This thread is permanently archived
Thoughts on LGBT
| In modern media there are not too many lgbt characters but there are too many lgbt characters which are just there to be lgbt. Most video games do this very poorly; VA-11 Hall A is one of the only ones that does it well. When it feels like they are 'replacing straight couples' it's mostly because the lgbt couples are poorly written and stand out. The netflix show bojack horseman has multiple examples of how lgbt characters can be included without detracting (it's also a good show).
| >>581183
Very good explaination. I feel the similiar way.
I suspect that the commercialization of diversity doesn't work well because commercialization is a natural enemy to diversity. The consumer masses need a confirmation that their way of life is the good, the normal one. Things that differ from it always will be portrayed as exotic exception from the norm through side characters. Like attractions in a zoo that people can admire from a safe distance.
| >>581181 lgbt fags are ruining everything. They are just a small minority but because the media is with them their voices amplifies. And they are ruing everything. Movies, tv shows, games and in the near future they are gonna ruin anime.
I don't care if you're a fag, straight, trans, normal, man, woman. Just don't ruin everything with your agenda.
You want fag characters? Make new ones.
But we can't do anything. They'll stop making shit shows when they'll start losing money.
| it's very annoying and >>581183 attitude turned me into a homophobe. i didn't even care about these idiots in the beginning, but now when i see a homo in popular culture i'm just like "pfff... you're here just to be a fag, i get it..."
same thing with companies incredibly retardingly putting blacks in advertisement just because they're black.
that's why i ended up a bit racist now, thinking oh you're here because you're black and not because you're good. you're a service nigger.
| y'all complain about the increased diversity of the types of people you now see in media, but how is it actually bad?
the population of the world isn't just cishet white men, it's more than just that. and the increased diversity shows the world for what it truly is, a world of many different types of people and cultures.
diversity is a good thing, and i think you're wrong if you think otherwise.
| >>581413 what do you consider to be ruining everything?
it just sound like you're getting triggered over people existing, smh
| >>581473 i do agree that token characters aren't very good. but it's a bit of an overreaction to be triggered over gay people existing and appearing in pop culture, just because some people aren't good writers.
and what is wrong with POC appearing in advertisements?
| >>581475
how exactly is diversity good? how exactly is having less in common with your peers supposed to be a positive thing for society? why is a group better the less cohesive and understanding towards its members it is?
diversity is bad because it divides. the end.
there is no reason today to have a "diversity message" in a land like Europe where the population is WHITE and NOT DIVERSE. this is a fabrication of the USA.
>>581478
what do you mean, Piece Of Crap?
| >>581485 you have more in common than you think, you're just choosing not to see that.
the only thing causing less cohesiveness and understanding is your attitude to those who appear different.
and diversity only divides because you're afraid to accept that not everyone is an exact clone of you.
and there is a reason to have a "diversity message" in europe, because it's actually a very diverse place, you only wish to think that it isn't.
| >>581485 it's only "WHITE and NOT DIVERSE" if you choose to ignore all the facts that say otherwise.
and even if the majority of the population is white, that doesn't suddenly just make the rest of the population not matter, they're still people too and they deserve representation.
and POC means people of colour, you silly numptie.
| >>581488
you're having a wishful thinking attitude. tell me what is so similar between Canadians and Somalis? sure they're humans but that's pretty much it. they are radically different, stick to each other and have vast differences physically, mentally and culturally. your attitude is delusional bullshit.
funny how non-multicultural nations are inherently cohesive but you have to fucking force it in other to somehow make it brokenly work.
And Europe is EUROPEAN. not anything else
| >>581489
what facts say otherwise? Europe is a white land.
why do you hate white people so much that you want to kick them out of their land?
should we do the same to israel? make israel multicultural? i mean it shouldn't just be the land of the jews, right?
the rest of the population statistically does not matter. if they want to matter, they've got entire countries all to themselves. and if they're not happy with white countries, then why are they even here?
| >>581488
the only diversity in Europe is European (white). the world is diverse, sure. why should the white people's land be "diversified"? the world already has diversity. Africa for africans, Asia for asians, America for americans.
it's just a matter of logic that each race has their own land that they love and want to evolve in, where they're represented and live among their own.
