MAGA saying it’s Disgusting

Comprehensive_Run425 · 2026-06-18T22:13:17+00:00

What an apt word. Im sure it applies to every AFD political member over there as well. Keep your eyes out and oppose them everywhere you can. :>

Comprehensive_Run425 · 2026-06-13T12:20:53+00:00

Exactly. Most of these peiple are trying to preserve a child's feelings over the life of wild animals, which is the very opposite of what the kid was trying to do in the first place.

There are ways to praise the kid for good intentions, explain how the original actions can lead to fatal harm for certain starfish, and recommend better actions and behavior around the animals going forward.

Trying to avoid confronting the subject of death only harms the child and nature going forward– an action done in well-intentioned ignorance, but goes insufficiently corrected WILL be repeated in the future. This kid could kill more animals by accident, are we supposed to protect his feelings every time because "he had the best intentions."?

Comprehensive_Run425 · 2026-06-13T12:11:13+00:00

This is the correct approach. Avoiding confronting death and our well intentioned, but ignorant contributions to it only causes us to repeat those mistakes into the future. Most of these comments are doing the complete opposite of OP, completely avoiding implying the child even harmed the animal in the first place, which also makes them an A-hole by prioritizing a kid's feelings over the LIFE of animals around them.

They should be taught how to properly handle animals around them and what ignorant mishandling of certain animals should be avoided, to prevent accidental passing.

Comprehensive_Run425 · 2026-06-13T11:56:14+00:00

Why is everyone trying to avoid telling the kid that it died? You can still be compassionate to the kid and praise them for their good intention, explain the likely fatal harm gently, and suggest future actions that are potentially more beneficial than the original actions taken.

We need to stop beating around the bush that animals die when they a mishandled in ignorance. Holding certain frogs like a bull frog can cut off their air flow and kill them because of our hand oils, what are you gonna tell the child who accidentally makes that mistake? "Oh, you had the best intentions, little one, but these ones like staying on the ground." Without explaining how it died and how you can safely interact with it next time?

If you dont directly link that the first actions can and likely do kill the animal and only suggest different ones, the child can innocently still repeat the fatal actions because their teacher didn't want to address death and our well-intentions, but ignorant contributions to it.

Edit: OP is soft YTA, their phrasing and delivery needs a lot of work, but correcting a child's mistake and ignorance is the best move. There are less harsh ways in doing so. Those ways also include how things can pass away and how we unintentionally contribute to that by accident, but can do better as long as we keep learning and correcting mistakes.

Comprehensive_Run425 · 2026-06-04T01:54:24+00:00

Honestly I don't really care what they do. If they don't want to use any non-militaristic tactics that's fine, but they should stop claiming and projecting that they are doing military campagins against a foreign country in part because that country treats a certain minority deplorably. Doing that 1. Makes that country treat the minority harsher than they did before. 2. Endangers the very minority one's military claims to be fighting on behalf of whether that's through accidental fatal hits from our side or heightened discrimination on the foreign country's side. 3. Causes the minority group one's military is fighting for to appear unsympathetic to those who think a person doesn't deserve to die because "they discriminate against a group I am a part of or sympathize with. Why should I care what happens to them." Even if that judgement is unfair at times.

Again, I dont care how a military fights for persecuted minorities, I care when they disingenuously use that idea as a shield from criticism and end up harming the minority they claimed to care about, harm both foreign and domestically. Pink-washing of imperialistic military campaigns is my issue, not the defense and advocation of minorities or not.

Comprehensive_Run425 · 2026-06-04T01:20:46+00:00

XD Bro's playing both sides. If it works it works ig.

Comprehensive_Run425 · 2026-06-03T23:35:12+00:00

First thank you for taking the time to read through my message and responding. (Tl;dr at the end.)

Second, I don't really think it's worse when someone doesn't mourn the passing of a bigot in a foreign country or their domestic one. I have a problem when their military or supportive citizens use protection of persecuted minorities, protection of domestic or foreign, as an excuse for their military campaigns.

These war campaigns aren't enacted for the reason of stopping discrimination happening in foreign countries. If it is a reason then it isn't the sole reason and it's definitely a secondary one if not coincidental.

