I identify myself as a homosexual.

I’ve heard homo being used in a derogatory way as an insult. That usage should not be tolerated.

Retarded is just a medical term, yet you can use it as an insult as well.

That is what this “specification of conditional” aims at. It’s fine to use the word in a descriptive way, you’re just not allowed to go around angrily calling people “fucking zionist”

They simply don’t exist anymore. The only choice is to do this with a smart TV and never connect it to the internet.

From the link of this post that you could have clicked on:

Twitch specifies this is conditional: you’re allowed to discuss the political movement of that name, but not “attack or demean another individual or group of people on the basis of their background or religious belief.”

If you had looked at the link of this post, you would have read:

Twitch specifies this is conditional: you’re allowed to discuss the political movement of that name, but not “attack or demean another individual or group of people on the basis of their background or religious belief.”

I.e. nothing is masqueraded here as long as they keep to this. This seems to be a reasonable policy. I’ve seen a couple of instances of people being derogatorily called zionists just for supporting the people of current Israel not being pushed away out of their now decades-old homes, which is hard to still call Zionist if they don’t support any further expansion and any offensive military action.

There’s almost never anything gained to use “Zionist” on someone as if saying “asshole”.

What is “better in general”? I don’t particularly mind the human species going extinct, it’s unlikely there’ll be no life left over. No one knows the nature of the universe.

In any case, it’s incredibly unlikely we’ll go extinct anytime soon. Maybe climate change etc causes extreme loss of life, but humans are so adaptive, some will surely survive.

No one can even define “enlightenment” either. Maybe we already are, maybe such a thing doesn’t exist. Currently, it’s just a story element.

Friend, keeping a partner is also necessary for reproductive success. A child historically had a higher survival rate when parents stayed together. I didn’t say that you actually want to pick anyone up with your conscious mind, I’m just saying that the decisions you make are motivated by reproductive success.

Why do you think you even feel the need to cover up your balding head. It’s the same reason, just suddenly even more obvious.

Then you should probably leave every game, because you can probably find some dumbfucks that argue about this everywhere. There are less than 30 people posting on this Steam discussion linked.

You may not believe it, but most of our behavior is motivated by sex and appealing to our desired mates. Even if you rationally say you don’t want to pick up anyone with your rainbow hat, the original impetus to do it at all comes from a biological mind that is designed to reproduce. Being confident in who you are is a desirable trait in a partner, thus making you more attractive, thus contributing to your biological goal of reproduction. Yes, you have more rational reasons for it than just that, but it’s extremely likely that the wearing of the rainbow hat feels good to you because of million years of evolution to optimize reproductive success.

And yes, even homosexual people are subject to that, even though they technically can’t reproduce. Which I think is pretty funny honestly xD

It’s also interesting that you bring all the heterosexual signals up as some kind of counterpoint… but they serve the same goal.

Does it really matter if you have one billion or 200 billion?

TSS? Totally sexy speech? “Text sucks” software? Tangible speech service?

How about illegal immigration :D

You’re telling me… There’s multiple issues and reasons in play… At the same time???

This is getting entirely too complicated for me.

Reddit is basically entirely image or video posts, all hosted by reddit directly.

That’s not all, probably not even the main one. It’s a major cost of living crisis and impoverishment of average people while companies and the richest get richer. Neither the Ds nor the Rs want to do anything against it, they get their money from there.

The people kinda understand this. But they’re not intelligent enough to distinguish “actually changing the system” with “just saying they’re gonna change the system”, like Trump does. Trump is always talking about uprooting the deep state and bringing an “average person”(white middle/lower class) perspective to politics, and people just gobble it up and believe it because he’s kinda good at talking with conviction.

Of course the misogyny and racism is part of it and an extra, but it’s not the main reason at all. For some people it is, of course.

What should happen to Palestinians if Israel is chosen? What should happen to Israelis if Palestine is chosen?

Most of Israel’s weapons come from the US. It’s very well possible for the US congress/government to say “no more weapons if you use them for agression”.

It’s naive to think the US is a democracy. It’s mostly an oligarchy with a few democratic features. The only choice is to vote Harris, but she is only barely less right-wing than Trump, from a European perspective. She will continue the oligarchy.

The only hope there is, is that all the people in the US start to understand they don’t have a democracy. The vote for D needs to become overwhelming. Then, R will die out and an alternative choice on the further left side may emerge as a serious contender. Then, this further left choice needs to become overwhelming.

Eventually, this will lead to real change.

Why this must work like this is because the US’ democratic system only supports 2 parties with its first-past-the-post system. Until a reform of this voting system takes place, towards a ranked choice style system, there can’t be good representation. While any organization into a limited number of parties inherently means that almost no one will be represented perfectly, the less parties there are, the more the average divergence of reprentation there will be. 2 is just an unbelievably small number of opinion groupings to choose from, much too little to get anywhere near good representation.

It’s not a democracy if the choices available don’t work for the common person, which they both don’t. Democracy means that what the majority says, goes. Which is clearly not what’s happening, because the majority wants to get rid of billionaires and do something about climate change and so on and so on.

When/how does Worf say/imply Risa is impure?

Of course, but I’m talking about what was literally said. The further reasons, like you describe, are easy to deduce as well, but I was just responding to the comment that didn’t seem to understand anything, neither the overt nor the covert reasons.