LGBT+ movement starting to backfire [part 3]

Joined
Jun 26, 2022
Messages
2,264
I stumbled across this article that explained the issue so much more eloquently than i could regarding both what i touched upon previously about race not being like "orientation" or chosen "identity" and the idea of separating the lgb from the t+.


TLDR: race is not a preference, behavior or orientation; homosexuality is a dysfunction; while some homeosexuals may currently be our allies agaisnt the tqp+++ if tqp++++ stops being a threat we will still be left with dysfunctional individuals who don't make for a healthy society.

I have noticed recently that many homosexuals are openly opposing the transgender movement — the one that advocates the surgical mutilation of children who, however temporarily, express gender confusion. Against such immense evil, we must, as a practical matter, welcome almost any allies if doing so will protect children.

It is with some trepidation, therefore, that I will risk offending, and perhaps alienating, some homosexual activists who have taken courageous stands against transsexualism. Some of them have suffered significantly for their resistance to that malevolent social phenomenon.

But I will, because truth must be told.

I am old enough, at 75, to remember when the gay rights movement first, to borrow its own term, came out of the closet. It did so as aggressively as, in years past, the movement for racial civil rights had ended a great injustice in our nation.


The difference between the two movements is as obvious now as it was then: race is not a behavior, nor is it a "preference," nor an "orientation." Nothing succeeds like success, however, so despite the clear difference, gay rights advocates closely imitated the civil rights movement. They even attempted to equate certain forms of sexual activity with race. It worked. Eventually, biblical admonitions against sodomy became morally equated by the left with bigotry.

...

Many of us noted that, for all of recorded human history, no major civilization had ever tried to integrate marriage into homosexuality and survived — no, not even those societies that accepted homosexuality as tolerable. They never went so far as to institute it in the form of marriage.

We have, and we won't — we have instituted it, and unless we reverse course, we will not long survive as a sane, functioning society. If we fail to recognize, that homosexuality is a dysfunction, then where do we draw the line? At "T"? At "Q"? We did not jump from LGB to LGBTQIA-plus-plus overnight. The devolution from two natural sexes to fifty-seven invented-variation genders was slower than that, but predictable. In fact, it was predicted. Worse is yet to come, and who will stop it?

We are now at the stage where the euphemistic definition of sexual orientation has come to include "minor-attracted persons," more accurately termed pedophiles and predators. Screaming leftists condemned the prediction of this as delusionary. It could never happen, they said, never. Had I been prescient enough to predict "drag queen story hour" — in elementary schools, no less — I might have been committed to a lunatic asylum, at least figuratively. No one would have believed it, but here we are.

What will do us much good, if we can overcome the tidal wave of radical leftist influence, is to distinguish between principles that support healthy, intact families and those that make a mockery of that necessary institution. For example, we must loudly proclaim that Heather cannot possibly have two mommies.

Our LGB allies are not making that vital distinction. They are blind to those principles, and despite their welcome participation in opposing an unspeakable evil, we should remind them of this: in our path back toward cultural sanity, if we succeed, they will eventually be the radicals who are standing in the way. The LGB trap is destructive to all of us, including to gays.
 

JoChris

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
6,168
guess they haven't learn yet eh the Parents are tired
and fed up with this all age crap
#pp
#punishpedos
#pedopurge
didn't not Know where else to post
if I have to move I will

this should show all of Us that We are not
the minority and most Peoples are sick of these
agendas being pushed in Our Children's entertainment

I saw the other day that there was a massive backlash against Disney's move 'Strange World".

Disney suffered the biggest box office bomb of 2022 with an eye-watering loss of nearly $300 million on this star-studded animated film.

They don't often allow comments on many articles like the Daily Mail does, but for once they did. The vast majority were thinking along the lines of "go woke, go broke"

Just more woke bs getting rammed down our throats. Love the way these "groomers" target kids with their nonsense and then wonder seriously why families stay away. I hope they keep on losing money until they actually do wake up to the fact that many of us go to the movies to be entertained not indoctrinated.


