WittyProfileName2 [she/her]

Cis is just the opposite of trans. If some people are trans then it follows others are cis.

20 years ago you’d be pissing and whining about the use of heterosexual.

Another unnecessary sequel?

I’m gonna skip this one, let me know when they put Jesus in space, or make him fight Jason Voorhees, or whatever these sortsa franchises do when they run outta ideas.

How’s that for dead internet theory?

Huge problem imho, is that a lot of these people who rattle on about voting for harm reduction candidates go home after voting on election day and then don’t get involved politically until the next election cycle.

In these bourgeois “democracies” political parties are always going to move to court wealthy donors and thus shift right wing. If you lot over in America can’t mobilise enough people out in the street to fight for these causes, to grind your country to a screaming halt if needs be, then the Dems will be where labour is soon. Maybe not this election, but check back in with this comment by the midterms.

I guess there’s some small comfort that they’ll at least pay lip service to trans rights then.

The labour party won an election over here and one of the first things they did was stop access to puberty blockers. During the election I was told by a lot of liberals preaching harm reduction that, as a trans woman, that I had to vote for them 'cos the Tories would be worse.

I’m worried about trans people over on your side of the ocean being in a similar position where the elections are between trans exterminationist and transphobe.

Okay, can you be more specific about what they did to minimise damage? Like, did they make trans people a protected class, or relieve the bureaucracy around transitioning, or what?

Not an American, so no real stake in this but, could you tell me what the Democrats have done in the past four years to protect trans rights? Since you’re all so clearly concerned about them an’ all.

I can suggest an equation that has the potential to impact the future:

Acetyl-CoA + 3H₂O + 3NAD⁺ + FAD + ADP + Pi → 2CO₂ + 3NADH + 3H⁺ + FADH₂ + CoA-SH + ATP + H₂O + AI

This combines the Krebs Cycle which relates to glucose metabolism with the addition of artificial intelligence (AI). By including AI in the equation, it symbolises my ability to wank myself to completion without touching my cock, simply by massaging my engorged ego.

IDK, there’s a long history of homoeroticism in islamic art (largely poetry, here’s a write-up about that), it doesn’t seem entirely implausible that this could be some of that.

Careful not to burn yourself at that BBQ 'cos you’ll have to go into debt to afford a sticking plaster. That is if any gathering of Americans larger than two doesn’t just immediately devolve into a mass shooting again. Maybe you’ll see a weather balloon and have to hide indoors from the Chinese.

link to original source.

Do murder ghosts or whatever count as dependents?

There’s probably some nightmare tax form for this, isn’t there?

Have a good day, friend

You too, mate.

Ah, you’re right, I see now, boiling down Marxist critique into “can’t control emotions” and “only wants money” while celebrating the individualistic ramblings of a lead-poisoned imperial despot, is a much more rational outlook.

Systemic issues aren’t real, you just gotta stop thinking bad thoughts and suddenly the crushing oppression that Aurelius was writing in defense of don’t matter.

“Hmm, why would man sitting on the top of an inherently unjust system preach complacency with said system as a virtue? Must be because he’s super rational and smart.”

• you, somehow still on that slave mentality in the 21st century.

If you want to know something you merely have to ask. Maybe explain that you don’t know much about a subject matter.

My initial comment was to someone who has an opinion on Trotsky and thus probably knows who he was, so I didn’t feel like typing up a whole-ass essay on the guy. Y’know?

Genuine question, if you don’t have a stance on Trotsky, and you don’t know fuck all about him, why are you wading into this comment chain in the first place?

I took it for granted that people who had a stance on Trotsky would know who he is.

Because I wanted to know, why do you think Trotsky was less authoritarian than Stalin?

Why would the Commissar of Military and Naval affairs under Lenin, who was instrumental in founding the red army and oversaw the purging of Mahknovists and other anarchist elements in the early USSR be less authoritarian than Stalin?