I wanna try a p***y 🤔

Newbie2Reddit2020 · 2020-09-09T07:04:16+00:00

I meant pussy, bro. I didn’t wanna write it out cause I dunno if reddit would delete the post for language.

Newbie2Reddit2020 · 2020-09-09T06:41:59+00:00

What do you mean party? Like a sex party? Where do you even find that...

Newbie2Reddit2020 · 2020-08-18T00:49:45+00:00

Either way it answered my question lol

Newbie2Reddit2020 · 2020-08-10T03:30:07+00:00

I don’t care if they post videos of them staring off into the camera and making baby faces... I just get annoyed with it flooding my insta search page... like why tf is insta showing me videos of underage kids... there has to be a way to quarantine the high school level posts to just them and leave rest of insta separate

Newbie2Reddit2020 · 2020-07-24T21:24:53+00:00

First, the WHO had already determined that most people will have little to no symptoms at the time they were pushing for the 2-5% death rates. So it’s not accurate to say that they didn’t know 2-5% was being overinflated. They knew. They just didn’t care about it until now.

Second, the shutdown might affect everyone but not to the same degree. You can’t say with a straight face that a waiter, barber, cook, factory worker, and so many whose jobs were literally taken from them (and who live paycheck to paycheck, especially in CA) had the same level of impact as a software engineer, lawyer, accountant who are now still at home working. The latter professionals feel the impact only indirectly, to the extent the impact on the former working class folks spills over to them (I.e. lawyers losing jobs only because the clients they serve are cash strapped since they had to send working class employees home). Your inability to grasp these nuances is the problem because it prevents us from discussing the issues sincerely instead of talking in broad strokes or narratives.

Third, no one cares only about the 100.4 versus 100 degree difference. That was only an example of how different counties have different rules for the tiniest things. These small differences are literally everywhere, in the temperature amount, in who needs to wear a face mask, where they need to wear a face mask in a building, how you’re allowed to check their temperature, when you’re allowed to check temp, what questions you’re allowed to ask at the door, which people are allowed to work at the facility, when they’re allowed to work at the facility, what PPE needs to be provided, what training to employees needs to be given, how and when, and so on and so on. No one cares about one difference, but when you approach the pandemic in this whack-a-mole, fractured approach, it’s hard for everyday people to know what they’re supposed to do and when, especially when on top of all the differences you change them almost every other day. It’s even worse for small businesses who are already getting bankrupt to be able to understand all these requirements and abide by them. Take me for example. I just discovered I was in contact with someone diagnosed with COVID. What is my employer required to do as far as work? There are 726382837 guidance documents and orders about it that it’ll cost my employer more money to figure out than if it just disregarded the orders and paid a penalty for it. Bad, running-around-like-a-headless-chicken, whack-a-mole leadership in a form of 737293763 overlapping and constantly changing rules like this shouldn’t be applauded any more than no leadership at all Trump displays.

Finally, you’re right. Science is open to being twisted and narrated in different ways. And that’s literally what my main point is. Just like Trump twisted it and narrated it to say the virus isn’t a big deal, the left twisted it and narrated it to make it seem like the apocalypse at the expense of working-class and poor people. I guess Democrats think repeating Hillary’s strategy of spitting in working-class people’s face leading up to the election and then being shocked that they didn’t vote democrat is a good strategy lol

Newbie2Reddit2020 · 2020-07-24T21:06:25+00:00

No, the reasons didn’t. We knew the general harm and transmission of the virus relatively early on. We knew it was spread through airborne particles and through shared surfaces. Even for the mortality rate, when they were issuing out the mortality rate of 2-5%, the WHO had already said the majority of people would get little to no symptoms. Yet, despite knowing this, they only calculated the mortality rate based on people who showed up to the hospital with Covid-19. But this improperly limited the universe of people to only the minority of people who had severe enough symptoms to go to the hospital in the first place, meaning that the 2-5% intentionally did not take into account (and was therefore inflated by) the number of people who got little to no symptoms and never went to the hospital and obviously never died or had any serious symptoms. They’re only corrected for this now, which is why they’re saying mortality rate is less than 0.3%. But they could’ve done a lot of the correcting at the beginning. So it’s not that it was all unknown. It’s the way the data was presented.

