Hey little bro, mom says you gotta do a 250 word essay on the civil rights movement.

How can you tell me it is false at the same time you tell me there’s not a lot of information passing between the two? These statements are in contention. But, like, I wouldn’t even think they literally all have the same haircut. I would think there is a prevalence to have similar hairdos. Because nationalism is like that. You idolize the military, you get people trying to look like the military. It’s not rocket surgery.

This is a weird misinformation combat strategy, where you tell me something isn’t true that is for sure not true, and then point to something that might or might not be true and say that it is the same thing. Because they’re not. If anything, it makes me feel like the opposite. Heck, I can even say that someone eating rats isn’t particularly crazy when you make me think about it. I’ve seen some poor conditions, and eating squirrels and rabbits isn’t that different from eatings rats, and there are people that do that here in America. Like, is eating a rat even that bad? It feels kinda like shaming someone for trying to survive. And I didn’t even really care about the haircut thing! Omg!

I don’t have an issue with having an issue with all existing countries. Why would I? It doesn’t defend your point to say “oh so you hate when other people do it?” Yes! Obviously! I think military parades are bad, specifically because it glorifies violence and promotes a national identity around use of that violence to keep people insular. Like, if you dislike imperialism, you kinda should dislike nationalism, even when used in self-defense because it is a huge double-edged sword.

Real life is never so simple as to be either good or bad. Are things good in the country you live in?

Good and bad are comparators. Some places are better, some are worse. But the argument indicates that we should treat an unknown as better than a known, and that the red flags are just flags. I like the optimism, truly, but I would rather see evidence for it.

I think there is a big difference between eating rats and having the same haircut in terms of propaganda angles. Like, I could believe the second one because a strong national identity tied to looking a certain way feels very in line with traditionally militaristic and patriarchal countries, but trying to tie that to eating rats is moat and baileying. Anyone that believes the eating rats is a small minority and would be given skeptical looks, especially without proof.

But seeing you do that at the same time you tie North Korea to Cuba feels like that’s the point? You see why I am skeptical of your premise. You keep pointing at eating rats and imperialism like it shields you from the other issues you don’t address.

I appreciate that you defended the nationalistic part, but I don’t appreciate that you glossed over the patriarchal part, but I digress.

Nationalism is just a crutch to bring support to the ruling class of any country. Saying that it is good if the ruling class is good or even just has good intentions is… Not good? I shouldn’t have to explain how that kind of fervor can be coopted. Nationalism doesn’t just disappear when it’s no longer needed.

But, personally, as a US citizen, I don’t think anyone I know thinks of North Korea as a hellscape. Media rarely portrays them as one, although it comes up more in Korean media, which does have some proliferation here. In the news, it’s just about the weapon capabilities, and the military parades, the former I don’t really care about as much coming from a country with an arsenal capable of destroying the world many times over and occasionally little hesitancy to do so, and the latter I very much do. Same with Cuba. If anything, American media tries to convince us of all African and sometimes South American countries are hellscapes. Mostly, we just get told Cuba has old cars and is poor and stuff about Fidel Castro, and North Korea is also poor and very militaristic and nationalistic. But, like, that seems pretty accurate from your replies?

So, are things bad there or good there? Because if your argument is that Western sanctions make it bad to be there, then why not lobby to push for the end of sanctions instead?

But that doesn’t seem to be the case here. It feels like you are trying to have your cake and eat it. It is simultaneously a good place to be and suffering under sanctions, defectors are paid lots of money to exaggerate and live destitute lives to need that money.

Like, it feels like you are saying people like it there, which… Yeah, people generally like to be in places they’ve always been. But that doesn’t make it good there. There are people in the US that live in very poor conditions in cities and towns with access to poor water, poor education, poor nutrition, etc., and like it there. Does that mean it is actually good there instead? No, obviously. That is silly.

Like, I dunno, man. Any country that does military parades is immediately kind of a red flag for me. That gives me strong nationalistic and patriarchal vibes and is not a thing that makes me think unbiased.

