wearing chainmail bikinis

also tribes are sexist, and SJWs may start denying that humans are historically tribal or that tribes existed historically

everyone traveled and traded around!

Hello 👋

hey there

didnt expect to see yuo today

I am everywhere, always.

o really

Y yes.

you weren't here last time i was here

But I was.

oh, ok

👌

guess i didnt see you then

I really like heirloom tomatoes.

I eat them on toast every morning

**Lutinmetzger#6471** was cleansed from the server.

It would have been a good time when he first became a judge, or when he became a federal district judge, or when he became a federal appeals court judge.

**Queenie#7912** was cleansed from the server.

Or when it happened

https://www.breitbart.com/texas/2018/09/22/agents-apprehend-2000-migrants-in-3-days-at-single-border-crossing/

**[SynCo]DandereNinja#2642** was cleansed from the server.

What the fuck kind of Steven Universe bullshit are you spewing out at me son?

**Obesity#0331** was cleansed from the server.

I kinda want to see them try the nuclear option.

At least for a few days.

Don't let your bluffs be bluffs

@Werlf another sexual misconduct allegation against Kavanaugh

lel

@M4Gunner Well, maybe there will still be a market for garbageware for PewDiePie or whoever to screech at. Or maybe you could be the one to do the screeching! Just don't make jokes that are too edgy.

Eyyyy, here's some good news. https://www.dailywire.com/news/36217/flames-michael-moores-new-anti-trump-movie-joseph-curl

Did better than *Michael Moore in Trumpland,* though. That made only about $150,00 TOTAL if I understand correctly.

I haven't seen his latest nonsense since going to see that in a theater is as inviting as watching 2 hours of Democratic Party campaign commercials, but I wonder what about this film isn't totally redundant compared to Moore in Trumpland.

How does one argue against the absurdity of the intent fallacy

https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/1044032678951960576

@Shurik As in, someone saying "you're wrong because you just want us to do this"?

Literature. Authorial intent

I think the intent fallacy is rather emotionally driven, so you could try to make the debate as objective as possible. Maybe go for something among the lines of "My intent is irrelevant to the discussion, and even if it was, you're best off addressing my points in order to foil my intent, instead of the other way around."

Like on one hand you have to give the devil his due and say yea the authors intent dosen't matter. On the other hand reading the back and forth between Asimov and Heinlein is something else. The amount of points and counter points they throw at each other with each consecutive book makes the books all that more meaningful

I don't want to break down the argument into the extreme and say when Shakespeare wrote gay he mentioned happy and not homosexual. But I feel like it's the kind of absurdity I would have to break down to.

Oh, in that case, I do like to know intent. I was thinking in a n argument between two people and one trying to discredit the other, not bringing an authority source into the matter.

I was specifically talking about interpretations of literature