Greatoneshere

I'm a Muslim you fucking infidel. Go fail at another Crusade heathen!

Precisely. America wants this. They've been duped to believe they can't have nice things and to accept a miserable status quo and believe it makes America "great". Medicare for All and College for All can actually, legit, logistically be done. I don't think anyone is against educating the young and healing the sick if it can be done for all reasonably. The great trick that we're sold is that it can't be done. It can be. Things like 2020 Democratic presidential candidates not taking dark money and candidates like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez winning in the Bronx in NYC shows that the American people are a majority that want good, obvious things. Where is that image of Hannity's board of Ocasio-Cortez's talking points, and he tried to make them look bad when it was all clearly all good? That was amazing.

YES BUT IS IT JESUS, MARY, AND JOSEPH MOTHERFUCKER JESUS LIVED IN EGYPT FOR AWHILE DON'T YOU KNOW.

But I matter! I'm a real boy!! In all seriousness, I should probably be glad that the most emotion Pakistanis get out of you is neutrality. I'll take it good sir!

Looks like joke's on me!! Libs get da bullet too.

While I wanted this information as well(!), I meant your hot take on the Pakistani people in general (like your general view of Jews and Slavs, what do you think of Pakistanis?) heheh.

That's fair, I was just explaining that what you said isn't something anyone on either side of this debate would disagree with is all.

To be fair, it's pejorativeness (negative relational dynamics) is different with a female context than it is a male one, though the idea of submissiveness remains.

I don't think anyone here who is reasonable would disagree with that, but they have the right to say those things and it shouldn't inherently also mean it's homophobic. It's not the way I'd express myself either, but I don't think their homophobic either is all.

There's nothing super left about the Medicare for All program, so I'm not sure how that's tea partying themselves. Shaking up their base to align with what a majority of the American population wants anyway (something like 60%+ want Medicare for All) is a good thing.

Real talk, as I'm curious: what's your hot take on Pakistanis? I don't think you've ever said before that I know of heh.

I hope so - it should be. I think you're right. But I want nice things. Is that so wrong?!

I saw that earlier today and was like:

But that's entirely the point. What CitizenVectron said is clear, no? It's a distinction with a huge difference (to me, obviously) even if it seems like a tightrope, it's still a tightrope and it exists. I'm not sure why you're assuming I'm giving them "too much" credit. Why is that? They're right about Trump being submissive to Putin and their sign indicates as much and yet at the same time I see no homophobia in their actions. Like I said, I'd like a gay person's reading on this, but I see we're going in circles and we agree to disagree. That's okay! I understand yours and sblfilms' points a lot better, and that helps.

Treasonous. In the bad way. That's bad.

Final-fucking-ly. Now can something real happen?

Except: This. More specifically, I'm not presuming negativity with submission, but I am presuming being submissive can be interpreted negatively, and there are contexts where submission is bad (submission is an inherently neutral concept, whether it is good or bad depends on the context). "Taking it up the ass" isn't inherently negative, but that is one potential context for negative submission, like many other contexts I could create. And there are many other contexts where submission is neutral, or good.

But the distinction is inherently in there, that's why some of us who are otherwise very liberal and progressive have no problem with those signs in those pictures. I mean, I have a problem with it because it's not clever, it's (as you said) lazy criticism, but it remains criticism without negative implications for the mere act but rather it's implication of submission. The negativity comes from it's negative political truth, not the act.

It's lazy criticism, yeah, of course. There's nothing negative about being a sub, no one is saying that. There is something negative about being politically submissive in a situation you shouldn't be politically submissive in, and they are using a submissive act to indicate that. The act of being submissive isn't negative, but they are using it to indicate submission. The act of being submissive IS negative in this context. It doesn't (or shouldn't) matter how that submission is being depicted. As CitizenVectron said, you can say to someone "he's not the boss of you!" to indicate that you should stand up for yourself without the negative relational dynamic that having a boss is a bad thing. You can do both at the same time and be logically consistent. Like I said, I see the argument - using it at all negatively implicitly means it's inherently negative due to the association and since the act itself isn't negative (or shouldn't be considered to be negative) then using it negatively means it is against that act. I think there's a distinction there.

But they don't mean it pejoratively, so how can it be pejorative? It's meant as political commentary, not anti-gay. They are indicating that Trump is Putin's puppet in the most degrading way possible. Not because the act is degrading that they are mentioning ("taking it up the ass") but because it indicates how much Trump is under Putin's thumb in a vile way. Again, depends on how it's being presented/used. If it's as political commentary, then no, I do not believe most "liberals" would care (in fact, most didn't when things like that would come up as political commentary during Obama's tenure). It's when it's not political commentary, then it's bad.

Don't bother. It's like a reverse rabbit hole, where the deeper you go the less drugs you should do, but only more drugs is the way to cope.

I figured yes lolol.

Well, Komusha did do that from time to time . . . ah well damn.

Haha, what happened?

If he was trying to say he won't limit incorrect hate speech by users on his platform because the user(s) in question are so stupid they genuinely believe their hate speech rather than just peddling it to influence others or spread propoganda is the dumbest way to justify their continued ability to have a platform when they shouldn't have one, arguably. That's a big deal, because Facebook is a huge platform that reaches many people and Zuck is discussing Facebook policy here.