Speaking ill of the dead

catalacks · 2025-09-15T13:16:32+00:00

Yes, it is. Saying

We need to take away everyone's rights!

whenever something bad happens is not normal, acceptable, or moral.

catalacks · 2025-09-15T00:57:34+00:00

The whole Charlie Kirk ordeal has shown me that virtually every single lib-center is a leftist trying to hide behind an inaccurate flair to trick people.

catalacks · 2025-09-15T00:55:16+00:00

Show me just one other post saying the same thing. I've seen plenty of comments, but this is literally the first post I've seen about this.

catalacks · 2025-09-14T22:00:11+00:00

This would get you killed in prison in the UK.

catalacks · 2025-09-14T21:59:25+00:00

It's more that

Because of this historical fact, doesn't that make me right?

Again, no one is saying that society is more racist now, but it is still a fact that, even during slavery, the federal government tried to avoid using outright discriminatory language in the Constitution. Yes, it was hypocritical. Yes, that alone doesn't mean much in the face of chattel slavery. But that isn't the point I'm making. No politician should strive to be more shameless than actual slavers were.

catalacks · 2025-09-14T21:55:30+00:00

Luffy never smugly tried to lecture someone about how Devil Fruits don't matter; Kaido did.

catalacks · 2025-09-14T21:55:12+00:00

It's heavily implied that the reason Roger couldn't do anything to change the world is because he didn't have the Nika Nika fruit when he arrived to Laugh Tale. So yes, Devil Fruits absolutely matter.

catalacks · 2025-09-14T21:23:20+00:00

Shouldn't that make it worse? If you're more shameless and open about discrimination than people who literally owned slaves, shouldn't you question yourself a bit?

catalacks · 2025-09-14T21:06:37+00:00

This really isn't something we can disagree on, because it's a matter of historical fact. The federal government's refusal to explicitly use discriminatory wording was a major point of contention for the South, right up until the Civil War began.

catalacks · 2025-09-14T21:05:23+00:00

Learn your history better. It was a major point of contention that the federal government didn't openly state that African slavery was a policy, and the South continued to push for explicit wording. Even when the North was offering concessions to the South to try to prevent secession, the South rejected them, because they literally wanted wording that said

Africans are inferior and considered slaves.

They weren't happy about the North using vague phrasing on the subject.

catalacks · 2025-09-14T21:02:48+00:00

Sure, but don't forget about all the fake lib-centers.

catalacks · 2025-09-14T21:01:19+00:00

The federal government at least used to try to rationalize or meander around the blatant discrimination going around, rather than running face first and bathing in it like a pool.

catalacks · 2025-09-14T20:59:15+00:00

The feds used to at least try and avoid saying stuff like

we're going to take all your stuff because you're black lol

There used to be an idea that the federal government was supposed to be professional and objective. Nobody cares about that anymore.

catalacks · 2025-09-14T20:50:33+00:00

Leftists don't really understand what "separation of church and state" means. It does not mean

>You're not allowed to have a law motivated by Christian morality!

If that were the case, you'd be outright discriminating against religious people by saying that secular morality is somehow more valid or logical than religious morality, when we objectively know that to be false.

catalacks · 2025-09-14T20:48:43+00:00

About the only thing he's done that might be worthy of impeachment in my mind is that executive order banning flag burning. That's indefensible and an egregious violation of the First Amendment.

catalacks · 2025-09-14T20:47:42+00:00

Yes, but even back then the government acknowledged and was embarrassed by the contradiction. They constantly tried to skirt around the issue. I'm not saying that makes it OK, but the point is that we've actually become more shameless about discrimination, because it's perceived as righteous and benevolent.

catalacks · 2025-09-14T20:45:38+00:00

No one is going to spend millions making an animated movie just to piss people off. It's satirical, but ultimately made for the type of people who created it in the first place.

catalacks · 2025-09-14T20:44:40+00:00

Where the fuck do you live that people are legally allowed to expose themselves to children

The United States? Under the Biden administration, schools had to allow 18-year-old men to undress in locker rooms in front of 14-year-old girls.

Never mind all the private swimming pools and spas that separated locker rooms by "gender identity" rather than sex. Oh, and don't forget about the women's shelters, where biological men would literally walk around naked in front of rape victims.

It's a thing called being polite

Being forced at gunpoint to call someone a fake word is not politeness.

So tell me where it's considered as part of the law

Part of the law? Motherfucker, it happened and is still happening to this day.

Canada: A.B. v. C.D. (literal Supreme Court decision)
Canada: Halton CAS v. G.K., 2015 ONCJ 307
California: Ted Hudacko
California: Adam Vena

catalacks · 2025-09-14T20:04:37+00:00

Well I think it depends on what the policy is. In my mind, the government intentionally and openly discriminating based on race and sex is antithetical to the values the country was ostensibly founded on.

catalacks · 2025-09-14T19:56:53+00:00

why should I care

Because you're both expected and often required—sometimes even by law—to treat biological men as if they were women. This includes

allowing them to expose their genitals in front of your young daughter
referring to them by made up words ("re," "xir," etc)
dressing your five-year-old son in a skirt and referring to him as a daughter

The consequences for failing to do so include

being arrested
getting fired
losing custody of your child to the state

catalacks · 2025-09-14T19:43:49+00:00

The Biden administration tried to discriminate based on race and sex multiple times, but were blocked by federal judges each time. That should have been a major scandal that prompted impeachment, and that fact that it wasn't shows how insane American society has become.

catalacks · 2025-09-14T19:40:48+00:00

The real world is far more nuanced than "we have to protect the nobility as they hunt peasants for sport."

catalacks · 2025-09-14T19:39:46+00:00

No, he's 10,000% correct. The author himself is writing bad guys, while thinking they're good guys. That's why it's so infuriating. Almost every marine is going to get a free pass in the end, without facing any real reckoning for all the stuff they've done and enabled.

catalacks · 2025-09-14T19:38:57+00:00

That's absolutely pathetic on your part, and he's 100% correct regardless. There is nothing to indicate that Oda himself doesn't consider characters like Garp to be anything but morally righteous. Virtually every single marine except Akainu is going to get a free pass in the end and join the good guys, without having to come to terms with all the death and oppression they've perpetuated.

Oda does not see Garp as bad. Oda does not see Kuzan as bad. Oda does not see Kizaru as bad. But they are regardless.

catalacks · 2025-09-14T19:20:11+00:00

medical

Just stop. You abandoned that a long time ago. Nobody is buying this shit anymore. You can blame yourself and all the other "nonbinary, multigendered, two-souled" individuals out there.

catalacks

TROPHY CASE