Disney is forcing political agendas on families. Families don't want politics as entertainment.
They are forcing LBGTQI into plots that make no sense and are disconnected to 97% of the population.
It has got to the point where it is creating hate towards LBGTQI as they are pushing, they are normal and heterosexuals are abnormal and something to be ashamed of.
 

clambot

Veteran
Joined
Jul 24, 2022
Messages
615
>>>>>delusions (such as catgender, or pupgender...are referred to as "xenogenders")

(sota voce "Cap'n Jack" of Leave it to Beaver): I IDENTIFY AS A ALLIGATOR, AND I WILL NOT >>BITE<< YOUR ARM OFF, I WILL ***SAW*** IT OFF!!!!!!
 

JoChris

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
6,168

Two very different opinions!!!

 
Last edited:

irrationalNinja

Veteran
Joined
Apr 26, 2017
Messages
682
People like matt walsh, andrew whatever his name is from daily stormer, the man formerly known as "heartiste" and other "manosphere" influencers, the gateway pundit, and the writers of assorted "alt" or conservative sites, among others.
So now that we’ve defined who your “right wing influencers” are, show me just one piece of evidence how one, let’s say the Gateway Pundit, fits your definition of racist and misogynist. Should not be hard to find one article that fits the claims you make here:
If "racism " means mocking black people's hair and discriminating in the workplace because of it, for example, our percentages now look different
And here:
If it means seeing women as s*xual objects, condoning s*xual harrassment or objectification, and seeing consent as "woke", now we have a larger percentage.
And please post an example of a story written that you think backs up this claim:

And as seen by the stories and tweets against that deviant dylan mulvaney, the "right" can't seem to stick to criticizing him, they have to criticize actual women's bodies in the process.
You can claim to be outraged about anything, but evidence speaks volumes.
 

clambot

Veteran
Joined
Jul 24, 2022
Messages
615
Be forewarned, Citizens. Your FutureThink must not be unacceptable!!

 
Joined
Jun 26, 2022
Messages
2,264
So now that we’ve defined who your “right wing influencers” are, show me just one piece of evidence how one, let’s say the Gateway Pundit, fits your definition of racist and misogynist. Should not be hard to find one article that fits the claims you make here:


And here:


And please post an example of a story written that you think backs up this claim:



You can claim to be outraged about anything, but evidence speaks volumes.
Ok, ONE piece of evidence, fair enough.

I already posted about this in a previous reply to you, but i didn't link it last time.
It's a story from the gateway pundit in which it refers to changes to disney songs to include consent as "woke". If "misogyny" involves being opposed to consent, then that would make gateway pundit an enabler of "misogyny".

woke-lyrics-for-iconic-songs-kiss-the-girl-and-poor-unfortunate-souls/

In case anyone wasn’t sure that Disney’s live-action Little Mermaid remake would be a woke mess, it has now been confirmed that two of the most iconic songs are being changed to be more politically correct.
Composer Alan Menken, who worked on the original film, explained in a recent interview that the lyrics to “Kiss the Girl” and “Poor Unfortunate Souls” have been altered to be less offensive.

Menken was asked by Vanity Fair if there was “anything from the original that you redid, or something about it needed to change?”

The composer explained that “there are some lyric changes in ‘Kiss the Girl’ because people have gotten very sensitive about the idea that [Prince Eric] would, in any way, force himself on [Ariel].”
Actually, since my internet connection is behaving today, i'll throw in some bonus examples. Some are reposts from this thread.

When discussing dylan mulvaney taking away opportunities from women (and normalizing the trans degeneracy) by being named nike spokesperson, gateway pundit didn't waste the opportunity to criticize some women's bodies. The isssue is that this man is modeling women's clothes, there was no need to criticize "skinny legs" or "flat chest", which a woman can have while still being a woman. Ironically, if an obese trans had been chosen instead i can just see the right complaining about that too...


skinny-legged-dylan-mulvaney-to-sell-womens-athletic-wear/

Nike hired Dylan Mulvaney as their spokesmodel for women’s athletic wear.
It’s a paid partnership

Dylan posted a video of him-herself dancing and bouncing around in women’s leggings and a sports bra to show off his flat chest.
In this article about a different company using a man to model women's clothing, once again there was a jab about flat chests. What's the implication, that it's ok to use men to replace women as long as they get implants? That if a woman is flat chested she's less of a woman? Totally unecessary, the point is a MAN is modeling women's clothes.


Taking a page out of the Bud Light marketing plan, which led to a nationwide boycott resulting in the reported loss of reportedly over $7 billion in market cap value in recent days, Birdette “celebrated” women by putting a biological man in lingerie in a recent ad.

