Probably, but rather than explain himself he's denying what is plain for everyone to read. I am scrolling this thread and have not seen the other thread where he says something else. It's fine to be snarky if you admit that you are.

Oh, thank you for saying that. You see, on Reddit you're now a alt-right conspiracy theorist. We don't do research or studies that aren't pre-approved where scientific consensus has been settled. We don't get to propose any study that could disrupt the consensus. And, if the consensus changes we ban you for mentioning the heresy.

I guess that's why they totally stop asking questions about the theory and why they stopped devising tests about the theory. Those conspiracy theorists that detected gravitational waves basically stole a bunch of research money because the consequences was settled science. Anything that goes against the consensus including any scientific consensus that changes its mind is a conspiracy theory and misinformation.

It's only impossible because they don't ever try because they think it's impossible. I'm fully pro second amendment. I think most gun laws (especially older ones) are designed to be enforced on a specific class of people.

Maybe I'm sexist here, but you know they will huff and puff and suck their teeth before they say that. It's going to be a handful of breaths later.

>child like child porn I'm imagining this is the kind of porn children make with a care bear and a GI Joe doll on Mommy's stolen iPad.

He didn't post the meme. He posted a comment on it.

Wow. I too, was thinking it was the meme. I was wondering why you'd post the meme and the comments. Now it makes sense. That sub is overrun by extremists that wants to tell you that you're throwing your vote away if you don't vote Republican or Democrat.

That's older than the show. Writers generally don't invent too many jokes. They invent scenarios where the jokes can be delivered.

It's from the "What we do in the shadows" TV show. It's a hilarious show about vampires.

I will enjoy the festivities during the Superb Owl show this Sunday.

The entire conflict is about which ethnic group makes it better. Obviously it's stolen from the Greeks so they're both wrong.

It sucks that you were censored. Your opinion is yours and it wasn't mean or irrelevant. I disagree with your opinion when a spoiler has cultural significance especially if that significance is expressed with a mnemonic. It not only needs to be spoiled it would be mean to not spoil it otherwise you're practicing exclusionary behavior rather than inclusive behavior. If someone says red pill or blue pill, an entire culture knows this mnemonic. Of course every year there's going to be more people that don't know what it means because that's the nature of birth and mortality. To include people, you need to tell them what it means and even where the mnemonic came from.

I got banned for using an alt account after another ban... Only I don't have an alt account. Pretty much they can ban you for no reason at all. At least your's says "linked account" while mine didn't say that. Just saying my writing style betrayed my alt account identity.

"The rules only apply when they apply to you." - my Dad He was explaining covert enforcement and plausible deniability. Basically it's easier to ask for forgiveness than get permission. Act like you've been doing (whatever) for a long time and implicate the people who let you if you actually have been doing it a long time. On the other hand of enforcement, never order your people to do something illegal. But order your people to "get the job done". You have no idea that they don't understand what they did was illegal and you've covered your ass for being intentionally ignorant and incompetent as a leader, but hey, you get results.

So they aren't against hate. They are against wrong think.

I was banned for "low quality comment". Almost immediately after someone replied to my comment that proved my comment true. I admit it wasn't particularly useful in that comment thread. But banned for life? Instead of just "your comment has been removed".

Well I don't actually comment on everything I read. There are good people there, don't get me wrong. But if they ban me, but not someone as you say, picking fights. It's an indication that the mods not the participants are encouraging an echo chamber which in itself is unwelcoming.

I quit playing PokemonGo when one morning I woke up and my username had changed. I panicked thinking I was hacked and changed all my Google based passwords. Two days after I put in a support ticket to get my name changed back they send me an email saying my name was changed by them, because another player was using it. I was a beta player, I got my username before PokemonGo was even released for beta. Screw you niantic. The other player was me. I had the same name in ingress. They combined accounts.

That's what I found the funniest.

