Tsk, how the fuck aren't these just called 'Trump Cards'? Can't even get obvious shit right, gotta be mid and cringe.
Last edited:
Funny events in anti-woke world
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
Along with the NFT crap, surprised it took them this long to leap on the bandwagon tbh. I suppose there's just such an oversaturation of grift opportunities now, it takes a while for any esteemed grifter to sort through them all.
Has it?
Again, there was a point in history (not that long ago really) when neither science or sex existed. The form of the human body was understood to be the result of magical substances and the interior nature of the soul. In other words, men and women were different because they were metaphysically different. Specifically, women were different because their souls were too weak to make them into men, and the exterior sign of this was that they had failed to extrude an external penis.
The "discovery" of sex didn't actually change very much about society. Beliefs about the intrinsic nature and capacities of men and women remained exactly the same, they were just magically transcribed into the domain of sex. Suddenly, it wasn't the female soul that was weak but the female nervous system, but the result is essentially the same.
My point here is that, from the very beginning, ideas about sex were filtered through a preexisting understanding of how things were supposed to work that not only completely predates any form of science, but was also in many ways fantastically wrong. In fact, the discovery of sex introduced a bunch of new ideas which also turned out to be wrong. It popularized the belief that women were naturally passive and asexual. Women's sexuality, after all, is superfluous to the requirements of sexual reproduction, thus it must be contrary to nature. It completely banished the idea, which so fascinated renaissance anatomists, of the genitals as composed of homologous structures, which of course they are.
In many ways, the past hundred years has been a long, painful process of removing all the pre-scientific and extraneous baggage from the idea of sex, a process that is still very much ongoing. But once we finish that process, what will be left? Once sex is reduced to the essential physical processes and structures that form its actual basis, will whatever is left be enough to have any social importance?
Personally, I hope not. The whole idea was silly, it was never created for a world that could look into and understand the human body on the level we can today. It was created for a world where things happened by magic because God wanted them to.
Again, my concern would be that once you remove the absoluteness/rigidity or binary nature of sex, what does it even mean?
I'll freely admit that this may be one area in which I am biased, or prone to wishful thinking. I'd be the first to tell you that me wanting to build an identity away from my assigned sex does not actually make the idea of sex meaningless, or mean that it won't continue to have utility to other people. But, even if just on a pedagogical level, I think one of the best ways for people to realize that sex is not absolute/rigid and binary is to face up to how deeply arbitrary it actually is. I think my perspective is a useful one, in that sense, even if it is not capital-T true.
Sure, but I disagree that "sex" in the sense we're using it here is synonymous with sexual characteristics. It is a social (and legal) identity assigned on the basis of (a superficial observation of) sexual characteristics.
Uteruses certainly exist, and you need one in order to get pregnant, but a uterus is not defined by its role in pregnancy. It's a physical object with its own independent existence. If we decide that having a uterus makes you a special type of person called a "woman", then that definition is not actually related to pregnancy, because the uterus does not have the intrinsic purpose of facilitating pregnancy. It's a coincidental relationship in terms of how it relates to the definition of a woman.
I will concede that this same idea could be expressed in terms of correspondence and might even make more sense in those terms, but I don't think that substantially weakens the underlying argument.
Last edited:
He also closed the account. Because free speech.
Nobody can parody Trump like Trump can. There's never been a better parody! Nobody was parodying anyone until Trump came along!
...also, I'm convinced that that picture is what he thinks he sees when he looks in the mirror.
...also also, ninety nine fucking dollars?! If I thought his followers possessed two brain cells between the lot of them, I'd expect an uproar.
Well, he does love the poorly educated and we can see why.
Damn they work fast! And it still look better than his XD
I'm sorry I'm not spoonfeeding you every parcel of information on the internet
Which means you can’t explain why the negative aspects of Beira are valid and the positive aspects are invalid.
Nothing negative, but there is an important speech Korey has that is great to hear. I have it time stamped.
Last edited:
Oh hey, the tweet making fun of Trump's NFTs got suspended. I wonder what for? 
BUT I THOUGHT SPEECH WAS FREE ON TWITTER! Daddy Elon said so.Oh hey, the tweet making fun of Trump's NFTs got suspended. I wonder what for?
He is not coping with that public booing too well lol.
...none of Beira's positive aspects relate to, y'know, people, the one's that relate to animals are regarding shit like scaring deer so they hide through winter and helping roving packs of hungry wolves, and her harvest aspects largely relate to "hey dumbass, don't eat the last of your seeds".
Meanwhile, the story of Beira and the Bride, the story referenced *by the people doing press for the women's shelter*, involve Beira being eternally horrible to a woman who doesn't deserve it
Like, Zeus has his positive aspects too but he shouldn't be a namesake for a rape victim advocacy center
Last edited:
Musk defines "free speech" as the freedom for everyone to agree with him.
We are talking about things that don't exist. Everything is optional.
First of all, and not being sarcastic here, thank you for answering my initial question.
Secondly, was it really that hard to say from the beginning that you did not find Beira’s positive aspects to be relevant to the case?
That would have been a quick and simple answer.
As would saying the only apparent interactions Beira had with humans were negative.
Implying that any positive aspects did not exist until JKR thought them up is disingenuous.
Ignoring or not answering the question makes you look like an extremist or someone who just jumped on the bandwagon and started parroting what they heard without thinking.
Plenty of mythological figures have both negative and positive aspects that are at the very least acknowledged.
Just because something may be obvious to you does not mean it is obvious to everyone. Requests for clarification or elaboration should be assumed genuine.