Why a biological male is wearing a bra, with no breasts to support, is anyones guess.
On the "racism" topic, i can't find the exact article that i was referencing. I just remember it said something about some state legislator in a blue state caring more about "woke" policies like black people being allowed to wear their hair natural than about inflation or something. Why is it "woke" to ban hair discrimination?

Edit: i found it!

This article says that katie hobbs, the installed governor of arizona is passing "meaningless" legislation that will not help arizonans. It's not meaningless to the millions of people affected by it, but since theyre assumed to not be part of the gateway pundit's target demographic who cares...


Katie Hobbs is more focused on passing meaningless legislation that will not help Arizonans. As The Gateway Pundit recently reported, Hobbs signed her ninth Executive Order titled “Prohibiting Race-Based Hair Discrimination,” as inflation runs rampant in Arizona.
This article is related to the last one. It doesn't use the word "woke" but claims that it was "virtue signaling" to pass the legislature. In the comments section the commenters deny the idea of "hair discrimination" while simultaneously mentioning how they find some black hairstyles disgusting.


Twice-convicted racist Katie Hobbs signed her ninth Executive Order last week titled “Prohibiting Race-Based Hair Discrimination,” a clear virtue signal to distract from her past racism and not what Arizona needs.
...
Kari Lake tweeted, “Hari discrimination? That’s what she thinks Arizonans are worried about? Our state will be in a much better place when it gets @KatieHobbs out of its hair.”
...
Katie Hobbs has made it clear that her priorities are not Arizona first.
Because black people who live in arizona are not real arizonans? How is passing this legislation mutually exclusive with passing other legislature to help everyone anyway? Obviously the left is trying to trigger the right, and it appears to be working...


In general on the "racism" topic gateway's authors are not as bad as some of the other "influencers" i mentioned. However, i do make it a habit to read the comments sections and the kind of comments that get upvoted is very telling.

Just yesterday gateway had an article about a toddler who fit through the white house security fence. The article itself was neutral. The comments section featured such thoughts as "judging by his complexion this is not the first fence he's snuck through", not a single downvote. So to the average gateway reader having brown skin means likely illegal, got it.

Screenshot_20230419-004205.jpg

While we're at it regarding gateway pundit in particular, it's a well known fact that either jim of jeff hoft, one of the writers, is a sodomite and they have a ban on any comments that are "homophobic". Why is that policy not "woke"? Just more confusion, imagine that, a sodomite conservative. Yet there's plenty of them among the "right", and in order to avoid them one has to go more "alt right" and that's where the other issues (racism and such) really get going.


Also, i am not outraged. I was just pointing out, from the beginning, that instead of sticking to issues of chosen deviancy which affect our children and society, the right appears complicit in reinforcing the parameters that the left has set, even though they stand in "opposition" of them. And that this is deliberately set up by the elites in order to cause more division and radicalization.
 
Last edited:

clambot

Veteran
Joined
Jul 24, 2022
Messages
615
All the recent news about children too young to consent being given drugs to delay puberty etc. made me crank up my personal chrono-vision and peer into the future ... and I see, in the future, a tsunami of commercials from our future legal beagles, who will be seeking clients with the siren song of the TV ambulance chaser: "Were you given 'gender transition' therapy prior to your 18th birthday? Were you subjected to 'Frankenstein' surgery prior to your 18th birthday? EVEN IF YOUR PARENTS 'CONSENTED', YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SIGNIFICANT MONETARY COMPENSATION!! Call the number on your screen TODAY for a free consultation!" Mark it down. It's a sure bet, me buckos. PS: you might want to go short on MedMal stocks--and long on plaintiff medmal law firms in the future. I give it about five years or less until you see the tsunami of litigation coming down the pipe.
 

irrationalNinja

Veteran
Joined
Apr 26, 2017
Messages
682
I hate to break this to you, but Rachel Dolezal is not black and Dylan Mulvaney is not a woman.

When the article about Dylan Mulvaney criticizes “HIS flat chest.” It is criticizing him, Dylan Mulvaney, and anyone who would give him a platform to sell women’s clothes. It’s a reach to try to claim those three words were meant in some way to criticize a woman with a flat chest. Try again.
What's the implication, that it's ok to use men to replace women as long as they get implants?
Uh, no. The article states pretty clearly that it is absurd for a man to sell women’s clothing. Reading that to mean they are oppressing women and advocating the replacement of women with big-breasted men is rather amusing. Seeing oppREEEEEssion in the most mundane places is one of the hallmarks of being Woke.

