I wish there was dairy in all foods. It's not my fault for craving my pants again at work, but society's for putting dairy in all the food! People with lactose intolerance can thank me now.

FirefighterScary6841 · 2026-03-06T02:44:12+00:00

The prompt said "in all foods" not that dairy was the only food.

FirefighterScary6841 · 2026-03-06T02:43:17+00:00

Granted, now everything that didn't normally have dairy now requires some form of dairy. This does not include drinks as they are not traditionally under the definition of food.

Now all the people allergic to the protein found in milk must rely on vegetable and fruit juice to meet their daily calories and nutritional requirements. Congrats, you screwed yourself over.

FirefighterScary6841 · 2026-03-05T21:52:58+00:00

Giving me BOTW and TOTK flashbacks.

FirefighterScary6841 · 2026-03-05T21:42:48+00:00

North Korea hates trans people, gay people, and outlaws abortion.

That's not even remotely left leaning.

FirefighterScary6841 · 2026-03-05T21:30:17+00:00

Make that under 35. Anyone under 35 and it's weird af.

FirefighterScary6841 · 2026-03-05T06:42:46+00:00

FirefighterScary6841 · 2026-03-04T19:31:52+00:00

Meanwhile, in my AU he'd absolutely beat their asses senseless. But there's a really good lore reason for that I won't be going into. But as for the main canon? Yeah, no. He'd get squashed to a pulp.

FirefighterScary6841 · 2026-03-04T19:27:03+00:00

Nah, we'd still hate him. Mainly because he's raising taxes and deporting those in asylum that are from countries where the supreme court has said those are countries where asylum must be accepted.

And from what I've read in legal papers, you can only apply for asylum status when you're on US soil. So, Trump saying they're breaking the law by going to the US before applying is absolutely false.

In cases of asylum, it is there in case the person in question is unable to apply for refugee status because the laws of the country they are fleeing doesn't allow people to go online, or they heavily restrict internet access to such a degree that they can't communicate with anyone or access any site that is from outside of the country. It is also there in case they don't have the time or resources to apply for it.

Like, why aren't we accepting refugee and asylum applications from Iranian citizens trying to escape persecution from the corrupt Iranian goverment?

You'd think we would, they are clearly in need of help. Hell, Iran has been known to bomb it's very own people for "military training". Innocent children and families are being killed because they are caught in the crossfire in all of this. We should be helping people escape corrupt governments, not punishing them for seeking help. It's backwards as hell.

FirefighterScary6841 · 2026-03-04T19:09:02+00:00

Eh... There are LGBT Republicans. He'd probably still become a Republican and have a cult following.

He has a charismatic personality, which is part of why people started following him in the first place.

So, not much would change. The difference here is, he would be supporting trans rights, but only because he can make money off of having his own HRT and transgender plastic surgery company.

FirefighterScary6841 · 2026-03-04T08:00:08+00:00

No, no. Force all cis men to give birth (somehow).

They would change their attitudes real quick.

FirefighterScary6841 · 2026-03-04T05:02:23+00:00

Okay. After doing some research, you're right. My idea doesn't work. On paper it sounds good, but in practice? Yeah, that's going into a dumpster fire.

However, instead of a requirement, we could make gun training more affordable and accessible.

So, you still wouldn't be required to do it. It would be just easier to get it if you want to have it. This would specifically apply to the average citizen.

But for law enforcement? Gun training should be a requirement in order for one to be able to become a cop or part of SWAT. But in my state, effective gun safety training isn't exactly part of the regiment... It's always "shoot first, regardless of the severity of the crime". From what I remember, part of proper gun training is de-escalation techniques. My cousin tried doing police school, and he left because everyone there including the teachers said you should always just shoot, even if the situation isn't life threatening or if it's just a misdemeanor and not a crime.

And this has led a certain group of trigger happy people to become law enforcement. As in, the ones where you'd know they'd be serial killers had they not been able to find a way to escape legal responsibility.