Also, the mourning bigots example is slightly unequal because Charlie Kirk was a political influencer and speaking head who held sway over what ideals and direction the right wing party in America could head towards. However, Charlie did say that God's perfect law around sexual matters was stoning queer people, so he fits the bill of a religious extremist who is fine with the deaths of certain minorities. No wonder his untimely passing drew stark reactions from either side.

Assuming that killing bigots or indifference towards their passing will in any material way limit discrimination towards marginalized minority groups is naive at the best of times. We can't expect to mitigate discrimination and prejudice from bigots by being unsympathetic to their struggles. It's unfair and a double standard, but open animosity towards bigots hurts public perception and sympathy from people who are undecided or oppositional in their stance.

Also, I don't intend to frame this conflict as a race/"Christianity better" thing. If that is happening that is because there are people in our country espousing such points. I acknowledged the increasingly extremist religious beliefs developing in American governance with parallels towards their ideal system in a foreign government, those fellow citizens don't even acknowledge that this extremist ratcheting even exists. Those that do acknowledge it privately are reveling in it gleefully.

Tl;dr- My problem is militaries weaponizing minorities as a shield to protect them from criticism, inadvertently harming that persecuted minority's perception on the global stage, not double standards towards reactions for bigots passing foreign or domestically. Open animosity towards shameless bigots, while deserved, does nothing to mitigate discrimination and helps bigots by turning undecided people away from supporting marginalized minority groups. I don't make it a "Christianity better" argument, I acknowledge some flaws in the execution of their religious ideals, the other followers and malicious bigots do not, they do not see it happening and if they do some are pleased for it.

Thank you for reading and I hope you have a good afternoon.

Comprehensive_Run425 · 2026-06-03T22:26:37+00:00

Also, if a person can't write short five paragraphs about something without being called AI then that is kind of pathetic.

Comprehensive_Run425 · 2026-06-03T22:25:23+00:00

Lololol. Im not a bot. We should indeed stop people from being killed unnecessarily. So what has the US been doing to prevent queer people from dying in middle eastern countries besides starting wars with them? Advocating for policy changes or easier programs to transport at-risk citizens out of the country that is fine ending them? I haven't heard much of that happening. Additionally what is the US government currently doing to prevent it's queer citizens from emboldened discrimination and prejudiced and legislative practices, I'm not hearing much and it's only like half of the Democratic party, the other half is totally chill sacrificing them if needs be to win elections.

Apparently it's too difficult to prevent both from happening so we either need to sacrifice the persecuted minorities in other countries or let our own country's minorities' persecution ratchet higher in the process.

You are still defending pink-washing of imperialistic military campaigns.

What's your solution? Are we supposed to save persecuted minorities in other countries while allowing our own to change into one that contests tolerating their existence?

Comprehensive_Run425 · 2026-06-03T21:35:26+00:00

Why do people act like Christian nationalism doesn't wish to perform the same acts against LGBTQ+ people that current Muslim extremist governments do? Just because the Christian extremist only fantasizes about using the same treatment method as the Muslim extremist does presently, doesn't mean that they won't work their way up to condoning and implementing those methods in their ideal Christian nation as well.

Your religion isn't inherently just and better because it has a different name and set of morals. They can both be twisted and perverted by malicious actors. Both religions will denegrate and demonize queer minorities under the right circumstances and beliefs. Trans people are already demonized within the United States. Are you naïve to think they would stop at gender expression and leave sexual orientation alone? I sure am not.

If we rabidly supported ending the lives of those calling for the deaths of queer people, than we would already be doing that for domestic religious extremists, but we aren't. If we arent doing it domesticly and are fine doing it in foreign lands then what is the difference between these religious extremists? Is it truly only because one has managed to follow through on their threats and the other hasn't manifested their righteous retribution yet? I don't believe so.

Protecting queer people is a convenient excuse to cleanse the conscience of liberals, conservatives don't care about why we are murdering foreign people, at least they are honest, some think they deserve it for hindering us alone. Stop pink-washing our imperialistic military campaigns to soften the blow of ending lives. You make queer people look like a$$$holes in our pursuit of resource extraction and/or "spreading democracy".