Because black people who live in arizona are not real arizonans? How is passing this legislation mutually exclusive with passing other legislature to help everyone anyway? Obviously the left is trying to trigger the right, and it appears to be working...
This article is related to the last one. It doesn't use the word "woke" but claims that it was "virtue signaling" to pass the legislature.
Katie Hobbs using Rachel Dolezal (who is white) as the face of her bill to end “race-based hair discrimination” is nothing but virtue signaling. LMAO

Using criticism of Dylan Mulvaney, a man masquerading as a woman, to try and prove misogyny and criticism of Rachel Dolezal, a white woman masquerading as a black woman, to try and prove racism is hilarious.

You couldn’t find one example of actual racism or misogyny in the pages of the Gateway Pundit? Why am I not surprised…
 

e-Enoch

Superstar
Joined
Sep 21, 2021
Messages
17,204
"Disneyland to Host First-Ever Transgender ‘Pride Nite’ aimed at grooming and recruiting children into the LGBTQIA+P for p***phile Movement"


 
Joined
Jun 26, 2022
Messages
2,264
I hate to break this to you, but Rachel Dolezal is not black and Dylan Mulvaney is not a woman
Where did i say they were?

Here we have something we actually agree on, yet you want to make it appear otherwise. I agree that claiming a different sex or race doesn't make it so.

It’s a reach to try to claim those three words were meant in some way to criticize a woman with a flat chest.
That's your opinion. Saying things along the lines of "real women have large chests" or "real women have thick legs" implies women without these characteristics aren't women.

A woman who has had a mastectomy is still a woman.


Uh, no. The article states pretty clearly that it is absurd for a man to sell women’s clothing. Reading that to mean they are oppressing women and advocating the replacement of women with big-breasted men is rather amusing. Seeing oppREEEEEssion in the most mundane places is one of the hallmarks of being Woke.
No, BOTH articles i posted about different men noted how they have flat chests. As if their flat chest is what defines their sex, not their chormosomes.

Refusing to see the obvious and making excuses is a halmark or being brainwashed...

Katie Hobbs using Rachel Dolezal (who is white) as the face of her bill to end “race-based hair discrimination” is nothing but virtue signaling. LMAO
Actually, the stupid article was saying that hobbs cropped the photo she tweeted to not show dolezal, so that's hardly using her as the face of her executive order to end hair discrimination. I'm aware dolezal is white and does not actually have difficult to manage hair, it appears to be a perm judging by her childhood pictures.

Whether hobbs is virtue signaling or not it doesn't change the fact that people have been fired or kicked out of activities for naturally having hard to manage hair.

Also doesn't change the fact that this legislature is not "meaningless" to those it benefits in keeping their employment, nor that all citizens residing in arizona are arizonans, not just non-blacks.

Try again
...
Using criticism of Dylan Mulvaney, a man masquerading as a woman, to try and prove misogyny and criticism of Rachel Dolezal, a white woman masquerading as a black woman, to try and prove racism is hilarious.

You couldn’t find one example of actual racism or misogyny in the pages of the Gateway Pundit? Why am I not surprised…
I also posted an article about consent being called "woke" which you conveniently are not addressing. It's the very first one i posted, so i know you had to have seen it in order to see the rest.

Here, I'll post it again.


In case anyone wasn’t sure that Disney’s live-action Little Mermaid remake would be a woke mess, it has now been confirmed that two of the most iconic songs are being changed to be more politically correct.
Composer Alan Menken, who worked on the original film, explained in a recent interview that the lyrics to “Kiss the Girl” and “Poor Unfortunate Souls” have been altered to be less offensive.

Menken was asked by Vanity Fair if there was “anything from the original that you redid, or something about it needed to change?”

The composer explained that “there are some lyric changes in ‘Kiss the Girl’ because people have gotten very sensitive about the idea that [Prince Eric] would, in any way, force himself on [Ariel].”
Once again, why is the issue of consent "woke"? Only someone who views women as sexual objects would have a problem with the idea of needing consent.

I'm also really curious as to why you so vigorously defend this sodomite-created website, and dont see their 'no homophobic comments' policy as "woke", but by this point I'm not expecting a genuine answer.