Individuals actually love rules. So many lack the imagination to set rules for themselves that they look to an authority to set them. Rules are a guide to goal setting. And, achieving goals releases endorphins. The rules are supposed to guarantee a successful goal. Each day you follow the rules you get a mini endorphin hit because you're a step closer. Sometimes rules are bad... Actually a lot of rules are bad. You still get that hit, because you don't know they are bad. You refuse to change to new rules because your addicted to your endorphins.

>but is it advertisement? You’ve got to be retarded to actually believe that. You know how to not get me to participate in that sub? Don't market it to me as a discriminating and distinguished place to be. I've never heard of them there was no other reason for them to contact a non-member and non-participant. If you don't think they are advertising then you wouldn't have participated in my post. I guess, by your own words, you are retarded. I'm sure your already aware.

It's not like blackpeopletwitter where I have to prove my blackness. So I'm guessing this sub just has lazy moderators that want to attract attention to themselves through direct marketing. Why did they bring themselves to my attention if I've never participated there before?

I'm half black. Actually African, Ethiopian. I'm exactly the same amount of black as Barack Obama. To answer your question, why would they bring their sub to which I've never heard of to my attention? They clearly want me to be there, but they want me to beg to be there.

Who gets to pick what is "dangerous"?

I've never visited that sub. The ban is the first I'm hearing about its existence. They are enticing me to interact with this sub in the message. That's what advertising is. Getting your name out there and encouraging interaction.

What does this extension do? Never mind. I learned to read since I posted.

You are a monster. Pineapple on pizza is bad.

I don't think people are starving to death. My father has been house bound for a couple of years. He's been having groceries delivered and meals on wheels and other such services. In his area those services got banned. Straight up gig economy (his area hated that anyway) got banned, but the way they wrote the order it banned any kind of delivery that wasn't parcel or post. The exception seemed to be free delivery. So you could order services to your house like a locksmith or plumber because they aren't charging you separate for coming over. My dad lives in a retirement town. The population is 40% over 60. They've shut everything down and rightfully so. So how's my dad gonna eat? This was a genuine worry of his. I almost drove the 8 hrs to his community to stock him up on can foods and shelf stable items. Fortunately there are as many churches as clinics even though my dad isn't particularly religious. They (not being able to hold services) came door to door proselytizing. The mayor tried to stop it, but it's not like they wore uniforms. They left promptly if asked (or yelled at). Anyway, they got to my dad's, house he told the Jehovah's, he told the Mormon's, he told the Baptists, it took them a bit, but even the Jewish temple made it to his house. Initially they each hooked him up with food, but eventually the labor trade people who attended these institutions worked out that they could deliver food. You'd call the church (my dad is sticking it out with the Baptists) then he'd request a "plumbing inspection" from someone on their list. Then some apprentice kid would show up with the groceries and my dad pays with a paper check or card swipe to the plumbing contractor. Lockdown has since been eased and gig economy is reopened and restaurants are reopened at least in part. Unless there are places actively preventing agricultural transactions communities are finding a way to bypass their government. Btw, the mortality rate in my dad's community is terrible. About 25% are dieing if they get Covid. Much higher than my community that sits at about 0.1%. My dad's community has super slow spread with a population of 60k they've only had about 600 cases. My population is almost a million and were closing in on 100k cases. Population density? Did my dad's community abandon it when the very strong gig economy was shut down? We can't figure out why this unregulated gig economy they've got going hasn't spread it more.

I don't think they are being over reported. I think there are far more c19 related deaths that are not due to actual infection. Like panic keeping people from medical care, or like a friend of mine (no dead but could have) has a bacterial pneumonia that was treated like Covid until they finally figured it out. And of course suicide from depression because of lockdown. These aren't getting talked about enough. Loss of job, no escape from abuse, isolation are all factors.

>Jesus fucking Christ... It's not complicated. Longest wall of text out of you... Nah, rather simple compared to the concept of leadership. Leadership is so complicated that I'm not even going to pretend to try and educate you on it. I'm simply not that well equipped to communicate at such an elementary level. I'm told I come off as condescending and you don't deserve that.

>You're the perfect fit for the useless third party Thank you. And to think this whole time I thought you were trying to get me to vote for a Democrat or Republican. I now realize you never took a stand on either. Giving me no reason to vote otherwise. Thanks for the exercise.

