "You are expected to immediately know whatever I wish to be referred by."

Guys, chill. This isn't productive. You're just flinging insults, neither of you will change each other's views by screeching like moneys

I don't think it should be used to do that, but the precedent is out there and I think it should be looked into

That there is a, albeit small, group of children who are being influenced by a parent in regards to gender identity

I've seen a few other cases, I can attempt to cite them as well, but once again I wouldn't use it to somehow make an argument against an adult deciding they want to present as trans or anything like that

I think there are indeed some cases of it occurring, and acknowledging that is important, in order to weed out those who are "trans" and those who are being somehow pressured from an external source

There was a little boy on Dr Phil like that, wherein the mother claimed the child preferred female clothing / names with her and the father claimed the exact opposite. Both cannot be true.

External source i,e a parent, etc

Yes, so my point is that cases of a child being manipulated by a parent into "presenting" one way or another does occur, and is a concern of mine in regards to the trans community, but I haven't seen evidence to show that this is common

Blue, if you're going to make a claim, you should at least be willing to cite a source. If not, just don't participate in the argument.

If you don't want to present facts then why participate? It doesn't produce a productive discussion

Unless you just want to argue to argue, which is no different then any lefty shill or trump toelicker

Not to get too off topic, but why? Trump's policies are not terrible but he's nowhere near, say, Reagan in terms of charisma

Privately funded prisons are a weird issue, to be fair. Obviously if a company is willing to house inmates then of course the state will do it, it's less of a burden to the state. The argument, however, should be whether any form of non governmental entity should be able to run a correctional institution.

As for weed, I think that if state's rights were more respected and important then it wouldn't be an issue. Instead of having a federal law dictating why not let each individual state decide? What works in California may not work in Alabama and vice versa

Yea.

The idea that the federal government can somehow overrule a state's decision and by extension rights involving an issue that is not within the perimeters set by the constitution blatantly proves that the feds have a huge overreach of power

My question is why does it matter? If a person wants to turn their dick inside out, get some boob implants and a jawline shave, then who cares? As long as it doesn't harm anybody directly why is it even a debate?

The debate over whether or not being transgender is a mental illness largely comes down to definition. It is an abnormality, but is it mental or genetic? Is there a "gay" gene, or a "trans" gene? It's certainly abnormal but if we don't know the cause we can't rule it either way

Yes, however that largely refers to non internal issues. Treaties, for example, are considered the "supreme law of the land." My view is that it's not the place of the Federal government as Article 6 specifically refers to "any federal laws that are made according to the Constitution"

And I would consider that a large issue, state dependency on the federal government. It's genius really, make the states dependent on you for money in order to control state laws

For example, when the Obama administration introduced the healthy lunch program. Any school district that refused to participate risked losing federal funding, with the only schools able to ignore this being privately funded ones. It's really a scummy thing to do.

"Agree with us on every issue or we will cut you off of the money source we made you dependent on"

However, I think if the federal tax rate decreased and local government became increasingly more reliant on local taxes, then people would care more about local politics and overall being more involved. People take notice as to how much they are paying in taxes, money speaks volumes in that sense.

It's like weening a baby off of it's bottle. It's hard at first, since the baby is dependent on it, but once you've done it the baby now has more choices in what it can eat (not perfect but just an analogy)

Affirmative action in general is absolutely terrible, along with forced diversity and demographic manipulation

Why don't we agree that affirmative action is terrible, for one. Is that something we here can all agree on?

The concept keeping our union together is that the federal government provides the external defense while the states manage their internal affairs, it's the best of both worlds. A state would have no desire to succeed simply because they have the ability to freely manage internal affairs as they still don't have the ability to provide adequate external defense

My issue is when that federal government decides "We're going to both provide this external defense and also have extensive internal affair management as well."

Financially independent does not equal ability to externally defend

The southern states believed they would be able to externally defend with their combined might, say, a *Confederacy of states* if you will

They thought they were independent enough not to succeed and become a sovereign entity, but to form another competing group of states. That's why we saw USA vs CSA and not USA vs a dozen sovereign states

And yes, of course?

I've never said you don't need an economy for an army

Yes, that is true, they believed it would occur, however British distaste for slavery as well as technological advancements meant this never happened

It was a mixture. Minor military aid for another source of cotton would have been a sound investment for the British but yea it's another topic

The Confederates lost because they didn't have the industrial capacity nor manpower to replenish losses, meanwhile the USA did

It was everywhere to be fair, some were much better off but it would have failed either way. Even if only, say, the Eastern states only declared their own group of states, they'd still most likely have lost

This exact reason was, in fact, why Lee made his terrible choice as Gettysburg. He believed the only way to win the war was an absolutely crushing defeat against the Union and that no matter how many battles he "won" he'd always be losing as he could not replenish his men or supplies, hence his charge and subsequent annihilation

There were more reasons than just Lincoln for the border states not succeeding

Yes but they were not as widely supported as in the South, it's that simple. Perhaps Lincoln put the nail in the coffin but his threats didn't exactly stop other states from succeeding

They have to be not only financially dependent but capable of providing external defense and everything else involved in being an independent country

From a state's point of view, if they wish to just manage internal affairs, why would they pursue independence for incredible added responsibility?