thus Europe is the land of Europeans - a white land - and there's no valid argument against that
| >>581490 the only difference is their culture and the conditions that they grow up in, besides that there is no difference. there's no physical or mental difference.
you're the one who's so delusional that you still believe that there is a difference. there's only one race and that's the human race.
and it's only broken due to people not willing to accept those who appear to be different.
and europe is indeed EUROPEAN, i don't see what you're trying to say.
| Mods, please.
| >>581492 the facts that people besides white people live there, silly.
and i don't hate white people and i don't want to "kick them out of their land", you're just strawmanning me into something i'm not.
and i do think that israel shouldn't be just a land for jewish people, it should be a land for everyone.
what exactly makes those people not matter? please tell me.
| >>581497
if Europe is European then there is no need for multiculturalism.
to each race their own place. Europe is for Europeans.
also, culture. exactly. even just for that they'll never be able to integrate. you don't seem to realize that they are outsiders and nothing you will forcefully try to accomplish with your hamfisted attempts is going to make them Europeans.
it just so happens to be that people want to stay among their own, and they declare you wrong.
| >>581493 there is no american race, because america was a nation built by immigrants who came from all across the planet.
if you really think that there's a land for everyone, then you should be advocating for all the white americans to be moved back to europe so the native americans can take back their land.
| >>581499
it's because they are a statistical minority that is historically irrelevant to the land.
they are overrepresented by pandering corporations and are outsiders to Europe and Her spirit. if they want to matter they'll just need to go back to their own countries, they've got entire lands to themselves.
also, you're right, the jews don't deserve a land lol
i'm starting to think that you're b10b1e
| >>581501 there is no european race.
what do you define as "integrate"?
and they'll only be outsiders if people refuse to accept them.
and who's declaring that i'm wrong?
| >>581502
the Natives just cringed
i'm alright with the whites coming back to Europe if you would just fucking leave Europe alone, she does very well without you idiots.
by the way, the Irish built america. the USA would be nothing without white people (just a PS)
| Maaaaaaaaan......
Who brought the the trans baitivists back? And why they brought the race baitivists with them?
AND MOST FUCKING IMPORTANT OF ALL
WHY ARE WE TAKING THE BAIT?
| >>581504
there are the European people, which are all white.
are you saying that there is no american race and thus white people can stay?
or perhaps that there is no african race and thus colonization was ok
well they are outsiders because they are culturally, physically, and mentally different. that's really it.
people nowadays are voting against you.
| >>581506
BECAUSE I FUCKING LOVE EUROPE
>>581507
adding to that that they're outsiders because they're strangers to European history. they didn't build Europe
| i just get the feeling that these types of SJWs want to destroy Europe and that's what they're out to accomplish
| >>581503 how does historical relevancy matter?
what about POC who were born in europe or america?
those places are the countries they know, you can't exactly just send them back to somewhere they don't know against their will.
and i think everyone deserves land, i just don't like ethnonationalism, even by jewish people.
| >>581510
historical relevancy matters because it relates to justice. it is just for a people to enjoy the land that they have built, that they have shed blood and sweat and tears to construct and ensure survival of.
for the minorities born here, well it's the paren't fault. they should have thought before they ripped the roots out of their own heritage.
"i don't like this thus it is wrong" is not an argument. ethnonationalism is popular justice, that's all.
| >>581505 you're assuming that i'm not white, which isn't the case.
and the irish weren't the only ones who built america, we can't forget that black slaves also helped built it, along with many many other people.
| >>581514
point out to me where i assumed anything about your race, i just can't see it because well, i didn't do that.
black slaves were overwhelmingly in the south on plantations. they helped farm cotton mostly, goods which the colons could have gotten from Britain. there was no real need for black slaves on these plantation but for the southern financial benefit and the justification to push westwards to establish even more plantation (for more money).
| >>581507 i don't actually think that white people should leave america, i was just saying that to show you how idiotic your ideas are.
and the problem with colonization isn't to do with race, it's to do with the actions that come with it.
how are they physically and mentally different? and culture doesn't make someone an outsider.
what about the people voting against you?
| Ok gurls I'll just give my opinion and leave because both sides of this discussion are kinda dumb.
Diversity just for the sake pf diversity is dangerous and damaging, especially to the people you think you're helping by pushing diversity, they get associated with shitty badly planned products and people start to think these people who are now included.