(I mean, i read them too , but im not so brainwashed that i feel the need to defend when they make no sense or are being hypocritical or deliberately missing the point)
 
Joined
Jun 26, 2022
Messages
2,264
While we're at it regarding gateway pundit in particular, it's a well known fact that either jim of jeff hoft, one of the writers, is a sodomite and they have a ban on any comments that are "homophobic". Why is that policy not "woke"? Just more confusion, imagine that, a sodomite conservative. Yet there's plenty of them among the "right", and in order to avoid them one has to go more "alt right" and that's where the other issues (racism and such) really get going.
Instead of just editing my previous post, i really think this needs it's own post. It is very relevant to the thread topic, after all, and is a great example of the conflict of interest that arises when then lgb tries to separate from the tqp+++

(And also raises the question, what does it mean to be a "conservative"? Obviously it doesn't mean simply opposing degeneracy, which is promoted by the "left")


I did some more research on the matter, and it is jim hoft who is an active sodomite. He's not just a writer for the gateway pundit, but is actually the site's founder.

He "came out" back in 2016 after the homosexual club shooting in florida. It was a perfect opportunity to blame a different group of people (muslims), while trying to normalize the idea of a "gay conservative" and asking gays to return to their "home" in the republican party.

I’ve been a conservative activist for years. But today I’m coming out as a conservative gay activist.

In the past few years I’ve built one of the most prominent conservative websites in America. I created The Gateway Pundit because I wanted to speak the truth. I wanted to expose the wickedness of the left. I was raised to love my country. Today I serve my country by defending her from the socialist onslaught.

But last night at least 49 gays were slaughtered at an Orlando club.

Despite this obvious Islamic attack, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are still in denial.

I can no longer remain silent as my gay brothers and sisters are being slaughtered at dance clubs.

There is only one man who can lead this nation and protect all gays and all Americans. His name is Donald Trump.

In 2015 a conservative Supreme Court granted gays the right to marry.

In 2016 only one candidate will protect gays from another Islamist attack.

I pray that gays will come back home to the Republican Party – no more death.

Dear God, please no more death.

Turns out he's also previously been an actor. That's not suspicious at all...

He started the gateway pundit as a blog back in 2004 in suppport of bush jr. He was then invited to international events with conservative politicians (because that happens to every random blogger right?) and really hit the big times during the trump election.


So who is this man who has achieved such prominence in the right-wing ecosphere? Where did he come from and what is his background in his chosen field? How did he gain such a large following? What are the backgrounds, personal and professional, of some of the people he employs?

...
In my 20’s and 30’s I did some modeling and acting. I played a cop on “Unsolved Mysteries” twice. I was in an NCAA basketball commercial and was in a John Deere catalog.
...
But) “After a few years of writing I gained thousands of readers every day,” Hoft wrote his high school classmates. “Then I started getting invites and paid trips to different conservative events around the world. I went to Prague in 2007 for a conference with international democracy activists and President Bush. I’ve met several world leaders and spoken to several senators and representatives. I’ve been a guest at the UN, went to Israel for a week with Andrew Breitbart, attended national conventions and conferences.”
...

In any event, the Gateway Pundit’s coverage of the 2016 campaign brought it to a new peak. Traffic boomed to 1 million page views per day, according to Politico. And Trump, who had made a practice of tweeting Gateway Pundit during the campaign, rewarded the publication for its support with a plum that outraged many in the mainstream and even some in the conservative media. The Trump Administration gave White House press credentials to the Gateway Pundit’s Washington correspondent, Lucian Baxter Wintrich IV.

Then in his 20s, Wintrich had been Lucian Einhorn until he changed his name at age 18. For a White House correspondent, his credentials were decidedly unorthodox. He had no experience in journalism. He had, however, spearheaded a “Twinks4Trump” photo exhibit at the Republican National Convention. “Twink,” Wikipedia reports, is “gay slang for a young man in his late teens to early twenties … whose traits may include general physical attractiveness … and a youthful appearance that may belie an older chronological age.” Wintrich himself fits that description, and his own Instagram page is packed with photos of scantily clad young men. One doesn’t need to be a sleuth to find an Internet photo of Wintrich himself exposing significant posterior cleavage, while adorned only in a MAGA hat.
This man lucian baxter wintrich IV, correspondent for the gateway pundit with white house press credentials, wrote an article for homosexual magazine the advocate advocating for the idea of gay conservatives.