And no, a state within the USA is nowhere near an independent country

Not really. States cannot manage treaties, for example. There are a ton of restrictions on what states can and cannot do

Once again, I'm not arguing that a select few states couldn't "make it" as independent nations, i'm saying they have neither the desire nor the means to make it happen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_treaties

Exactly, so they don't have the means because they can't provide water, a basic need, on their own, and have no desire to do so

You expect those high crusts in LA to ration water? Lol. But in all seriousness, even if a state does have the means, which only a few do, they do not have the desire, and wider financial independence / greater states rights would not change this.

But most states don't have the desire, and financial independence / greater states rights would not change this, is my point

Why would a group of states, in today's world, want to succeed, in order to form another union

I don't even know how to respond to that since it's not remotely realistic tbh

Right, I agree. A state would not secede unless there was some great conflict

I don't mind if somebody is open or proud about their sexuality, whatever. I do, however, find people whose sexuality is their personality to be incredibly obnoxious

It's like that dude at your lunch table who always talks about how many girls he bangs, it's annoying and obnoxious

Absolutely, 100%

I was under the idea most people hold my position, i suppose not?

As for objectification, I think it's more of a matter of maturity and timing. If you see a cute girl / guy and say to a friend "Wow, that person is cute," then whatever, but if you run down the road screaming "OH YEA SO SEXY" then it's just a failure to conduct yourself maturely in public

I will, however, say that I've noticed the trait above is more common in those within the LGBT community as opposed to those without it. I believe it has something to do with the concept of an "in group," etc. I've found it more common for, say, a gay men to have his sexuality be a huge portion of his personality, then a straight man. That's just my personal experience, so you can take it with a grain of salt

I don't mean mannerisms, I mean literal immediate sexual innuendo comments within minutes of interacting, but I understand your point

Once again, just my experience.

Another thing I'm also incredibly hesitant with, since we are on the topic of gender in general, are gender related surgeries

specifically ones involving genitalia. The complication rate is high and complications are debilitating. The risk just seems to outweigh the gain so drastically.

I've done extensive research personally on this specific topic, and seen more mutilated crotches then I ever thought I would. Ulcers, tears, fistulas, infection, required revisions, loss of all sexual function. It's terrible.

The vast majority are. The most popular, from what I can gather, is from one specific doctor in thailand of all places

I guess so lol. Seems to be just this one doctor though, everybody else sacrifices a lot

Hormonal therapy is also quite risky, although not as much. Spironolactone, for example, can cause skin necrosis in some cases (although rare) and estrogen drastically increases the risk of blood clots, embolisms, thrombosis, etc

Testosterone can also cause, in severe cases, liver failure or significantly decreased liver function. It's all the wild west of medicine right now, and from an outsider perspective, I can understand why some people would be vehemently against it

A person, willing to risk injury, mutilation, and death, to change themselves in an unchangeable way. It's a complex issue to be certain

I think that's a little dramatic, but Trump does have a good chance of winning, *unless* a democratic or republican candidate really represents themselves well. The democrats are currently internally fractured. with a large portion tripling down on the mueller report (i,e "Trump has mueller in his pocket!")

The biggest threat, from what I've seen, to Trump's 2nd term would be a strong Republican candidate with firmer policy stances. My biggest gripe with Trump is he fell back on a lot of what he promised, and if another candidate came along and had policies more in-line with my views then they'd have my vote in a heartbeat

It really did, especially with the "Barr is a shill, the summary is lying, we need to see the full report NOW because we don't understand privacy of information and redaction"

Yea, it probably won't happen, but I would say it's more likely then some sort of strong democratic candidate rivaling him

The internet is the perfect place for 20 years olds in their basement to exude power over others. Any subreddit will show you that lmao

Lmao it reminds me of an article I read after the 2016 election, "How Hillary can still be president," Funniest shit I ever read

It went like this "Trump resigns, Pence resigns, Paul Ryan becomes president, appoints Hillary as VP, and then resigns."

Loopy land I tell ya

Hitler was incredibly devote to the german cause, he wouldn't have left even if he could have. I'm positive other high ranking officials escaped to South America, but not Hitler himself. He saw no life for either himself or the german people if the reich felll.

Say what you want about Hitler, but he was incredibly devoted to his ideals.

But do you have any substantial evidence to support your belief? Leaving Berlin would have been both virtually impossible and completely out of character for who Hitler was and how he acted.

Yes, his health did decline rapidly as the outlook on the war worsened. A mixture of pre-existing conditions and I would assume incredible stress as the walls collapsed around him

Yea. Hitler running to south america is just another one of those crackpot theories, same with the nazi bell ufo and all that stuff

http://www.populationeurope.org/download/images/tiles/1-1.jpg

¯\_(ツ)_/¯