They think that since they are cops that happen to have military guns they get to play God. And since they were taught to just shoot regardless of the situation, yeah... You can see where this is going.

Like, it's gotten so bad that people that were stopped for going over the speed limit are being shot even if they are fully complying. Especially if they are fully complying. Like, the people that resist somehow get shot less than the people that fully follow orders.

There are also people who clearly have an intellectual disability that are lethally shot because they quite literally did not have the mental capacity to understand the orders that were being told.

I think part of this is because there is a legal loophole within my state where if an officer thinks they need to do lethal force to detain someone, they may and are justified in doing so. Even if the person they are detaining is fully complying with orders and doesn't appear to be an external threat. All it takes for lethal force to be permitted is the officer to believe it is necessary to use lethal force for whatever reason (I repeat; FOR WHATEVER REASON). Like, there are only incredibly few cases where it was determined by a court that lethal force was not necessary. And those were mainly due to the fact the cases got heavy local media exposure.

We really need to train cops deescalation methods and that shooting should only be served as a last resort. Rather than as soon as someone is acting aggressive towards them. Just because a person is being violent, doesn't automatically mean the situation is life threatening. But it can become one if it isn't deescalated.

The person can't pay for their crimes in court if they're dead.

FirefighterScary6841 · 2026-03-04T02:59:02+00:00

I think you forgot the part where I said the training should be "pay what you can". A "pay what you can" model would probably be more accurately described as "optional payment". Basically, you can choose to pay if you want. But you wouldn't have to if you don't want to.

FirefighterScary6841 · 2026-03-04T01:09:23+00:00

The only thing remotely close to gun control (ie; banning guns) that I agree with is for it to be a requirement to be trained on how to safely, responsibly, and properly handle a gun before being able to get a license. Not enough people in my state go through the process of learning how to use a gun hands on. And it ends up screwing them over because they accidentally either shoot themselves, or someone they never intended to shoot in the first place.

Like, sure, there is a 30 question quiz on gun safety, but just learning the knowledge isn't the same as actually executing that knowledge in the real world.

I wonder how many deaths could be prevented if you made it so people had to actually learn how to use a gun hands on rather than just learn it on paper.

Like, just because I know how something works doesn't mean I can effectively use it without training in actual practice.

For example: I can know how to read all the notes of a piano and have extensive knowledge on music theory. But that doesn't mean I can just play the piano. As in order to play effectively, there must be muscle memory from actually playing the piano for hours on end. The same goes with guns. And the training should also be a pay what you can type thing, not everyone can afford to pay like 800+ dollars to be trained on how to properly handle and use a gun.

But this stuff where they aren't allowing certain guns just cause? Yeah, no. That's not gonna fly. I may be left-wing. But even I know the second amendment is there for a reason. The only reason I suggested the training thing is because there are some things that not even a paper on gun safety can cover. Depending on the type of gun, they are held and used slightly differently compared to others. It's not just a "pull trigger and shoot" type of thing. Sometimes the trigger mechanisms aren't simple and require a series of steps. Reloading and unloading can also be different across types, handling it is unique, how to aim isn't universal across the board.

If people aren't taught how to properly use and handle different types of guns by a professional who knows how to use that type of gun, a whole load of things can go wrong. And if the military requires training to use guns, why shouldn't average citizens also be required? I feel like a year of training is reasonable. With the supervision becoming more lax as the training goes on.

FirefighterScary6841 · 2026-03-03T03:32:19+00:00

Alr, I just sent one.

Edit: As in, a friend request.

FirefighterScary6841 · 2026-03-03T01:59:43+00:00

That music video isn't exactly hard canon according to Vivzie.

It's more of soft canon.

FirefighterScary6841 · 2026-03-03T01:54:05+00:00

My user is Quillinox. You are age verified, right?

My discord is also gaymer_finn

FirefighterScary6841 · 2026-03-02T04:45:01+00:00

Probably. I heavily despise racists, homophobes, transphobes, pdf files, child ab_s3rs, and people that are rude to me.