I don't misunderstand anything about presidential powers. You don't understand leadership and it's my failure that I can't explain it to you. The fact that you keep circling back is proof that the concept evades you.

I'm not twisting any words. You are presenting assumptions about what I said and me as a person. You also are constantly contradictory. It's a common tactic in arguing so you can claim a favorable result no matter what side of an issue you're on. You're just not very good at it. You probably don't truly realize your doing it. I suspect someone you have discussions with regularly does this to you all the time. So it's a pattern of argument your mimicking, because to you, the other person seems to be constantly be on the favorable end of of arguments. I hope in the future you can think about the implications of concepts and not focus so much on a specific word meaning. Words have lots of meanings and nuance just like whole concepts.

Leadership doesn't seem to be a concept you understand. I'm not an elementary school teacher and I freely admit it is my failure that I can not get you to understand the concept. My apologies.

I disagree.

>Still waiting on you answer a single question about HOW... >>>A president has the power to lead. Some of her ideas would take a constitutional convention. I think we need one for a host of reasons. >>Leadership doesn't equal the power to call a constitutional convention and even than it requires a 2/3 vote from Congress to change it. >>She doesn't have the power to make laws, she doesn't have the power to interpret laws. >>She doesn't have the influence or power to make that vote happen, especially when she would be fighting BOTH parties that have power. >>You have a very flawed perception of what a president can and cannot due in office. I don't know why you are waiting. Let me do the leg work for you. I don't mind. So here we have you quoting me answering your question. So I know you read it. Then it's followed by you not liking the answer and not understanding what leadership could look like. >>>She doesn't have the influence or power to make that vote happen, especially when she would be fighting BOTH parties that have power. >>You just can't know that. Then for fun, I have quoted you, quoting me, quoting you stating that I think you're wrong. I'm not asking for proof that your correct. I'm insisting that there's no way you could know what kind of leader she could be.

>So you're fine with large corporations controlling what can and can't be said on a platform? If I own a billboard I should be able to pick and choose what messages it displays. Yes, absolutely, the owner of a service should be allowed to control what image is represented when that service is presented. >You're fine with allowing limitations on free speech? Free speech is that the government can't imprison you for your ideas. It has nothing to do with the private market. >You do understand that a platform can't act as a publisher without crossing liability laws right? Preventing or limiting user published works is the exact opposite of acting as a publisher. >So because your parents weren't smart enough to get you a medical exemption we should allow everyone to refuse vaccination and allow antiquated diseases to resurface? My parent's intelligence is not in question. How would they know my allergies if I'd not been exposed to something before? The risk of medical procedures should be judged by the individual not be forced by a government with threat of imprisonment. >Especially with her want to increase immigration how would you prevent the spread of those diseases without herd immunity? Why would I not rely on herd immunity? It's your loaded question so I'm going to have to unload it by asking: why would people not elect to get vaccines on their own? What you are suggesting is that you wouldn't get your kids vaccinations if the government didn't threaten you with imprisonment. >>She wants to eliminate laws that create victimless crime. >She can't do that, she isn't Congress. She can defund enforcement of those laws. Are you pretending Obama didn't do just that with marijuana? >>She wants our troops returned home. >Yet she also states that military actions and decision are the territory of Congress and that anything else is unconstitutional... Which is it? I see nothing contradictory here. Bringing troops home because we are not at war seems like exactly what the commander in chief is supposed to do. Policing foreign affairs should not be the job if the US. If we're not in an active war then there's no reason to involve Congress in that decision. >She is a terrible candidate that is only appealing to people who have no understanding of what she could even do in office or how the electoral system works in this country. It seem by this last definition you presented that she should appeal to you. She appeals to me anyway so by no means is your definition absolute.

>You have not given one example of how anything she said would be achievable. I did, you just didn't like it. You even gave a quote of mine to prove it in your last comment. >You claim my logic is flawed? It is, but not because you can't count to one, that's a different issue. >your response has been "but we can just change it". I never said that.