BUUUUUUUT being against any and all diversity is just skipping steps and jumping to the consequence of forced diversity.
| >>581516
it wasn't a structural thing - the south was mostly agricultural and plantations.
the north could mostly survive on its own and that is where the real structural construction occurred - and not from blacks, but very well from emigrated Europeans, specifically the Irish fleeing the potato famine.
| >>581518 quick fix
> people start to think these people who are now included.
Becomes
> people start to think these people who are now included are at fault.
| >>581518
i kinda agree especially with the 'forcing diversity is harmful' thing. it's just a useless and damaging idea.
good nite gurl
| >>581520
well it's a sad thing even to me that the mentality becomes "oh you're in this because you're black. they wouldn't have cast you otherwise, you're just there to be a show-off nigger, not because you're good or look good or anything". that's why i think it's harmful.
concerning displaying natural diversity, European advertisers would be forced to show mostly white people (90%) in their adverts........
| >>581516 what about the slaves who built the white house? which is one of the most famous symbol of american culture.
| >>581522
so my argument is that i'm just being logical and strive for the natural evolution of a people in their own land. i think africans for example have a land all to their own and they just don't belong in Europe because they have their own land with their own culture and art and history and all that.
so why don't they just stay there?
they have a home all to their own! and they want to crash on OUR couch?
| >>581524 that logic only works if ethnonationalism already had been instated, but that's not the case.
what about refugees who come from places they cannot go back to without dying?
it's less crashing on someone's couch and more having a roommate or a friend.
| >>581526 i'm using them as an example to show that it wasn't just the irish that built america, silly numptie.
| >>581533
well turns out that roommate/friend is mysteriously driving murder/rape statistics up.
ethnonationalism is real because there are black and white countries. you really sound like the poster in dangeru.us/u/thread/581315 now
if they can't go back without dying, host them, fix the situation in their home countries, and send them back educated in order to fix the shit the land's in
also the syrians could have all gone to jordania; WHY Europe? thousands of miles away
| >>581537
also most immigrants now aren't fleeing war anymore. many are here for economical reasons.
the true syrians, the best that are really patriotic stayed home and decided to do whatever it takes to get their country off the ground again. now that the situation is somewhat stabilized, it's appropriate to send them back.
>>581535
but it mostly was, silly nuptie.
| How do y'all plan to your ethnonationalist utopia to happen?
you simply can't get all those people to willingly leav those countries. and are the countries you're sending them to really going to accept them all?
if you can't find a way to move them without forcing the countries you're sending them to accept them.
there's only one option left...
putting all of them in one big camp of concentrated people...
and murdering all of them in cold blood...
milions of people dead...
| >>581560
a way to move them is simple, just create opportunities in their own lands and integrate them there. you seem to think that i'm some kind of a demon and you're projecting really hard. if they don't want to move then they shouldn't expect any form of social aid whatsoever. we don't need to support people that intend to be parasites.
generally those that don't want to go back are either rootless or cowards.
and do keep your projecting, or else i'll call you a loxist jew.
| OP here. Wasn't looking for a few days and, oh boy, a holy war. Don't be mean to gays, it's not their fault they are being inserted into everything these days. Well, maybe those of them who do parades. I hate gay parades. Why don't we have no fucking heterosexual parades? Bunch of show-offs.
| Why would I care about what you like to bang ?
I don't have to know.
Trans or not, I don't care. If surgery can make you happy, so be it.
Those are private, intimate concerns, that are to be discussed within the conjugal circle.
This is not information that's required for me to have a good conversation, a few drinks, play basketball with, or whatever else with you.
| I think people often conflate 2 different things without differentiating what the actual problem is. Anyone (gay, straight, whatever esle) that goes around talking about their sex life in explicit terms in public is just creepy. Just like how it's completely normal to occasionally want to punch someone you don't like, but if all you talk about is hitting people and how you want to see more violence in media people just aren't gonna want to be around you.
| In other words, you shouldn't conflate all lgbt with the few crazy people the media put in the limelight. Most lgbt know that being gay is just part of who they are, just like a straight person, there's nothing to be prideful of or uppity about. A few stupid people who don't understand being sexual in any way in public makes people uncomfortable get constantly featured by mainstream media and give people the wrong idea about how normal lgbt people act.
| Don't get the wrong idea about the whole of a group just because a vocal handful decide they want to be ridiculous, or decide they want to be the universal thought police and scream about how triggering things are. In the same way that you wouldn't want someone thinking that all conservatives are racist just because the small group of alt right gets all the media attention. Basically the media needs to be disregarded entirely in deciding how you feel about a group.
| A bunch of people getting mad over socially unacceptable content and trying (or not) to not have socially unacceptable opinions about it.
