Hatfort

Exactly not. Partner is not homosexual nor heterosexual, it's a neutral word valid in any case. Someone who doesn't know what kind of relationship you have can perfectly ask you if you have a partner, there's nothing beyond that. You are a snowflake if you are troubled when someone who doesn't know you asks if you have a partner. How about answering: Yeah, I'm married, I have a wife. Or: No, I'm single, I'm looking for a girlfriend. Or whatever. You are such a snowflake. I worry about whoever I want.

This is a big mess, and has a lot of implications. If Europe sets military forces, then it would be a bloodfest between allies, although the US is superior, it would mean the end of NATO. Trump and the deep state really want it, but we'll see. I think they will do it. Then also, better doing anything crazy before the midterms, that applies to other parts of the world as well, as we are seeing. How about later? Let's say Trump gets Greenland. Is he going to just let a Democrat come in 2028 to give it back? This is bad.

You don't need to live in a way you don't want, you decide how that is, just do it. The word partner isn't exclusive to business, it can be many other things like in games, in work, and, in the case of relationships, it's referred to as a partner in life. This use probably became more popular for homosexual relationships when they started to be more visible in society, it was perhaps a more comfortable term not only for them, but their families and social circles, maybe on the older side, in times of transition from being taboo to accepted, and out of legality too. In any case, it was something organic, not some kind of imposition. It also happens to be quite a neutral word, so valid for heterosexual relationships too, more so when someone who doesn't know the other person can use it to ask their relationship status. Emphasis in can, you don't have to use it, you just can. So quit crying, being such a snowflake, and word policing. Live your life as you want, and let others do so as well. I know you won't, you are beyond reason, and even ridiculous, but still there it is.

Absolutely. How are you going to live after this? I can't even imagine what you are going through. They asked you if you had a partner, for god's sake! That's too much, man.

No. We have our differences, but I'm gonna put them aside because of the gravity of the situation. Partner... How dare they?! I totally understand that your way of life turned upside down after that. My best, man.

Oh man, someone asked you if you had a partner, and you thought it was a business partner? My goodness, what a traumatic experience. Are you okay? Could you sleep that night? Please, call the police or something, or go to the Piers Morgan show to tell the world about it. You know, there is the movie The voice of Hind Rajab about the little girl who was murdered in Gaza. Your traumatic experience is in pair with that, a movie should be made.

Sure, a few comments ago it was about how annoying it is to see them shove the them pronoun down our throats, which is practically never. Also about how many gay or trans people, very few compared to straight and cis, and in secondary roles mostly, trans characters being extremely rare in mainstream fiction media. There's no overrepresentation by any means, which is fine, but don't pretend it's the opposite. If anything, there has been an explicit and practical censorship historically, writers have more freedom to include these themes without them being excluded now. And with women portrayed unrealistically as badasses, it can be honoring them or making politics for you, but with men, you don't put them in that scrutiny position. You have a clear double standard.

What's not true? There are unrealistic portrayals of men, like John Wick, where the guy defeats hundreds of well-trained armed men on his own without ever getting fatally shot, and nobody cares that this is unrealistic. But when the story is about a woman, suddenly the realism is important for you guys. I'm not writing for the whole world, I'm writing in this context where the word cisgender is understood. Not to trigger you either, I use this word because it's useful in this specific discussion, instead of saying not trans, I can say cis.

Yeah, it's true that now more females get the unrealistic portrait that was exclusive for men before. So what? It's unrealistic in both cases. You only have a problem when females are portrayed like that, but as said, these fictional stories are not targeted exclusively at you, so get over it. Don't lie, anyone who's online enough these days in the US politics field knows what cisgender means.

You brought it up, but the comment I was responding was saying that 40% of the media was trans, so I responded to her about it. Here is the context. This been clarified, here the problems I see with what you say. About your problem of seeing women defeating men, which is not LGTBQ, by the way. Fiction is often not realistic, so we can see movies like 300, where 300 men defeat an army of thousands, or the John Wick movie series, where one man beats an incredible amount of well-trained men without ever a bullet getting him. They are not realistic, we all know it, and we don't care. Your only problem is when women do these incredible feats, but that's a you problem, the writers of these stories are not targeting them exclusively for you as a viewer. The audience is varied, just get over it. Then the supposed 40% of Netflix being LGTBQ is not really like that either. Like the example I gave before, if only 5% of Squid Game series is about a trans person, who is not the main character, and the other 95% are cisgender, but you still place the whole thing in the LGTBQ 40% bucket, this number is a manipulation of the real representation that's happening. Let's make a comparison, the 40% of the plates I eat contain carrots, but the total quantity of carrots in them is 5%, I won't say or imply that 40% I eat are carrots, that would be misleading. So when you measure fairly, there's no such overrepresentation, that's where I'm getting into. Man, be honest, I don't recall even one example of characters using the them pronouns, it's not really something you see often. It's more of a complaint among mostly right-wing conservative commentators when you hear about it.

