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?

It’s extremely simple. How many people are alive born before 1946? Not many compared to the other generations. Their wealth went to their boomer children.

True. Question is a bit how much wealth is in things and how much in money - some boomer owning a nice house and a vacation home is very wealthy, but might not necessarily have the liquidity to donate if they live on some relatively small pension.

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

I’m just saying that I think this particular fear you have is roughly equally likely. Maybe the likelihood of it happening in the US is double or triple than the UK, but I think that would put the likelihood only from 0.01% to 0.03%, so basically the same.

Forcing queers (~8% of the population) in re-education camps would incite riots. They won’t do it.

I would say it’s roughly equally likely

Isn’t the UK politics pretty similar to US?

This is wrong reasoning though. The only reason why bears kill less humans is because like you say, less bears interact with humans. But if you go with the premise of putting a bear and a human next to each other, then a bear is always more dangerous.

It’s like saying ingesting cyanide kills less people than car accidents. That doesn’t mean ingesting cyanide is less dangerous than driving a car.

Idk, women also do dumb violent shit, guess everyone should avoid everybody? Since some humans, regardless of their background, are toxic?

Life is risk. Not taking any risk is choosing not to live. It’s relatively easy to figure out who’s a shithead, of course you should be wary of people, but everyone has to filter out other shitty people constantly, it’s not suddenly some new thing because Trumpers exist.

It actually does. The amount paid off at least, since the property is the wealth.

Wish this would be adjusted for age. Obviously someone who had more time to accumulate wealth will have more wealth. The real question is how much wealth does each generation have at the same age.

How about illegal immigration :D