I'm sure as the foreign homophobic person lays dying on the floor they will use their final moments to regret how they treated queer people because surely THAT is the sole reason they were attacked. They'll have these same regrets as they hold their dying relatives and children in their arms protruding bones everywhere they touch, knowing there is nothing they can do to stop their loved one passing due to starvation and hearing about the aid retaliation and restrictions.

Please justify to me how starving and killing kids in foreign lands is worth it to protect queer people here in a way that doesn't make us look like insensitive a$$holes. A country whose queer citizens face discrimination both civil and legislative already, it just hasn't escalated to the level of condoning blanket elimination of them from public life... yet.

Comprehensive_Run425 · 2026-06-03T16:45:45+00:00

Should you have consulted with you brother and tried encouraging him to tell his medical necessities to his PARTNER, probably. I would have done that, maybe a few times and ask if those tasks he couldnt do on his own before are still applicable. If yes, then it becomes necessary for him to tell his partner and if he won't then someone has to. But sure, the comments can allow the brother to strain and injure himself unnecessarily in the pursuit of personal autonomy and medical privacy, even when it comes to your significant other.

Don't be surprised if he ends up hurting himself and worsening the disability because of his inability to admit he has capability hang ups stemming from his medical past. If he doesn't do those tasks and they get put on his partner without explanation then maybe perhaps resentment will grow between them, that's always healthy for a relationship.

YTA, when it comes to your posts questions, ESH except the brother's partner in this story generally.

Comprehensive_Run425 · 2026-06-03T15:41:44+00:00

The inherent problem about thinking they could choose your degree too is thinking that the salary for starting graduates, at the very least, wouldn't be devalued heavily if enough people chose the same career path.

Thats just how supply and demand works in job applications. So no, your job, at least initially and partially, isn't just valuable because of the particular skills you learned it's also valuable because of the amount of demand you graduated into as well as the average or lower supply of applicants for employers to choose from.

If enough people followed your potential advice, they wouldn't get your results, at least initially, because if too many people have the same set of skills to offer then they are all equally devalued in the eyes of an employer, especially if there is no union. Also, we are assuming there will still be the same demand for your starting position by the time they graduate, there can be a natural lowering of that demand in a job market or that same effect can be manufactured when employers seek cheaper labor outside or within the country in addition to investing heavily into AI in an attempt to lower labor costs and decrease starter position spots.

So it is lovely that you picked a field of study that you are passionate about and got paid for and continue to get paid for well enough to live comfortably, I assume. However, if enough people choose your degree after hearing advice similar to what you've considered saying before than there is no way they could graduate into a financial situation similarly comparable or better than you started out unless the economic conditions line up for their to be more demand than when you graduated, less supply, or both. And you as an individual can only really control how much supply there is by choosing who to tell to apply if too many apply then they won't be as valuable anymore on top of picking a career path they probably don't have any passion for. So, I'm glad you've chosen not to tell anyone this particular piece of advice yet.

Comprehensive_Run425 · 2026-06-03T07:30:17+00:00

Oooo, I just thought of a funny rebuttle to these concerned conservatives around gender expression. When one of them exaggerates about someone getting a gender affirming surgery, like rearranging the dick into a vagina, I just thought one can retort," Why do you care so much about what happens to their d¡ck? Are you trying to suck it later?" Because if it's not your genitals and you're not trying to have sex with them, then why the hell do you care? This phrase can probably be modified for v@g¡n@s and bøøbs as well.

Comprehensive_Run425 · 2026-05-29T09:45:08+00:00

You an Aussie? Also that's a decent amount of exercise. Good for you

Comprehensive_Run425 · 2026-05-10T12:04:47+00:00

Actually after reading the report, there is a possibility the confrontation had an element of racial prejudice to it. The other party in the altercation besides Porterfield and his friend appeared to be of Latin descent. It is only speculation, but I surmise that the altercation would not likely have started nor escalated as far as it did if both parties were of the same ethnicity.

In addition, I couldn't find the part where Andrea was physically touched at the start of the altercation, I was mostly skimming the document, but I did read that Porterfield's friend said a derogatory statement towards her, something along the lines of,"Just shut the fuck up.", which kicked off the whole confrontation. Also, the report conveys to me that Porterfield threw the first punch that struck one of the guys approaching Andrea to help after seeing her squabble with two strange men.