Just don't be rude. If you don't like sex n shit, just say so. If it's specifically gays, it's because the taboo on their behaviour makes it impossible not to stand out in some circumstances, so they try to stand out or don't at all, polarizing your interactions. If you want to be mad, be mad at your poor excuses for social regulatory systems.
| Personally, I don't give a shit about societal norms at large beyond a general concern for the common citizen. The only winning move is not to play. Get invested in putting down your fellow citizen for the benefit of another, even yourself, and you play into the hands of suppression, for all sorts of people.
| Not that choosing no side is a popular one if you wear it like a label, cause that'd destroy the whole point of going undetected.
| Long story short, don't get caught up. Both are a needless waste of time and energy. We're all dying, no time to fight each other unless you really don't have any priorities. I know you want to have a right to not be exposed to the LGBT, or the offensive slander, depending on your position, but wake up. You're in the real world, playing with your real life. These arguments be had without one of the sides caring enough. There's plenty of death, get mad at that instead.
| Amen
| Can't we just get rid of humans altogether?
Seems like the easiest way to achieve world peace
| >>581656 if we're all gonna die anyway then why get mad about death? And why not fight about arbitrary things? Nothing will change the end result for is all so why not do what we enjoy. For me that happens to be debate.
| If you fight for arbitrary things, you'll get arbitrary results. If you aim to impact the world or take it seriously, I'm letting you know you won't find such things in this mode of discourse. Analysis or influencing the masses are two viable options, however, though I'd discourage the latter. >>581680
| I hope you find something in your enjoyment that has meaning to you. Not that you'd be here to hear poetic dribble from me. Good luck with whatever your goals are.
>>581680
| LGBT are literally faggots
| I guess what it comes down to, is the biochemical processes sustained in a faggot as compared to the processes in an individual who's not a fag.
>>581856 what do you think they are, and what performance curve would a faggot have compared to non-faggots? If there is a negligible difference in the curve, averaging the results and removing outliers, is there a reason to express a particular reaction that diverges from that of other people on the respective place of the curve, hm?
| Assholes are the low scoring performers who resort to alternative methods due to faults in gain/loss analysis. And outcasts, cults or rebels are those who choose to follow a usually rigid set of socially questionable to outrageous policies.
| The words one uses to describe prominent groups of people are often just specific versions of more general terms, the former of which are then given unnecessary attention.
| There's these flavors created, much like picking a team in a game or sport, but when used in a tribal sense, the meanings degenerate into a series of threat displays which are then interpreted as the basis of the target's character.
| I have an other explanation why so many LGBT representatives are present in media, than the usual anti- liberal/jewish/socialist conspiracy theories from conservatives and whacky fascists.
It's due to city escapism, which occurs because people on the countryside and the working class still are good targets for homo- and transphobe propaganda in order of a "divide and conquer" strategy by the rich.
| >>581869
It's all because lots of people still have to work in the countryside and in factories and could become a threat to the rich if they would organize themselves. Giving them enemy images such as LGBT people or foreigners makes it easier to prevent this kind of organization.
Meanwhile the cities, which are the center of culture and media, have become islands of diversity, multiculturalism, tolerance etc.
It's not really a conspiracy, but rather a logical development.
| >>581870
Of course I do. If the rich defend their privileges they often argue with the hard work they do and the huge amount of responsibility they have. But they are very picky about when they are responsible. Because If things are bad or go wrong, then I only hear that the poor have to work harder and are responsible for themselves. No word about the responsibility of the rich. Don't you find that enormous hypocritical?
| >>581870
Or in simple words:
Being rich is equal to having power.
Having power makes you responsible.