The first time I attended the Conservative Political Action Conference, I was reluctant to come out to fellow conservatives. After all, I was led to believe that there are very few gay conservatives. At an after-party, and after a few martinis, I casually dropped the informaiton among the conservative crowd. I was not only embraced, but an overwhelming majority at the party actually said that they were gay or bisexual.

There is a misconception that all gay people are all "liberal" or "progressive." Yes, many are, but there are far more gay conservatives than you think. Speaking with a few of the twinkie young conservatives at our Wake Up! party, I asked "So, are you guys gay?" One of them said he was straight, and the other two slowly and almost uneasily, said they were gay. Then literally everyone around them said "Oh, awesome!" -- and they immediately loosened up and one of them complemented my outfit (rightly so -- I was dressed very well, I'm very fashionable). The stereotype that gays are met with aversion by conservatives is not only untrue, it's harmful.

Gay conservatives and younger conservatives in general consider freedom to be paramount to American society; we are against oppressive governments and against oppressive ideologies. Not allowing yourself to be open to other ideas is admitting that you are not capable of educated response or opinion; a step further, blindly attacking those with ideas that differ to your own is Orwellian aggression. For me, conservatism represents freedom, including the freedom to be whomever I want without fear of being excoriated for my political views.

...
Gay conservatives are proud of our country. We are working to make it better and more inclusive. Shouldn't you be too?
So, according to this "gay conservative ", a government that would enforce God's law and natural law and ban sodomy is oppressive?

Conservativism represents the "freedom to be whoever i want"? How is that any different from the current crazy gender ideology the "left" promotes? This just further proves that accepting lgb is a precursor to accepting the rest of the alphabet. Once God's law or natural law is broken, there is no stopping the floodgates.

Lastly, "gay conservatives want to make it better and more inclusive", what does that even mean? More pro degeneracy rhetoric so long as the degenerates support "conservative" fiscal policy?


...

A year ago, jim hoft had an overreaction (wonder why he's so paranoid...) and sicced his lawyers on a fellow alt media personality, claiming that the latter, stew peters, had accused him of being in a satanic p*do ring. He didn't say that. What he did say was that jim hoft had "married" a young man who is less than half his age, whom he imported from the philippines, and on his own social media refers to himself as a boy.


(Link needs to be manually edited to work due to censorship)

A lawyer representing Jim Hoft’s website The Gateway Pundit’s sent a letter to Peters declaring, in no uncertain terms, that the publication’s founder and editor-in-chief Jim Hoft is not affiliated with a “satanic p***philia cabal,” according to a press release from The Stew Peters Show.
It is not entirely clear why he did this.

Among other inconsistencies, as Peters noted in a press release, the podcast host never said those words.

However, both Peters and rapper Tim Gionet, stage name Baked Alaska, acknowledged Hoft’s marriage to a much younger man: Jezreel Morano.

“There have been a lot of rumors about the inside of that community that Jim Hoft is a part of,” said Peters, ostensibly referring to the LGBTQ community. “These people are flying around the country, they’re in private jets having sex parties, gay sex parties, things like that.”

Peters added that “There are people like that will go to really, really distant lengths for sexual favors and orgies and things like that.”

“I mean obviously he’s interested in young boys,” Peters said of Hoft. “He’s married to a very young boy.”

Hoft met Morano in 2016 while in the Philippines. Soon after, the youth left his home country to live with Hoft in the United States.

In 2019, the two were married.

The age difference is not insignificant.

On Facebook, Morano has stated that he turned 29 in February of this year. This means he would have been 24 when they met in December of 2016.

Hoft, who is now 59, would have been approximately 54.

This means there is an approximate 30-year age difference between Hoft and his husband.

The information about Hoft and his marriage to Morano is all public, and Hoft’s hometown newspaper Ladue News wrote a celebratory article about the media mogul’s marriage to the much younger man.

Screenshot_20230420-130543.jpg
 

irrationalNinja

Veteran
Joined
Apr 26, 2017
Messages
682
I'm also really curious as to why you so vigorously defend this sodomite-created website, and dont see their 'no homophobic comments' policy as "woke", but by this point I'm not expecting a genuine answer.
Countering your opinion of an article with my opinion of an article is hardly vigorous defense.

Regardless of the source of the article, the debate concerns the radical feminist taradiddle you present. Only mental gymnastics allow it to be.
 
Top