Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine #votebluenomatterwhat are you having fun al? are you having van al? gaolang > your fav i refuse to pay my taxes imagine thinking trump is the good guy is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? it's over for trump life goal sister harem loli mfw kamala harris can actually win real madrid tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you worst thread ever
Actually my "threshold" is pretty high considering all the toxicity I should but don't report.
Also, I never name call out someone's behavior for nothing.
The problem is not that I'm hysteric, the problem is that the majority here have a poor way of separating what is toxic from what is non toxic. Because.. well.. most people here are either apolitical, conservative or self called "centrist".. just like in any other big social place on the internet.
Here is a map:
Direct or indirect transphobia = Toxic
Virtue signaling = Non Toxic
Insults = Toxic
Replying with Irony = Non Toxic
Replying with harrassement = Toxic
Replying for 100 pages with taste of irony but no insult = Non Toxic
Replying for 100 pages with insult and indirect intolerant argumentations = Toxic
Implied or direct sexism/Racism = Toxic
Making fun of a character lightly = Non Toxic
Making fun of a character through a racist/sexist/Transphobic bias = Toxic
Seems like I'm the only one (with a few other exceptions) who understand this pattern. But again.. I'm watching the world in a materialistic view regarding dominations..
.. So I get why people don't understand why making fun of yamato fans who were hegemonic and were bullying people is ok while making fun and harass Carrot or Carrot's fan who were completely dominated by this bullying is not and can be considered sexist/racist/toxic in some cases.
But that's not an excuse. That's why I kept my ground on this thread.
See.. that's what I am talking about:
Even the mod don't understand the scope of their toxicity. In that case, Van is mentionning the old right wing moral panic that say: "So I'm a Xphobic if I don't accept to sleep with someone who I'm not attracted to"
This is a conservative argument usually overused by people who are scared that they will be called transphobe for telling to a trans people that they don't want to date someone with a penis (because yes, most of the time, it's men against trans women)..
The problem is: All transwomen know that data, and they all know that hidding their transidentity is sometime synonymus of a DEATH sentence. No trans women will jump on you for saying that you don't like penises.
But hey.. moral panics are FUN... so let's keep them going !
Also, I never name call out someone's behavior for nothing.
The problem is not that I'm hysteric, the problem is that the majority here have a poor way of separating what is toxic from what is non toxic. Because.. well.. most people here are either apolitical, conservative or self called "centrist".. just like in any other big social place on the internet.
Here is a map:
Direct or indirect transphobia = Toxic
Virtue signaling = Non Toxic
Insults = Toxic
Replying with Irony = Non Toxic
Replying with harrassement = Toxic
Replying for 100 pages with taste of irony but no insult = Non Toxic
Replying for 100 pages with insult and indirect intolerant argumentations = Toxic
Implied or direct sexism/Racism = Toxic
Making fun of a character lightly = Non Toxic
Making fun of a character through a racist/sexist/Transphobic bias = Toxic
Seems like I'm the only one (with a few other exceptions) who understand this pattern. But again.. I'm watching the world in a materialistic view regarding dominations..
.. So I get why people don't understand why making fun of yamato fans who were hegemonic and were bullying people is ok while making fun and harass Carrot or Carrot's fan who were completely dominated by this bullying is not and can be considered sexist/racist/toxic in some cases.
But that's not an excuse. That's why I kept my ground on this thread.
See.. that's what I am talking about:
Even the mod don't understand the scope of their toxicity. In that case, Van is mentionning the old right wing moral panic that say: "So I'm a Xphobic if I don't accept to sleep with someone who I'm not attracted to"
This is a conservative argument usually overused by people who are scared that they will be called transphobe for telling to a trans people that they don't want to date someone with a penis (because yes, most of the time, it's men against trans women)..
The problem is: All transwomen know that data, and they all know that hidding their transidentity is sometime synonymus of a DEATH sentence. No trans women will jump on you for saying that you don't like penises.
But hey.. moral panics are FUN... so let's keep them going !
Actually my "threshold" is pretty high considering all the toxicity I should but don't report.
Also, I never name call out someone's behavior for nothing.
The problem is not that I'm hysteric, the problem is that the majority here have a poor way of separating what is toxic from what is non toxic. Because.. well.. most people here are either apolitical, conservative or self called "centrist".. just like in any other big social place on the internet.
Here is a map:
Direct or indirect transphobia = Toxic
Virtue signaling = Non Toxic
Insults = Toxic
Replying with Irony = Non Toxic
Replying with harrassement = Toxic
Replying for 100 pages with taste of irony but no insult = Non Toxic
Replying for 100 pages with insult and indirect intolerant argumentations = Toxic
Implied or direct sexism/Racism = Toxic
Making fun of a character lightly = Non Toxic
Making fun of a character through a racist/sexist/Transphobic bias = Toxic
Seems like I'm the only one (with a few other exceptions) who understand this pattern. But again.. I'm watching the world in a
But that's not an excuse. That's why I kept my ground on this thread.
See.. that's what I am talking about:
Even the mod don't understand the scope of their toxicity. In that case, Van is mentionning the old right wing moral panic that say: "So I'm a Xphobic if I don't accept to sleep with someone who I'm not attracted to"
This is a conservative argument usually overused by people who are scared that they will be called transphobe for telling to a trans people that they don't want to date someone with a penis (because yes, most of the time, it's men against trans women)..
The problem is: All transwomen know that data, and they all know that hidding their transidentity is sometime synonymus of a DEATH sentence. No trans women will jump on you for saying that you don't like penises.
But hey.. moral panics are FUN... so let's keep them going !
Also, I never name call out someone's behavior for nothing.
The problem is not that I'm hysteric, the problem is that the majority here have a poor way of separating what is toxic from what is non toxic. Because.. well.. most people here are either apolitical, conservative or self called "centrist".. just like in any other big social place on the internet.
Here is a map:
Direct or indirect transphobia = Toxic
Virtue signaling = Non Toxic
Insults = Toxic
Replying with Irony = Non Toxic
Replying with harrassement = Toxic
Replying for 100 pages with taste of irony but no insult = Non Toxic
Replying for 100 pages with insult and indirect intolerant argumentations = Toxic
Implied or direct sexism/Racism = Toxic
Making fun of a character lightly = Non Toxic
Making fun of a character through a racist/sexist/Transphobic bias = Toxic
Seems like I'm the only one (with a few other exceptions) who understand this pattern. But again.. I'm watching the world in a
But that's not an excuse. That's why I kept my ground on this thread.
See.. that's what I am talking about:
Even the mod don't understand the scope of their toxicity. In that case, Van is mentionning the old right wing moral panic that say: "So I'm a Xphobic if I don't accept to sleep with someone who I'm not attracted to"
This is a conservative argument usually overused by people who are scared that they will be called transphobe for telling to a trans people that they don't want to date someone with a penis (because yes, most of the time, it's men against trans women)..
The problem is: All transwomen know that data, and they all know that hidding their transidentity is sometime synonymus of a DEATH sentence. No trans women will jump on you for saying that you don't like penises.
But hey.. moral panics are FUN... so let's keep them going !