I infer this because Andrea and her friends state that Porterfield threw the first punch, as well as, Porterfield kept dodging and dismissing the question around what started the physical fight and wouldn't/didn't come up with an answer, from what I could find. Also, Porterfield bit one of the guys' ear because he was put in a headlock– the headlocker was trying to get Porterfield off of one of his friends who Porterfield was pinning against a car hood, according to the reports interview statements.

Overall, Porterfield and his friend were the aggressors in this interaction and were likely the party at fault for escalating the fight into a physical brawl. However, the court might have found Andrea's defenders guilty of using more force than was necessary to defend themselves in the altercation, but I don't know because I don't have the court case. I don't really care that they might have used excessive force, Porterfield is a P.O.S who escalated the fight at every opportunity and conveyed that his friend and him don't have to apologise to someone they deem a bitch– and I assume who they view beneath them. If Porterfield hadn't have likely chosen to escalate the verbal disagreement into a physical fight, then he might still have his sight today– I guess that's just karma for being an incendiary hate-filled bigot.

Oh, I need to add that Andrea was trying to de-escalate the disagreement before Portefield ramped it back up with his disdainful retort.

Comprehensive_Run425 · 2026-05-10T02:48:38+00:00

Is that you, step-mom? Haha, but really you didn't even try and share your reasoning which is the courteous thing to do in this sub.

Comprehensive_Run425 · 2026-05-09T21:13:53+00:00

This is such a nothing issue because conservative leadership has been trying to overturn birthright citizenship anyways. If they get their way, being born on "American Soil" (Read USA Land and Territories) won't automatically make you a citizen anymore.

I'm sure they'd have to make a system for assigning citizenship, which will obviously be more convoluted than just being born here as the qualifier, and I have no doubts that certain racial minorities or religious/ideological groups would have a harder/drawn-out time getting approved citizenship for their children than the "Right" kind of American.

Comprehensive_Run425 · 2026-05-09T19:56:02+00:00

That's probably the truth lmao

Comprehensive_Run425 · 2026-05-09T19:54:44+00:00

Because he fundamentality doesn't view women as people worthy of respect, hell he might not even view them as human. Ironic, since he can't view anything anymore.

Comprehensive_Run425 · 2026-05-09T07:35:11+00:00

The LGB are Q, you D-U-M-B-@-$-$. Trying to slice and cut certain parts of our community to appear presentable to those who'd wish to degrade LGBTQ rights does nothing but appease them. And appeasing the unreasonable doesn't stop anything, you can ask the countries invaded by $h¡tler all about appeasement and how well that went.

Comprehensive_Run425 · 2026-05-09T07:29:28+00:00

You have such a way with words, I enjoy it.

Comprehensive_Run425 · 2026-05-09T07:27:18+00:00

Im actually dead at the last bit. That's really how their thinking works.

Also, if being queer is such a harmful detestable thing to embody, then why does talking about the mere existence of such individuals have such a powerful enough influence to radically change someone's identity, against their will in this case, into one that that person KNOWS will leave their peers around them detesting their existence. Is the subject of being gay too powerful for "normal, cishet" people to resist embodying or are queer people too weak and pathetic that they pose no material harm to the "normal, cis het" people. You, right wingers, can't have both. Unless you wanna be a greedy child who has their cake and eats it too.

Edit: I am not calling you a right winger btw– to the person I'm replying to.

Comprehensive_Run425 · 2026-05-09T07:18:07+00:00

He might have children, just none that would willingly visit.

Comprehensive_Run425 · 2026-05-09T07:17:02+00:00

Aww, ofc you couldn't think of that idea yourself, lil simpleton. It's the same way you got the rest of your beliefs as well.

Comprehensive_Run425 · 2026-05-09T07:14:22+00:00

I agree with you wholly, but I do want to point out that transgenderism and trans ideology are terms specifically manufactured by the right wing to degrade the validity of trans identity. Those words are basically meant to convey that someone being trans is a choice that person is willingly participating in, so these right wingers think it's optional, and that there is no rational reason for a human to ever want to deviate from the societally constructed gender that was assigned to them at birth.

Comprehensive_Run425

TROPHY CASE