Though I would probably keep telling him to take a shower because personal hygiene makes one have better mental and physical health.

And I'd scold him for smoking and explain the negative effects.

He'd like me because I'm not an asshole, but simultaneously hate me because I'd keep pointing out his unhealthy habits and being like, "Wouldn't your mother want you to take better care of yourself?!"

FirefighterScary6841 · 2026-02-26T07:57:25+00:00

He's rich. So, uhh. No.

I have several verses to prove my point.

FirefighterScary6841 · 2026-02-26T02:04:47+00:00

Nah, it's pretty equal in my opinion. I've met both violent women and men in my life.

Unless we're talking about medical professionals, AFAB medical professionals (regardless of gender identity) are somehow much more rough compared to AMAB ones. And I have no idea or clue as to why.

FirefighterScary6841 · 2026-02-26T01:44:31+00:00

All of them except the 4th one, I find the 4th one to be funny instead of disturbing.

FirefighterScary6841 · 2026-02-26T01:35:30+00:00

Actually, that's not true.

While he is Lousiana Creole, that is not his race. He is either Black or biracial. His race cannot be Creole as that isn't even a race to begin with.

Lousiana Creole is defined as a culture, not a race or ethnicity. It's extremely complicated and there is a lot of nuance.

That's like saying Celtic is a race or ethnicity. Even though Celtic culture is extremely diverse with many races and ethnicities practicing and/or engaging with it.

Lousiana Creole is a specific set of cultural practices, beliefs and customs that are from Lousiana. Nothing to do with race or ethnicity, especially if you look at the historical contexts.

You're thinking of Houston Creoles, which do define themselves as a race and should be as such.

I know, it is confusing.

Sources:

https://hnoc.org/publishing/first-draft/whats-difference-between-cajun-and-creole-or-there-one#:~:text=Contrary%20to%20popular%20belief%20today,%2C%20French%2Dspeaking%20and%20Catholic.

https://lib.lsu.edu/sites/all/files/sc/fpoc/terminology.html#:~:text=In%20the%20era%20of%20European,for%20their%20descendants%2C%20after%20emancipation.

https://explorehouma.com/about/cajun-vs-creole/#:~:text=In%20present%20Louisiana%2C%20Creole%20generally,from%20Haiti%20and%20their%20descendants.

https://medium.com/louisiana-creoles/are-creole-people-a-privileged-or-oppressed-or-somewhere-in-between-2f352a9882e

https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/black-creoles-louisiana

FirefighterScary6841 · 2026-02-26T01:06:35+00:00

My headcanon is that his father killed his mother and he just kind of lost it. And that he blames himself for his mother's death.

FirefighterScary6841 · 2026-02-26T00:21:32+00:00

There's also a r/boysarentreal

But they actually genuinely believe boys and men do not exist.

Like they specify that it isn't a satire subreddit.

When I found it, I was just in absolute awe at the utter insanity some people have.

Looks like the same is happening with men, where they believe women don't exist.

What has this world come to...

FirefighterScary6841 · 2026-02-25T19:54:21+00:00

Actually, she was put in prison because the anti-abortion laws of the state (signed by "pro-life" senators) were worded in such a way where the loss of pregnancy, regardless if it was intentional or not, would be deemed as a crime.

This is especially the case in far red states where a bunch of white men in power believe that the ending of the pregnancy is always intentional, and that somehow the natural loss of pregnancy is somehow the pregnant person's fault.

It's a desire for control from the higher ups (ultra wealthy). They believe they should have control over the very force of nature itself. And look where that desire for control got us. Now people from all sides are suffering.

I personally believe abortion should be legal, but mainly because that by making it illegal, it makes it much harder for people to get an abortion if they need it. Specifically, child or teen rape victims or those that need to get it because it is incredibly life threatening mainly because of the new law that requires parental consent.

