Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
Again. What I'm telling you is not a question of facts but a question of method. There is what I say (you can agree with it or not it's up to you), and there is what you are doing. Which is objectivelly and scientifically a problem and a form of conservatist usage of language.
Now. I'm telling you this diplomatically to try to make you understand without being disrespectful. You can either try to listen to what I'm telling you (which is that you rigidify language and completely negate its linguistic and documented characteristics) or you can keep trying to prove me wrong on something you can't prove me wrong on, and you will end up eventually on the side of Ravager.
Because, and that's what you do not seem to understand, politicization is not static, what you believe and the way you use the information you have influences the way you think. If you keep rigidifying the language and prevent yourself from looking at the reality of its deepness (being in our cases, the work of scholars, scientist and activists mainly) you will lock your comprehension away from this knowledge BUT ALSO you will create a reactance (that is already starting to appear here) against progressive subjects (such as the awareness about a possible genocide against trans people) that will slowly make you align with reactionnary and potentially fascist rhetoric without you even being aware of it.
This is not only a potentiality, it's a logical politicization pathway. It's how politicization work.
---
The example here is telling : A possible genocide of trans people.
In this sentence alone you are blocking yourself from two very important fact:
- The reality of genocide (what it is) > As you question the term based on your miss-understanding of the principle
- The reality of trans identity (who they are) > As you have historically already questioned the legitimacy of their identity since you can't accept that a trans woman can be a "woman".
For these two reasons alone, we should already treat you the same way we treat Ravager. As a reactionary. But I believe there is more nuances to you and you are closer to us that you make it seem.
---
So again. I'm kindly warning you here that your usage of language prevents you from seeing the deepness of the documented reality of the world. I'm not trying to trick you or come on top here. I'm trying to warn someone I still respect a minimum that they are making a big mistake that could cost them dearly.
You would be wise to calm down the ego and listen to my warning. If this sounds patronizing, it's because I experienced the risk myself. I know the danger. I want to prevent it from happening to others.
Now. I'm telling you this diplomatically to try to make you understand without being disrespectful. You can either try to listen to what I'm telling you (which is that you rigidify language and completely negate its linguistic and documented characteristics) or you can keep trying to prove me wrong on something you can't prove me wrong on, and you will end up eventually on the side of Ravager.
Because, and that's what you do not seem to understand, politicization is not static, what you believe and the way you use the information you have influences the way you think. If you keep rigidifying the language and prevent yourself from looking at the reality of its deepness (being in our cases, the work of scholars, scientist and activists mainly) you will lock your comprehension away from this knowledge BUT ALSO you will create a reactance (that is already starting to appear here) against progressive subjects (such as the awareness about a possible genocide against trans people) that will slowly make you align with reactionnary and potentially fascist rhetoric without you even being aware of it.
This is not only a potentiality, it's a logical politicization pathway. It's how politicization work.
---
The example here is telling : A possible genocide of trans people.
In this sentence alone you are blocking yourself from two very important fact:
- The reality of genocide (what it is) > As you question the term based on your miss-understanding of the principle
- The reality of trans identity (who they are) > As you have historically already questioned the legitimacy of their identity since you can't accept that a trans woman can be a "woman".
For these two reasons alone, we should already treat you the same way we treat Ravager. As a reactionary. But I believe there is more nuances to you and you are closer to us that you make it seem.
---
So again. I'm kindly warning you here that your usage of language prevents you from seeing the deepness of the documented reality of the world. I'm not trying to trick you or come on top here. I'm trying to warn someone I still respect a minimum that they are making a big mistake that could cost them dearly.
You would be wise to calm down the ego and listen to my warning. If this sounds patronizing, it's because I experienced the risk myself. I know the danger. I want to prevent it from happening to others.
Last edited:
https://www.euronews.com/2026/01/09...hitting-land-in-mexico-targeting-drug-cartels
I thought the US was already conducting ground operations in Mexico ?
-source, the movie "Sicario"
Anyway what's the sudden appeal for pedophile-state to attack narco-states ?
How many american lives will be sacrified for the oil wars ?
Democratically elected Mexican president about to be kidnapped too ?
So many questions...
I wish I lived in boring times but those times never existed.
Okay UN textbook worshipper
I thought the US was already conducting ground operations in Mexico ?
-source, the movie "Sicario"
Anyway what's the sudden appeal for pedophile-state to attack narco-states ?
How many american lives will be sacrified for the oil wars ?
Democratically elected Mexican president about to be kidnapped too ?
So many questions...
I wish I lived in boring times but those times never existed.
Okay UN textbook worshipper
Man you guys make some of the most disingenuous arguments ever. Renee got herself killed because she thought she was above the law enforcement. She was already in the wrong by being there in the road acting smug and blocking the way while her friend/Wife was also being antagonistic. Like do you live in alternate reality holy fuck.
He circled the vehicle while there was another agent around. She was told to exit the vehicle she didn't and decided to flee law enforcement. Video shows that he got hit/dragged while also showing her vehicle hitting ice then lurching forward, making the situation far worse.
It's a terrible situation. She shouldn't have died but that's not what happened. Her actions directly led to this as unfortunate as it is.
All my haters just showing how ridiculous they are by posting stupid fictitious slander. Shame.
He circled the vehicle while there was another agent around. She was told to exit the vehicle she didn't and decided to flee law enforcement. Video shows that he got hit/dragged while also showing her vehicle hitting ice then lurching forward, making the situation far worse.
It's a terrible situation. She shouldn't have died but that's not what happened. Her actions directly led to this as unfortunate as it is.
All my haters just showing how ridiculous they are by posting stupid fictitious slander. Shame.
