I leave it to the reader to decide who they think is likely more emotionally invested in controlling the behavior of others; the topless secularists, or the religious fundamentalists.

1) Hoznofsters call themselves Flimshotters, even though Hoznofsters have a history of criticizing large swaths of other Flimshotters, telling Flimshotters they're not REAL Flimshotters, using derisive terms for other Flimshotters -like "Funflims"- who don't agree to all the Hoznofster definitions of what constitutes "real" Flimshottery, etc.

2) However... when experiencing general, widespread rebuke or -ever worse- open mockery and notbeingtakenseriouslyenough,dammit-ry... Hoznofsters will, however, immediately claim that "Flimshotters are under attack!" and even better, since Flimshotters -the larger group- are known primarily as arguing for equal rights for Wagglehorns, this allows the Hoznofster to move the argument onto a favorable playing field, because really everyone who is at all reasonable believes Wagglehorns ought to have equal rights.

3) Next move is to point out that a widely despised, if ill-defined, group- let's call them Mrazplotzes--- are known for criticizing Flimshotters.

You know what that means, right? If Mrazplotzes criticize Flimshotters and we've established by assertion that Hoznofster=Flimshotter... then everyone who criticizes a Hoznofster MUST BE a dread Mrazplotz!


It's logic!

Still, I don' give it up ever' time just fer e fine piece of Halibut and an expensive Pinot... it really depen's on me mood.

Yes, I said it. he's fat. Overweight. Rotund. Gravitationally endowed. Interacting excessively with the higgs boson field.

Fat.

That's the whole point. It's not about "sending" information, it's that locality itself is called into question; the notion that any two points, separated by space OR time, are really 'separate' at all.


remdi95

Why, it's Sociomologicalifically objectifraculous!

Positively Male Gaze-imacularly Frimlitastically Objectifricactruous!

Downright Heteronormativantively Oppressionofrostiply Pornofologically Harmfopulous!



See, and now I "made up some words" for ya, to be followed by a silly picture. Back to middle school I go!

It'd be nice if on this one matter, we could just agree. Like on something like this:

"Consent is a bright line that shouldn't be fucked with. No means no. Yes means yes. Coercion invalidates consent, by definition. Women have the agency to consent just as they have the agency to not consent. Clear communication being the bedrock of adult relations, consent becomes meaningless if people try to interpret yes from a "no". Giving consent once does not imply eternal consent, and consent can be revoked at any time. However, broad sociological narratives don't invalidate the fact that consensual adult sex is a reality and consenting adults MUST HAVE the freedom to make their own damn decisions about their lives and bodies."

Is that really such an egregious sentiment to get behind?

And, ladies, you know what that means.

That young remdi95 on that show is so nice.