TheMoralNarcissit
@TheMoralNarcissit@hilariouschaos.com
- Comment on Belfast Books has announced that they are removing all of Stephen King’s books from their website after he posted insensitive and false comments about Charlie Kirk. 1 month ago:
He falsely claim that Charlie wanted to kill gay people. Which to be fair if true kind makes it understand able why a person would be pro die charlie or even kill him. I personally do not at all think that would justify killing the guy. We need to be able to debate morals. That means even letting people having stances even as crazy like genocide or nonconsenting vore. We figure out that they are wrong by debate and then quickly reject them. But it is kind of understandable that one would want to kill someone wanting to kill others. And it is a off putting to cerebrate someone that was pro murder.
The problem was that was not Charlie…
Charlie did think being gay was sinful (which I disagree, I love my ghost lesbian porn ) but he welcomed Gays into the right and had Gay Friends. rumble.com/v5ggax9-0926-clip-6-charlie-kirk.html?…
There been gay outlets taking out a gay quote out of context. Basically some one was using the Christ book to cherry pick quotes to ague for a gay pride or something. Charlie responding by doing the same, but justify killing gays instead, to mock her gay agreement.
lgbtqnation.com/…/no-i-wont-be-shedding-any-tears… web.archive.org/…/gay-people-should-be-stoned-to-… gridironheroics.com/gay-people-should-be-stoned-t… web.archive.org/…/no-i-wont-be-shedding-any-tears… www.erininthemorning.com/p/…/comments web.archive.org/web/20250911230551/…/comments web.archive.org/…/stephen-king-apologizes-and-del…
Clip of gay stoning quote. x.com/patriottakes/status/1800678317030564306
Any how Steve thought that was true, then people correct him a bit harshly. x.com/StephenKing/status/1966484038648021264 x.com/StephenKing/status/1966474125616013664 x.com/RubinReport/status/1966299918202540515
- Comment on Where's the Line Between Slut Shaming & Criticizing Promiscuity? 1 month ago:
“Is it still valid, then, to bring these things up as negatives?”
Within the meme, it not really explain why any of these things are negative. It just lists things that are suppose to be bad. For an argument to be good it should at least try to explain why promiscuity is bad. And even define what they mean by sexual promiscuity .
It also sates in the meme “submissive can’t cook’, to be honest I think this meme may actually be trying to be offensive . When I hear this statement, it sounds like the man is grumpy that the chick can not cook food for him to consume. There are a few ways to interpret this. One meaning is that the shitposter believes in specialized gender roles. With the males working to bring in an income and being the leader of the household. While the females perform the domestic roles, like cooking, cleaning and shiting out young ones. The idea perhaps in this poster’s view, is that it is better for people to get good and focus on one role, instead of being overwhelmed by many. They may even believe that one sex is more fit to do certain things then others. Another meaning, is the artist is simply a troll trying to get some laughs by pissing off Feminists or really any one who does not believe that woman are inferior (or at the very least believes that woman are rational enough to make decisions effecting themselves or others and do not need a guardian or an owner to take charge). It is also possible that the meme writer is actually a feminist themselves trying to make slut shamers look bad. By having the critic of sexual promiscuity, come off as sexist. They could group the two ideas as one and focus on attacking the less popular idea, with hopes of taking the other one down with it. Or maybe a guy got piss his girlfriend cheated on him, give him monkey pox, keeps blowing weed in his face. And he is hungry too.
Too lazy to answer the other question.