>She doesn't have the influence or power to make that vote happen, especially when she would be fighting BOTH parties that have power. You just can't know that. >You have a very flawed perception of what a president can and cannot due in office. I don't know where you think my perception is, but it's less flawed then your logical arguments.

A president has the power to lead. Some of her ideas would take a constitutional convention. I think we need one for a host of reasons.

>She wants to put a put tests in place to determine if you should be allowed to vote (found unconstitutional already) I am against this and haven't seen it mentioned on her literature. >She wants to allow social media to go unregulated. Good >She want to have requirements for vaccination of children in schools removed. Good. Especially since I'm one of those people who almost died reviving a vaccine. >She wants to shut down US funded space flight. Good. Elon Musk is doing a great job. Imagine if he had more competition. >She wants to remove many if the rules and regulations that prevents a corporate monopoly for existing. Great. These monopolies still exists in the form of hedge funds. They need to be transparent on who owns what. >The only thing she makes sense on is gun.... Not the only She wants to eliminate laws that create victimless crime. She wants our troops returned home.

>She's wants to increase immigration. Me too. We don't need immigrants living in secret avoiding taxes, even if incidentally because of the lower opportunities for above the table jobs. >She wants to allow a temporary amnesty to illegals while saying she also wants them to be deported after serving a sentence from breaking the law... You know like illegally immigrating isnt a crime.... You just described a sentence and then claim the idea is treating it like it's not a crime. Again with your faulty logic. >She wants to increase work visas. Good >She wants to make the citizenship test easier. They should be no harder than an 8th grader is required to pass on to 9th grade. Currently only about half of high school graduates could pass the citizens test, and I feel I'm being generous. >She wants to remove pricing regulations on life saving drugs. Just life saving? I was hoping for less regulations all around. I need to look into this. >She wants to remove the government from providing mental healthcare and make it private when this country is in the middle of a massive mental health crisis. You're doing a great job of making her sound anti socialist while claiming my support of her is socialism. There's the cracks in your logic again. The current government has practically already done this. This is low hanging fruit for a libertarian. I like to keep in mind that the government employees are rarely the top of their classes and that goes for healthcare workers as well. Making them private will lower the price. And, it will streamline care as you'll be directed to specialized care for your individual needs instead of being assigned one based on where you live. >she wants to give foreigners the right to vote after 2 years living here I agree on the local level. We seek to tax them so they should be represented. >She wants to remove political donation limits. They already don't exist for large donors. She just wants to make it clear.

>You want change? Vote third party down ballot. Your logic is astounding. Here you advocate voting third party. >If you want the candidate you like the least in office, vote third party. Here in the same comment you suggest otherwise. I'm not taking a moral high ground. I'm voting for a candidate that meets has the most ideologies that align with mine. Frankly I see no difference between Biden or Trump ideologically. >If you don't want Biden in office, vote for Trump. >I'd you don't want Trump in office, vote Biden. You know, if I don't want either there is another option. Jo Jorgensen.

You know all votes are counted, and a vote for a presidential candidate is a vote is a poll of the constituents right? Jo Jorgensen fits better to the issues I care about than any other candidate. If that's not how you vote, then you are attempting to hand the president to someone you don't even like.

You just can't not vote for Jo. Jo Jorgensen FTW

I got banned from a few subs I only lurked in because I made a comment in a different sub about a third sub that I made a comment in.

The biggest curiosity I can see is that the entire world decided this was a good idea to start for a short time. The goal was to slow, not stop, the spread. Goal achieved. Authoritarian regimes moved the goal posts, either out of fear of their ill informed electorate or malice to the middle and working classes to keep them down. Big companies and the wealthy are hardly effected.