None of them. OP is projecting, misinformed, suffering psychosis, or all three. Democratic politicians said that violence is wrong, and that they mourn for Charlie’s family.

OP might be confusing reality with their own head canon, and should seriously consider going to a psychiatrist.

No, they didn’t.

CM becomes CDD, which becomes CCCCD which becomes CCCCCCCCC.

You know, I think it works more than you’re giving credit. No one likes being yelled at.

Wait, where are you going? You still haven’t shown this group of trans people that are the top of women’s sports.

Statistically, if there is an advantage, trans people would be the top of their sports, given that all other factors would be normalized. So, you simply have to show that there is a congregation of trans people at the top. That would inarguably prove that you are correct and there is a competitive advantage to being trans. If you leave, I will continue to be under the (correct) assumption that there is no advantage to being trans.

Unless you can point to all of the trans athletes dominating sports right now, my point is pretty easy to defend. If it is a competitive advantage, there would be multiple trans athletes at the top of women’s sports regardless of how uncommon being trans is, and there simply isn’t.

You’re saying there’s not enough data, but you’re also saying that it shouldn’t be allowed, therefore ensuring there will never be enough data using, again, the exact same excuses for making black leagues (competitive advantage). And to accuse me of cherry-picking while explicitly doing so is ironic, since I was using aggregated studies.

It would be simpler for you to claim that you will never accept trans people, instead of trying to use logic to defend your stance, because you’re wrong.

No, I get it. But, you’re using what you feel is true versus what is true. The “advantage” you’re talking about isn’t significant among any study, ranging from a 7% advantage in some athletic categories to a 13% disadvantage in others.

Competitive sporting associations have rules and regulations for trans athletes competing in sex-segregated leagues, and they typically involve around two years on HRT and I’m not sure if you’re aware of the side effects of starting HRT, but athletes typically see substantial muscle loss. These competitive organizations do not see trans athletes excel when following these rules. And that is because trans athletes aren’t superior to cis athletes.

The strongest and tallest man probably has some advantages in some sports over the tallest and strongest woman, but you need to compare the strongest and tallest trans man to the man and trans woman to woman because those comparisons are surprisingly more in favor of the cis athlete than you would probably like for a whole host of reasons.

The first is that trans women do not have a big advantage over cis women. They have, at best, a very slight advantage, depending on their time on HRT and age.

The second is that there isn’t a lot of trans people. Trans people make up around 2-3% of the population, so they would have around 1/30th of the number of teammates in their school. That would be difficult to make a full team around. And because they’re segregated out, they would need to find other teams to play against, as well.

The third thing you’re missing is that you really only care about trans women in this debate. Do you care if trans men compete against cis men? They compete at very similar levels, too, and if you think being born as a woman is a disadvantage, then why do they do just as well after transitioning?

And the last thing is that we have gendered leagues due to a sexist history behind sports. Women weren’t allowed to compete in a variety of sports for a long time. Women’s leagues were initially created for the same reason black leagues were created. We have kept them because they are a really lazy way to determine what category of play you are in, as though they act similar to weight classes in wrestling. But athletes within the same sex can compete at completely different abilities for different reasons. Taller players can have a much bigger advantage against shorter players in a ton of sports, so why don’t we use height as a determiner of which league you play in instead?

God only said to honor thy father-san and thy mother-san, didn’t really have clear instructions on himself.

Slaves weren’t forced to work! They clearly had a choice to not work and be harmed or killed, as well!

All the people on Epstein’s client list

Apologies. That was meant to be sarcastic, and not a blame on Democrats. I was mostly making fun of the extreme lengths people are going to to say that the Republicans are somehow not to blame for this.

Keep on trying. One of these days, those Democrats will turn around and say not to reveal this info, and then that’ll vindicate the child-loving Republicans.

Hey, where’s all those losers that kept saying the Dems didn’t actually want it released? Come on out of the woodwork, ya fucking losers.

… That makes sense. Whoops!