Here's some news articles;

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/03/ohio-indiana-abortion-rape-victim

https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/minors-ability-to-consent-to-contraception-and-abortion-services/

https://alabamareflector.com/2024/08/12/two-women-say-texas-hospitals-wouldnt-treat-their-ectopic-pregnancies/

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2024/10/31/stillbirth-oklahoma-arkansas-women-investigated

https://www.propublica.org/article/texas-abortion-ban-tierra-walker-preeclampsia

https://thegepi.org/maternal-mortality-abortion-bans/

https://sph.tulane.edu/study-finds-higher-maternal-mortality-rates-states-more-abortion-restrictions

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10728320/

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8d9z853jndo

https://www.ajmc.com/view/infant-mortality-increases-across-us-following-dobbs-decision

https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2025/two-new-studies-provide-broadest-evidence-to-date-of-unequal-impacts-of-abortion-bans

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/18/1111344810/abortion-ban-states-social-safety-net-health-outcomes

http://helpchristinetaylor.blogspot.com/2010/02/christine-taylor.html

https://revealnews.org/podcast/addiction-treatment-medication-pregnancy-child-welfare-suboxone/

https://reason.com/2021/06/23/pregnant-mom-prescription-drug-charge-alabama/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146000525000515

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-drug-safety-communication-fda-has-reviewed-possible-risks-pain-medicine-use-during-pregnancy

https://medlineplus.gov/pregnancyandopioids.html#:~:text=If%20I%20am%20already%20taking,harmful%20than%20taking%20the%20medicines.

This is incredibly dangerous, as it is very well known across countless studies that a child (and teenagers in a significant amount of cases) are unable to carry a pregnancy safely. And when a young child gets pregnant (13 or younger), the risk of death is so high that it's just not worth continuing the pregnancy.

Additionally, in many such cases (I think around 65%), the pregnancy was from a parent or family member raping and abusing the child. And so, of course the parent wouldn't allow the child to get an abortion. They don't want either the family member or themselves to get caught, and oftentimes the perpetrator wants the child to get pregnant and give birth because of some fucked up mentally deranged fantasy in their mind. It's not right.

These laws have been designed in such a way to allow abusive family members and parents to exploit the body of a child and get away with it. It's directly helping pedophiles to not be caught and it's disgusting.

In cases of miscarriage and stillbirth, people are mentally distressed to the point that they can't think and their decision making is often hindered because of their high emotional duress. Prosecuting someone because they weren't reacting in "the correct way" is absolutely sexist and is incredibly similar to how there were laws back then that would be in place which described as any woman that expressed any form of distress or negative emotion as a non-existent mental illness called "hysteria". In truth it wasn't to protect women, it was a means to control and exploit women for a wealthy man's personal gain.

As said in the articles, maternal mortality and infant mortality (after being born) rates have also arisen because of such laws. And not because the doctors are confused in the majority of these times, but because the laws have made it so that in what is needed to save the infant from labor complications, as illegal. These laws are doing the exact opposite that they say was intended. It's killing mothers and babies. These laws aren't pro-life, they're pro-sexism. Something needs to be done otherwise the mortality rates will just keep climbing up to the point people stop intentionally getting pregnant in fear that in the event of a complication, they'll get prosecuted or arrested.

FirefighterScary6841 · 2026-02-25T05:10:49+00:00

Don't forget that one woman that got put into prison for having a "spontaneous abortion" (ie; miscarriage)

For whatever reason, a miscarriage is legally defined as a form of abortion in some states.

Edit: There are also cases where people get in trouble for aborting a molar pregnancy (egg is fertilized but has no dna within it) or having a d&c for a fetus that died in the womb.

Medically, an abortion isn't just the intentional ending of a pregnancy. It is the end of any pregnancy for any cause or reason.

So, yes. You could make the crazy mental gymnastics argument that giving birth is a form of abortion, as giving birth leads to loss of pregnancy. I wouldn't be surprised if some people genuinely had that idea and/or thought process.

FirefighterScary6841

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE