“both sides said things” what a great summary.
that’s like saying it’s hypocritical to protest denying entry to someone who has a satirical blog and one who has a manifesto and detailed plans to bomb the denying country because “both posted stuff online”
they are such good and righteous jews, writing whore and drawing a penis right next to the star of david.
they don’t call it terf island for nothing
they didn’t say new kind, they said new atheist. which is a special kind of atheist who makes atheism their entire personality as a reaction to their previous upbringing and tap about religion more than born again evangelicals.
because it’s not the problem here. acting like this has anything to do with either religion is ignoring history and colonialism apologia. whether your statement is agreeable in a vacuum is irrelevant. this is like if someone said “acab” after the George Floyd case and you going “also fuck counterfeit bills”.
but of course no one has passed the internet atheist shut the fuck up about your hangups for a goddamn second challenge so i don’t really blame you in particular.
it’s just a perfect picture. but this regularly happens in games. gAmErS are the worst bunch in boycotts because most of them don’t even have the discipline to wait for a fucking game to release let alone not play it at all. they just either “boycott” games they were never interested in at all in the first place or they just say it online for fake internet points and play the game anyway.
if it happens yes, the problem with boycotting is most people online who say they will boycott something usually don’t, or they weren’t using it in the first place.
this is especially true for games
I don’t think they’re pretending at all tbh they killed someone from every western country already
for those who are confused, he means as opposed to what they’re doing now, which is ask Palestinians if it’s ok to genocide them and i assume they say “have at it, hoss”.
and you thought nothing good ever happens
yeah which is why it’s important to remember these things in history
it would also interfere with their immediate goal of openly being cartoonishly evil.
is this like for food delivery?
“I’ll never understand this”
“Why would you think you could understand this?”
maybe you should work on understanding basic english
not a war
i agree that the generalization here was dumb but “rich people” is not at all the same category as “jews” or “black people”. so no you don’t need to continue to make the point because you’re not doing it well.
you yourself make a distinction in your final paragraph. imagine saying “jews are very problematic and shouldn’t be allowed to exist”.
I get that you may not like the guy but that’s straight up slander. there’s no evidence he had anyone killed with chainsaws. it was a bonesaw.
damn they were so close
just flat out lie out of nowhere lol. lay off the podcasts for a while