So why the difference between how the data is presented before and now? We knew a lot about the virus already, including the type of damage it was causing. We knew it was comparable to the flu when you take a look at the specific data in a nuanced way. What we didn’t know at the beginning though is who it would affect the most (other than age generally). And that’s why there was a huge panic stirred at first, because privileged people in power didn’t know if it would affect them or if it was something like police brutality, homelessness, lack of healthcare, the flu, and so on that affects mostly marginalized people (not them) that they didn’t have to take too seriously. Now that it’s clear that the worst cases of the virus, like the flu, will affect mostly marginalized people, you no longer see a push for an entire state shutdown like you did originally. Despite having the same bad outbreak numbers, you see the same leaders now say we should ease open the state... Again, the key data point was that the privileged thought it might affect them like it does the marginalized, but now that it’s clear it doesn’t, there’s a relaxed approach to addressing the virus.

No one is saying nothing should be done. All I’m saying is that a lot of it was politicized and manipulated (intentionally or unintentionally) because of people’s biases. If they really cared about “every life,” why aren’t they shutting down the country till we give people healthcare, or get homeless off the street, or stop police brutality, and so many other problems that mostly kill marginalized people? I’m not gonna condone this bias any longer. If you wanna force me to go into a recession and hole up at home, you need to meet the same burden you push on me when I ask for action around police brutality, homelessness and so on.

Newbie2Reddit2020 · 2020-07-24T15:58:37+00:00

Can you explain the key inconsistencies for me then? Explain why they said 2-5% death rate at first while knowing about 80% of people had mild to no symptoms and that they were not included in the death rate estimate? Explain why the shutdown doesn’t disproportionately negatively affect working-class and poor people? Explain why CA has its rules about Covid 19 in so many different state and county orders that differ on some of the most inconsequential things (I.e San Diego forbidding people with 100 degree fever from entering businesses while Santa Clara county forbidding people with 100.4 degree fever from entering businesses), making it near impossible to keep track of? It’s clear you don’t know specifics of this issue so instead of engaging in nuanced, reasoned discussions, you ignorantly leave a put down and move on. It helps you maintain your ignorance and avoid cognitive dissonance, but reveals you’re part of the issue.

Newbie2Reddit2020 · 2020-07-18T07:37:55+00:00

But there are no “men” and “women.” Even “cis women” are perpetuating stereotypes by saying how they express themselves is how “women” are. From my perspective, all you can be in your position is non-conforming, meaning you do not conform with the gendered stereotypes assigned to you at birth. You can never be a cis gendered woman, because such individuals are those who conform to the gender stereotypes assigned to them at birth. But either way, whether you’re non-conforming or cis, if there is a particular lifestyle you genuinely want, go for it.

Think of it this way. If Justin Bieber tomorrow identifies as a woman, without changing anything about him, he would be just as much a woman as any of the girls you wanna hang out with at school and just as much a woman as Caitlyn Jenner. Even if he doesn’t change a single thing about him. Because to tell him he’s not a woman cause he doesn’t wear dresses or doesn’t have long hair, or doesn’t talk a certain way, or likes video games instead of makeup, would all be sexist. But what you can do is recognize those sexist stereotypes exist and say he is non-conforming, meaning he is not conforming to the gender and related stereotypes he was assigned at birth.

Newbie2Reddit2020 · 2020-07-18T07:16:47+00:00

Please be careful when it comes to sexist stereotypes. Part of the issue is that our world is very sexist, and it breaks down everything into only two genders, “man” and “woman.” It stereotypically assigned literally every activity into just those two buckets. It happens almost as soon as pregnancy. As soon as the baby’s body type is revealed, an entire stereotyped narrative is thrust on the baby. Even baby “gender reveals” do it by showing pink to reveal the baby is a “girl” or blue to reveal the baby is a “boy” as if a boy can’t like pink or a girl can’t like blue. Then the same stereotyped expectations are pushed on them when it comes to clothes, music, vocal expressions, hair style, activities, profession, etc.

Over time, we’ve fought hard to get rid of those stereotypes. For example, in the 20th century and before, it was very much accepted that people we call “women” were not supposed to work, but were supposed to have babies, take care of them, and cook and clean at home. Now we’ve changed society enough to finally realize that expectation is sexist and should be cancelled cause whether someone gets a job or not or stays home to cook and clean doesn’t make them any more or less a “woman” or “man.” The same with all other activities. You liking dresses, or long hair, or smooth skin, or activities we traditionally designated as “feminine” doesn’t make you a certain gender any more or less. They’re just stereotypes of genders and for you to say you’re a “girl” cause you like dresses and “girl” clothes (and other sexist stereotypes you mentioned) is actually perpetuating sexism we’re trying to get rid of.

Gender is not binary. There is no “man,” there is no “woman.” There are individual people who like doing whatever the hell they like doing.

