Its a quote from Rogue One if I’m not mistaken

I know, it’s absolutely ridiculous. I’m sorry I even suggested it in the first place. /s

I think its probably possible to use a meme format without intending it to compare yourself to the subject of the meme

deleted by creator

He’s had some incorrect stances, but on average, Chomsky is extremely based, actually.

Despite the state’s monopoly on violence, they shouldnt have the right to end their citizen’s life.

• On average an execution costs significantly more than life in prison

• Even with overwhelming evidence, in some cases you can never fully remove the chance that the person being executed has been wrongfully convicted. Idk about you, but even one innocent person getting the death penalty is enough to fully ban in in my opinion.

• The majority of methods used to administer the death penalty (including in this case) are faux-humane and actually result in the person experiencing horrific, torturous pain while everyone else talks about how humane their death is

Frankly, I’d rather have someone rot in prison for decades

Look everyone! Another troll that doesn’t understand what trigger warnings are for!

I still have a lot of de-googling to do. However at this point, I only use google as a search engine maybe once/month, and it’s frankly usually for the google business info…thing. For everything else, I use Kagi and quite frankly have not looked back. Probably one of the few services that I happily pay for.

I think the assumption from the Vermont police is that someone comes to Canada, gets a tracker put in their wheel well or whatever while they’re here, then they return to the USA before their car is hit, but because of how these trackers work, their location is probably still known.

People are stealing cars in Canada and shipping them out of Port of Montreal and Port of Toronto in containers with falsified manifests. reportedly theives are using tracking tags to keep an eye on vehicles they want to eventually grab.

I’m going to very sincerely disagree. You can see it as misinterpretation if you like, but I believe there’s functionally no difference between the two statements you’ve provided and as long as the right is trying to come up with any excuse to outlaw our existence, its optically beneficial to come up with ways of educating people who may be “eggs” about being trans/enby that are informative, but are less likely to fuel a deranged groomer witchhunt. I’m glad it helped you and your friends, but given the political climate, I believe we should avoid terms that endanger us more than needed.

Continue using it, I certainly won’t stop you. But I’m not going to start.

I… Where are you buying Caesars that you’re getting them with fried pickles/onion rings/etc?

Or am I misunderstanding and you meant that those are on the side?

“The cruelty is the point”

Whoops, Yes it was a little past 1am when I wrote that I must’ve gotten them mixed up which switching back and forth between the documents. I’ll double check and correct that in a moment.

I’m sincerely glad you actually read it all, the world can be a little fucked right now.

TL;DR: IANAL, however, the document this bill references to define what content is harmful to children directly, verbatim defines sexual conduct as including “homosexuality” broadly

Okay so this bill is SB394 (linked above obviously) and it opens with the following

Any commercial entity that knowingly shares or distributes material that is harmful to minors on a website and such material appears on 25% or more of the webpages viewed on such website in any calendar month, or that knowingly hosts such website (…)

It carries on to later define “harmful to minors” in section h-3 as the following:

(3) “Harmful to minors” means the same as defined in K.S.A. 21-6402, and amendments thereto.

If we go look at K.S.A. 21-6402 we can find that it is regarding “Promotion to minors of material harmful to minors” and goes on to declare in section d-2 that “harmful to minors” refers to several things including sexual conduct (I’m omitting this full quote for brevity, you can find it in the linked document).

Now if we look a little further down, we can see that Kansas currently defines sexual content as defined in section d-8:

(8) “sexual conduct” means acts of masturbation, homosexuality, sexual intercourse or physical contact with a person’s clothed or unclothed genitals or pubic area or buttocks or with a human female’s breast; and (…)

Considering all this, i think extremely reasonable to believe that this could outlaw LGBTQ+ content from being displayed openly online within Kansas

Edit: fixed sexual conduct/content mixups

Frankly idgaf about the prime directive (edit: this is perhaps an exaggeration, I meant I wasn’t necessarily referring to the prime directive) , but as an enby person, I think going around saying “doing this makes you an egg” is pretty antithetical to people not wanting to be judged for not complying with the gender roles that correspond with their assigned gender.

I don’t think egg jokes are healthy for the trans community homie

“You can’t do anything to personally fix this, so you might as well not worry about it”

I fucking hate this mindset. This mindset is the reason we are in this position. We can’t just sit idly by and silently watch the right implement fascist policy and say “well, they were gonna try anyways, nothing we can do I guess”.

I think it’s a little “exotic” to call my existence an inherent political commentary. It’s certainly something that can be used to inform political debate, but I believe saying that it’s inherent misses the point that our existence is only political because it’s politicized

And for what it’s worth, gender dysphoria is also something experienced by nonbinary folks, but it isn’t a requirement of being trans or non-binary either. Some people just don’t experience it and requiring it as a clinical diagnosis is part of the medicalization of our and trans people’s existence as well.

I don’t really know how to finish this lol, I agree with the rest of your comment. I just wanted to correct what I feel are common misconceptions.

I thought they were gender abolitionist, but I… I’m not too sure anymore.