I did day looters and rioters were wrong. Everyone I mentioned in the middle paragraph are in the wrong. Unjust laws need to be disobeyed. That goes for unjust orders too. They pop up all the time but don't get changed until they are challenged. Take for instance the governor of California has an emergency powers act that he could have used for both Covid and the cities that had riots. He invoked the emergency powers act incorrectly for Covid. He shut down some medical outlets deeming them unessential even ones that the law specifically mentions as essential (dentists are one, but preventative care was the big deal). Some clinics stayed open. They took fines and they will challenge those fines. The outcome could be a payout for all the ones that closed. He chose to do nothing during the riots and I think that was the correct move, but he had a right to intervene, some will say a duty. If it's determined the governor had a duty to use the emergency powers act, then he rightfully disregarded that duty. Perhaps the act will change if a challenge is put to it.

Unjust laws shouldn't be obeyed. Their are a few police instigated riots. Their are a few race baiting rioters. The looting isn't rioting. And God help us all there are even media (influencer) instigated riots and looting. Those guys are all wrong, everyone in this paragraph. But, unjust laws need to be disobeyed.

As a trekkie I love your Vulcan logic. Starfleet did not stand for Marquis terrorism.

>many women feel similar about drag. That's fine. Feel the way you want. >overtly sexual male ideas of what a woman is You know that overwhelmingly drag artists are gay. They put on their shows for mostly gay audiences. >stereyotypes I'm not sure you're aware that a drag performance has become a stereotype for gay men. Not the dressing up in women's clothes part, but the flamboyant, sassy, outrageous, in your face part of gay. I'm 99% sure that performance artists like Billy Eichner (doesn't do drag) is not the loud sass mouth in his day to day life. He's putting on a stereotype, not of women but of gay men, and if you imagine him in a dress there would be no difference between his typical performance and that of Drag. Please don't confuse crossdressing with the performance art that is drag. No one in drag is trying to fool anyone. I enjoy drag performance mostly because offensive lines in the sand like you've drawn are erased. Women now do drag (aside from drag kings. Shout out to my favorite (Landon Cider)[https://www.landoncider.com/]). Watching a normal woman stand up comedian I place bets on how fast she makes a vagina joke. In male comedy dick and fart jokes are a low bar. Yes it still gets laughs, and women are welcome to the low brow comedy. A woman who puts on the high hair, and fashion nightmare, and gets on stage to do an act that (occasionally still does a vagina joke) does comedy or sings covers while adding sassy comments about the lyrical meanings is a funnier woman to me. Is she putting on gay male face? Yes! It's even funnier! It's full circle, politically opening the dialogue with comedy. Drag to me (admittedly not even all drag performers agree) is about exposing vulnerability; exploring, exploiting, and finally nurturing the vulnerability. If drag is a stereotype of women it's because it's a stereotype of my mom. Statistically moms are women. I'm a straight guy, I've done performance art (not drag). My wife performs. From experience I know there's a ton of work that goes into it and I personally feel that it shouldn't be dismissed on the face of what you see. Let me encouraged you to open the book, read a few chapters, & watch some really bad acts. Hopefully you'll discover they're so bad they're good. Finally if I could direct you attention to the late Robin Williams. His comedy is known for being all over the charts but as a male comedian he constantly displayed his vulnerability. That vulnerability is what made his dick and fart jokes acceptable, dare I say gold. If you don't enjoy men displaying vulnerability (stereotype of femininity) then that's fine. If you don't like when men pretend to be women I suspect you probably don't like magicians. You've got to accept that you're being fooled to enjoy it. Drag as it exists isn't there to slight women as the blackface minstrel was.

>a caricature of femininity No. My wife is six foot tall. She does burlesque and belly dance. She is not a thin woman. Her stage costumes are very close to what drag queens put on and if she has to travel in costume or at some events that have a drag performance aspect she gets confused as a drag queen. **If** drag is a caricature of femininity then it's because that's what women in show business want us to see, fabulous outrageous costumes, fabulous outrageous make-up and hair. Anybody can put a dress on a man, but can that man have a larger than life personality? Drag isn't about the man in a dress. It's about the person on stage looking their best, showing their art, and simultaneously being bold, beautiful, and vulnerable. **Simultaneously being bold, beautiful, and vulnerable.** This is what my wife thinks feminine performance art is. If it happens to be a man, dress or no, then it's feminine art.