The circumstances we live in are mostly affected by those who have the responsibility, who have the power. And who are those people?
| >>581870
Also don't forget that diversity and individualism is a natural enemy to making profit. At some point people need to be standardized, homogenized for the sake of economical efficiency. Even if the propaganda tells a different story, thinking about it logically increasing profit (economical/technological efficiency) contradicts peoples individual needs. Theoretically there is a state and laws that treat people equally. In practice they have no power on their own.
| Oh no I got the flu!
It must the rich people trying to make me sick!
Damn those rich people who are at fault for everything in the universe!
| >>581877
You think you're funny. But even in your your supposedly ridiculous example it's rich peoples lobby work that prevents public healthcare.
>Damn those rich people who are at fault for everything in the universe!
Nobody said that. But if we're talking about responsibility, we're talking about power. And if we talking about power, we talk about economical power. And who has the most economical power? The poor or the rich? Answer!
| And I don't know what your issue is: Political discussions are all dominated by identity politics from the left to the right. It's LGBT vs. traditional conservative family, feminists vs. chauvinists and generally much about conflicts between nations, cultures, religions, some immaterial (mostly hypocritical) "values".
Why don't you like to discuss about things that really matter, like poor vs. rich, economical interests, conflicts between social/economical classes, etc.?
| >>581893 bruh....
I have free healthcare where I live so your argument doesn't make sense to me.
If all you care about is power then go ahead and seize it for all I care, power never made anyone happy, if it did those "evil rich people" would have gotten satisfied at some point.
| >>581895
>If all you care about is power then go ahead and seize it for all I care, power never made anyone happy, if it did those "evil rich people" would have gotten satisfied at some point.
You misunderstand. I don't care about having power myself or a supposedely better "elite" or "leader" than the current ones. What I care about is power distribution. Because power corrupts and total power corrupts total. And richness goes with no doubt hand in hand with power.
| >>581896 suuuuuuuuuuuure..................
Can we bring back the "cishets are evil" troll? that one at least stayed on topic.....
| >>581895
>I have free healthcare where I live so your argument doesn't make sense to me.
What you have is nor argument for anything, as long we don't know who you are, which class you belong to. If where you live people from the lower classes still have free healthcare, it's just a question of time until liberalization and privatization will make it exclusive to upper classes.
| >>581898
Yes, cry for your trolls and superficial identity politics distractors to get the focus away from the core issues and continue scholastic nonsense discussions like everywhere else. You need this stuff, because you have no good arguments against mine and no answers to the core problems at all.
| >>581902 ok ok ok ok....
I am shallow and dumb you are smart and deep and we must kill all rich people to save the world
Happy now?
| >>581903 no no no no....
>I am shallow and dumb
Currently probably yes. But it's not like it has to be this way forever.
>you are smart and deep
Well, in the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is the king.
>we must kill all rich people to save the world
Who said that? Why is killing people the only solution you see to problems?
>Happy now?
Yes, but not because of you or this discussion.
| Separating LGBT rights from solving social-economical core issues equals giving up those rights on the long term. This is what currently happens in many countries all over the world: The liberal society was too tight connected to liberal economy. And now as liberal economy is increasingly going into crisis mode (due to globalization, technological development and unsolved/untouched class contradictions) it pulls the liberal society right into the abyss.
| >>581874 I bet the Russians are in on it to! And the illuminati! And the lizard people! They're all part of the divide and concur strategy. It's not a conspiracy, just a logical development.
| >>581807 logical discourse has a profound impact on the implementation of future government structures and policies, such as the impact of Greek and enlightenment thought on the philosophy of US forefathers. aside from that, why would I want to change the world if it's just gonna get toasted along with the rest of us eventually.
| >>581930
Russians, the illuminati and the lizard people are no relevant or even completely made up categories. Other than the rich. The rich exist and have their own interests. It's no conspiracy theory, it's reality. Economical classes are real. Conflicts between them are real. Interest conflicts between nations, and other conspiracy theories are just distractions from reality to keep the status quo.
| >>581960
>logical discourse has a profound impact on the implementation of future government structures and policies, such as the impact of Greek and enlightenment thought on the philosophy of US forefathers.
Historical materialism says something different. Logical discourse is the result of technological/economical development and not the other way around. It's not philosophy and thoughts that changed society but economical reality.
| >>581960
>aside from that, why would I want to change the world if it's just gonna get toasted along with the rest of us eventually.