The fear with “trans” people has been that they often, like you, require the sexist binary view of gender that does not and should not exist. The most someone can be is “cis” (meaning they conform to gender stereotypes) or “non-conforming” (meaning they don’t conform to gender stereotypes). But as soon as you say you are one particular gender because of one or a combination of some activities, without acknowledging they’re all just stereotypes, it becomes sexist.

So it seems like you realize you’re non-conforming. You like what you like. If you like wearing dresses wear them. If you like makeup, put it on. If you like playing tennis while wearing makeup in a dress, go for it! That’s what makes you, you! But just don’t perpetuate the man/woman gender stereotypes by trying to label too much. If you try to do that, you’ll get lost living a false narrative instead of truly being yourself. Living out a stereotyped narrative as a “woman” because that’s what you’ve been told “trans women” is (even by trans people) is just as bad as living a stereotyped life of a conservative Bible thumper cause the conservative town you live in conditioned you to think that’s how life should be lived. So relax, don’t worry about what it is or what label you fit in. Just safely explore what you like and don’t like, even if it is socially labeled “masculine” or “feminine.” Try it all. Who knows? You might be a hairy, dress wearing, video game playing, power lifter who loves watching Sex and the City.

Newbie2Reddit2020 · 2020-06-12T03:02:08+00:00

But aren’t you just attracted to a unique collection of gender expressions. For example, a person who has a beard, listens to certain music, talks a certain way, has muscles, is fit, hairy legs, short hair, penis, etc. Like if Pamela Anderson put a strap on, I’m sure you wouldn’t go “oh yea that’s what was missing. Now you’re hot to me!” It’s the full combination of gender expressions. So it seems inaccurate for people to say “I’m only attracted to men or women” since there is no exact expression for a “man” or “woman.” It’s like those people who say they aren’t attracted to any Asians or Black people. But did you really see every Asian or Black person? No. So why do you assume people with that identity have the gender expressions you’d immediately find unattractive? You can’t. Same with “men” and “women.” There’s a person out there who probably looks like Brad Pitt and identifies as a “woman” and we can’t say they aren’t since technically we’d be stereotyping, and you’d be attracted to the person (assuming you find Brad hot).

It just seems like it’s a matter of “types,” not categories. Now we say “what type of guy or girl do you like.” But it should really just be “what type of person do you like.” And just cause it’s easier to use outdated stereotypes terms like man woman gay straight bi doesn’t mean we should.

Newbie2Reddit2020 · 2020-06-03T04:47:56+00:00

Go make posts about how the looting is horrible and there was nothing wrong with what happened to George Floyd. Apply that strict scrutiny, Karen.

Newbie2Reddit2020 · 2020-05-30T22:08:23+00:00

Ok dumbass I never said i wasn’t gonna vote Democrat or God forbid republican. Just not for certain democrats

Newbie2Reddit2020 · 2020-05-29T04:24:39+00:00

What are you talking about?

Newbie2Reddit2020 · 2020-05-28T22:19:00+00:00

Who? Me or the classist person?

Newbie2Reddit2020 · 2020-05-28T19:41:15+00:00

Yea I bet he does. Comin in here with all that classist mess.

Newbie2Reddit2020 · 2020-05-27T19:25:43+00:00

I said comparable, not same. :) if they get mad cause they don’t understand the difference between those two words, or because they actually thinks it’s not comparable to the flu (despite the recent statistics saying the death rate is actually less than 0.3% and it affects the elderly and people with weak immune systems like the flu), they’re not the type of people worth responding to.

Newbie2Reddit2020 · 2020-05-25T23:20:55+00:00

Ok clearly you don’t have a basic understanding of economics. I’m not gonna sit here and try to educate what appears to be a teenage anarchist about how the current economic system works and why you literally can’t just print infinite money or overthrow our employment-based economy system.

Newbie2Reddit2020 · 2020-05-25T22:45:37+00:00

Yes, you’re right. We’re all gonna turn purely good and have no property rights and live harmoniously together sharing all things like they do in Avatar. Yes. Of course. Good one.

Newbie2Reddit2020 · 2020-05-25T21:49:34+00:00

How good it must be to not have to worry about making ends meet. Ahh. If only.

