That’s not a tankie, that’s just a communist. Tankies are people who are specifically pro-authoritarian, as in people who think Russia is right to invade and take over Ukraine right now and won’t acknowledge anything Russia are doing that they criticize the US for.

He’s a lot of things but he’s not a tankie.

When you respond to a calm and reasonable opinion by instantly jumping to accusations of “glazing” and ironically write LMAO, then you sound like you’re more in line with Laura Loomer, who sounds just like this above.

It really shows everyone what kind of person responds so strongly to the guy.

You’re working off some random definition he found on some bullshit name site to argue why he should not just ignore the family that made the name famous, but take it away from them. Let’s not pretend like you’re not using “AIPAC Shakur” as a loose Tupac reference.

And now you’re likening being against this to somehow also thinking referring to codifying fictional character must mean it’s an insult to all people named Tom? You know that’s not an equivalent situation.

It’s possible to be personally offended by someone being so fucking obtuse and neckbeardy about justifying a shitty thing they said. Your amorality is not a good enough defense, and it’s downright stupid to not consider how trying to rip away a famous name from a famous family just so you can use a racially coded insult is perfectly okay.

It would have been infinitely more respectable if you demonstrated the capacity to take a step back and see what the mistake was rather than doubling down off the back of some stupid baby name meaning site as if it’s a legitimate source.

This is a 4chan argument, derived from the “White male/Asian woman is the optimal racial pairing because they earn the kept money” line of thinking.

Learn what collective means.

Clean your camera lens

I’m talking about something’s purpose being what it does. If it doesn’t do that thing, then that can’t be its purpose.

So how many people is the movie influencing about eugenics and come out of it with such strong opinions?

The 101 level of things is so basic that it can be used accidentally, as Mike Judge has explicitly confirmed was the case.

You’ll notice that the movie does not have any themes or morals any eugenics outside of using a basic and limited concept of it as the premise for the world.

How many people has Idiocracy convinced that eugenics is the way forward?

This is the same society in which millions of people voted Republican because they thought Trump was an honest and genius businessman, and was going to end all wars and make everyone rich.

You can’t imagine how hundreds of people there wouldn’t catch or care about a flawed minor presence of a niche concern in a low budget comedy movie?

It’s not even “deeply” eugenic. The movie isn’t about those themes at all. It’s a minor part of the setup to the world and doesn’t matter otherwise. Like the person above said, is 101 level stuff. The kind of stuff that gets referenced or used accidentally. This isn’t something like Birth of a Nation or Atlas Shrugged in terms of purposefully rationalizing a specific worldview.

I need a translation for that last post especially, I have no idea what he’s saying in that shorthand.

You can usually tell immediately with one small taste. So 10mL maybe?

I am surprised that anyone would consider the Oblivion Dark Brotherhood faction and plot to be poorly written. It was easily the best story of the base game.

All this because he said some MAGA American was embarrassing?

Wait why is this company that’s apparently all about building new XMTP based communication apps using Slack internally?

Very loosely. It’s more like it rhymes with the actual lyrics than represents them. Or maybe you’d think someone is singing the song if you heard it through a wall.

Dunno how else “three” would become “be”.

Those digits said out loud, and with the right phrasing, loosely sounds like the lyrics from the Dawson’s Creek theme.

“I don’t want to wait for our lives to be over”

And your comment suggests you always knew you were going to say something contrarian and confusing and that you were never going to explain. And instead insist that you said something that wasn’t what you knew you would actually be communicating to everyone who takes issue to what you do say.

You advertised your own character with your piss-poor responses to all opportunities to clarify, and a complete avoidance of it. Now you have to sit in it. Complaining about how you chose to portray yourself is a problem of your own making.

Everything. I read your statement twice and it reads the way Velma assumed because you didn’t say what you meant and just beat around the bush. You may think you said one thing, but you communicated another.

And you are still refusing to say what you actually mean. If you can’t distill your point into one simple sentence, then you don’t have anything worth saying.