If you want to gamble with your live, it's your thing. But don't gamble with other peoples lives. I want a different world, because I give a damn about your prophecies that are at most self fulfilling crap than an unavoidable destiny. I believe a different, better world is possible. At least this is the most satisfying motivation I have to live on.
| >>1623dd
Money is meant to be an abstraction to simplify quantifying value among trades and services.
Equal redistribution of it defeats its purpose, the value becomes purely artificial instead of based on demand and amount.
This idea of redistribution will make money a nonsense, why not ditch it altogether if your ideal world will make it pointless anyway.
| >>581974
>Equal redistribution
And for the 1.000.000.000th time:
It's not about EQUAL redistribution but about FAIR and REASONABLE redistribution. In the current system we have obviously a situation where this is NOT possible - in the opposite: The redistribution is getting worse with every second that passes. Being against increasing inequality is not equal to being against inequality per se. Is that so hard to understand?
| Because even though equal distribution is stupid, it's doable.
But fair distribution is a matter of point of view and I don't see any objective way of determining what is fair and what is not.
| >>581973 I'm not gambling with lives. There's a 100% chance that everyone dies in the end. Not to mention "better" is subjective. Why should I waste my time cowtailing to someone else's view of a better world when I can strive for my own?
| >>581979
I would say this should be decided democratically based on a permanent public, transparent and pursuable discourse.
The current situation is reasoned with an obscure ideology about an untouchable "free market" which is all about an almighty invisible hand spawning from the egoistic choices of competing individuals. This idea has been disproved as well empirically in reality but also logically in theory, multiple times.
| Discourse is how you potentially convince others that your view of a better world is the correct one and that it's worth working for.its also how you get people to decide on how to achieve said better world. It's absolutely required unless you're already with the majority (which you arent considering the majority is capitalist)
| >>581983 and how is this any different from the "invisible hand"?
People will vote for what they want and balance will be broken again before long
| >>581980
>But fair distribution is a matter of point of view and I don't see any objective way of determining what is fair and what is not.
Oh no, I won't fell for this relativism trap. Just because something can't be decided objectively, it doesn't mean people still decide it in the end. The rich decide that things are they good as they are. But why should their point of view be more objective than mine, huh?
| >>581987
*Typo:
>Just because something can't be decided objectively, it doesn't mean people still DON'T decide it in the end.
| >>581984
>unless you're already with the majority (which you arent considering the majority is capitalist)
So you believe the majority of world population are capitalists? I suspect you have no idea what a capitalist actually is.
| >>581985
This invisible hand is supposed to spawn out of individual egoistic decisions. Concepts like "public welfare" or "solidarity" aren't welcome here. It's entirely based on a wrong social darwinist idea of a supposed human nature, which was disproved many times in practice by social and psychological experiments and also theoretically for example in gambling theory. It was shown that collaboration is necessary to reach higher goals and solve complex problems.
| >>581985
>People will vote for what they want and balance will be broken again before long
How does it come that people are allowed to vote for anything but disowning the rich? Historically it was even more likely that people were allowed to vote for nationalist, racist and fascist regimes than for socialist ones. If they did, they were fought and bombed away which turned their choice either into a paranoid dictatorship or replaced it by one they did not choose at all.
| "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves."
Henry Kissinger on the democratical election of the socialist Allende.
This attitude was somehow missing when germans voted for hitler back then. Strange huh?
| 卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐
| >>581999
☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭
| >>582000 to the gulag with you "comrade"
卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐
| >>582001 to the concentration camp with you "ubermensch"
☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭
| Look, how the pro-capitalist blockheads keep silent as soon their unloved nazi dogs attack their communist challenger. Typical capitalists: You always need others to do the dirty jobs for you.
| This thread is over, and the two of you are banned for the week.
This thread is permanently archived
| Isn't there too many LGBT in modern media? It's nice how we live in a tolerant world and lg seem like cool people, but it feels like they are sometimes replacing straight couples in media, just cause propoganda of how that's normal. Am I overthinking it?
PS: Jill is cool, not so sure bout Tracer though.
PPS: Doing the thread more out of desire to have more meaningful discussions in /u/, than any sort of gay grudge.