It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
Repost because @Zuberi@lemmy.dbzer0.com's original post got removed from !chapotraphouse@hexbear.net for dunking outside the dunk tank
Uhhh, yeah I'm sure people who support universal healthcare have that hardwired into their brain from childhood. Totally the same thing.
it's totally not a conclusion based on analysis of material conditions.
Ugh.. I'm kind of tired of clarifying this. I didn't say 'gay' I said 'openly gay', keyword 'openly', you understand the distinction do you not?
No, I think it's fairly bigoted to compare an open existence to a political act. To say the dignity to exist without hiding one's nature is a political act is pretty fucked up. It's not a political act for straight people to exist.
This exact argument is why people get away with bigotry, calling it all political, implying the non political thing would be to hide and make sure no one sees you.
Perhaps if you're tired of clarifying this, you should rethink your stance.
Well the fact of the matter is open existence is a political issue. It shouldn't be, but it is, and I referenced it because it was appropriate to the topic of discussion. Like the whole fact that this is a contentious subject is why I referenced it.
Just to be clear, are you denying that the right has traditionally been anti-lgbtq?
Rethink it how?
Sorry that's your implication not mine.
Also... None of this makes me wrong. I kind of understand now you guys view everything through class structures whereas I'm a pretty staunch individualist. We really don't have common ground for a discussion.
This has been interesting.