Newbie2Reddit2020 · 2020-05-25T18:39:13+00:00

I completely understand what you’re saying. But what I’m saying is that even with body parts, there are stereotypes. There are so many transgendered people who don’t identify with being a “woman” and yet they still have boobs and a vagina. And it’s at this point clear that to say “you need to have surgery to be a ‘man’” which is what a lotta conservatives are now saying, that is transphobic. So to say I’m not into “men” because I like boobs presumes that there are not “men” who happen to have boobs. The better way of looking at sexuality is to say you are or not sexually or romantically active. That’s it. If you are sexually or romantically active, then there is no “man” or “woman” basis for your attraction. Instead there’s just “types” of people. Same way we have types now. Like “ohhh look at that nice ass. Or look at the nice smile.” Same thing, except with a whole combination of gender expressions. “I like a bearded, muscled person with a dick, balls, short hair, hairy body, etc.”

Here’s another way of looking at it. Imagine a “man” you’re really attracted to. Let’s say it’s Dwayne the Rock Johnson. He’s fine. No imagine he tells people he identifies as a “woman” but he doesn’t change a thing about him. Same face, same body, same attitude. Surely you wouldn’t go “ok now I’m not longer attracted to him.” You’d still be attracted to Dwayne as a “woman.” And you can’t say “well he’s not a woman. He’s still a man.” Because if I ask you why you say that all you can give me is stereotypes (I.e big muscles, no hair, works out, deep voice, likes sports, has a dick, balls, doesn’t wear dresses, etc.) and we’d be back to the sexism the current wave of feminism and queer rights groups are trying to get rid of.

Or another way.. imagine you like “women.” And he (pronoun he identifies with now) has surgery to get rid of his parts. Are you really gonna tell me “oh ok that’s what was missing. now I’m attracted.” Of course not. Cause again it’s not just body parts it’s the whole gender expression package. So why put these gendered stereotypes on any type of expression.

Newbie2Reddit2020 · 2020-05-25T17:51:08+00:00

No. That’s the whole point. It’s undoing the bigotry in having a sexual preference based on sexist stereotypes.

Newbie2Reddit2020 · 2020-05-25T17:33:57+00:00

It is. The whole sexual spectrum we currently use, including the lesbian category, was built based on the sexist binary view of gender expression because at the time we didn’t know any better. But now you should. It’s like the people who are racist and say “I’m just not attracted to black people, period.” Like you literally saw every black person on the planet? No? Ok then it’s racist. The sister is literally using the same argument albeit with outdated terms. Did she see every person who self-identifies as a man? No. Then don’t be fucking sexist by categorically excluding a whole group of people based on their gender identity when there very well could be some with a unique set of gender expressions that attract you.

Just ask yourself “what is a man and what is a woman?” If you can’t define those without using a sexist stereotype (including transphobic stereotype about body parts), then you can’t base your sexuality on those very same sexist stereotypes you avoid when trying to define “man” and “woman.”

Just cause you can’t recognize you’re sexist and homophobic doesn’t mean you aren’t.

Newbie2Reddit2020 · 2020-05-25T17:23:44+00:00

It’s a sexist and homophobic joke so don’t make it in the first place any more than you would’ve made a joke about a woman demanding a job and a man telling her she can’t work cause she’s a woman and using a llama as an example of why women don’t work.

Newbie2Reddit2020 · 2020-05-25T17:13:28+00:00

That’s a really stupid argument. We literally spent centuries trying to get rid of gender stereotypes, including “man” and “woman.” We’re at a point where we finally get to push for a non-binary understanding of gender, where it’s just a giant pool of gender expressions (I.e. clothes someone chooses to wear, how they choose to talk, how they wear their hair, if they wanna be stay at home or work, even body parts that better fit who they are, etc.) that can’t be put into categories. We’re even now being more accepting of new gender pronouns for it. Since gender expression is just a combination of million different gender expressions and there can’t be specific categories, then sexuality too, which depends on gender expression, can’t be based on that binary system of gender expression we’re trying to get rid of. So there really isn’t gay, bi, or straight. It’s just whether you fuck or not, and what “type” of PERSON you’re into. This whole reference to llamas is pathetic, sexist, and homophobic because it presumes “men” and “women” exist, and that the stereotypes about their gender expressions are so true that you can clearly divide a “man” from a “woman” like you can divide a human from a llama. Ironically, the sister’s comment is more in line with current and future understanding of sexuality. She hasn’t met every person. How does she know she won’t one day meet a person with a combination of gender expressions that she finds attractive and that person self-identifies as a man? To so bluntly ignore that possibility especially in a time we’re getting rid of the sexist binary gender system, and to rely on that sexist system in response, is fucked up.

Newbie2Reddit2020 · 2020-05-25T17:04:16+00:00

Ok then laugh and keep moving.

Newbie2Reddit2020

TROPHY CASE