40% of the media is not about trans, not even close. In a quick memory check, I can only recall one recent popular series with one trans character, which was Squid Game season 2. That was only one trans character out of dozens of cis ones, so to categorize this series as trans themed would be ridiculous too. The screen time that mostly right-wing conservatives spend whining about trans people could be 40%, indeed. That percentage I could believe.

She goes reverse to maneuver out of there. If she wanted to run over the agent, she would have accelerated towards him. He's at a pretty decent distance to shoot at her with his arm fully extended, he was never at risk. It's a middle-aged woman with her hands on the wheel, the shots are intended to kill her, and they do. This is police brutality and state authoritarianism at its finest. The ICE is a fascist abomination.

The American dream.

When Trump gets Greenland, but really, I'm going to laugh at Europe. Sorry for the Greenlanders though, a bad deal for them.

The US effectively carried out the operation of removing Maduro. Cool, but what's next? The vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, has been appointed president temporarily for the next 90 days, with the possibility of extending it following the Venezuelan law, so she doesn't need to call elections right now. Maduro is gone, but the regime continues. The US has shown that he is capable of power moves in Latin America, it may get some deals out of this through fear, but it has also shown the true face of the empire, and Trump blatantly explained that the real motives are extracting the natural resources, oil, of a sovereign country. They captured Maduro accused of drug trafficking, which nobody believes, and now they have to continue with this farce. Lastly, the Venezuelan opposition got nothing, Trump disregarded María Corina Machado publicly, he is probably jealous she got the Nobel prize instead of him. So we'll see how this continues.

That was crazy, Trump making his peace. They kidnapped Maduro, but they don't have the country in control. The vice president took her job in the absence of the president, and the rest of the government is intact, including the defence minister. Are they going to continue kidnapping officials? Put more boots on the ground to put Machado or any other puppet in charge of a dictatorship? This is not done.

Russia continues advancing toward victory, six more towns in Zaporizhia and Donetsk last days, not to forget about Pokrovsk and Kupiansk last weeks, quite important strongholds for the Ukrainian side, now Russian. The four oblasts are going to be Russia, this is inevitable. If Ukraine had some sense, they would use the parts of these territories it holds as a decent negotiating card, but they don't have it, so Russia will take them by force. Then we'll see how the power balance remains, it may go even further. Security guarantee demands in the mouth of NATO and its vasels equal to a de facto NATO adhesion of what remains of Ukraine, and Russia, as the inevitable victor in this war, is not going to concede on that, no matter how you call it. The Minsk accords showed Russia that the Europeans and the US are not trustworthy, so they are not going to fall for their bullshit again, they are fighting and winning, and they will set the military terms of the outcome to the losers. Without counting Ukraine, Europe is the big loser of this conflict. They have been conned by the US in a way, which was the biggest perpetrator of all this, now Europe depends on the US energy supply at a much higher price. The US blew up the Nord Stream, Biden was asked about it, and his answer gives no room for doubt. European leaders are both stupid and sold out to do anything about it though, and keep falling like in the last military budgets approved in favor of the US industry. Propaganda noise about the Russian collapse is smoke, that is not going to happen. Russia has no problem keeping this ongoing economically, militarily, and socially. Ukraine has more manpower problems, and we'll see how long European cucks want to continue funding the US military industry, and the corrupts in Ukraine. The trend won't change, Russia will win. When? Unknown, maybe months, probably years.

No, he let him live until the sixth round.

Jake Paul's fight was even better. Fighting a professional boxer is not a good idea, who would have guessed that? He got a good reality check and a broken jaw.

Basically, the criminals have custody of the evidence related to their crimes, so they attempt to erase it as much as possible. I don't think people are letting this go, the stink comes directly from Trump.

AZAPAC, the Anti Zionist America Pac, created this year to fight against AIPAC on their same plane. Awesome presentation ad: Interview with its founder: He denounces the billions that fly from the US to Israel, and for what... for horrendous crimes against the Palestinians. AIPAC is bipartisan, and so is AZAPAC, since a third-party option is not viable in the US, they decided to go with this PAC formula. The main objective is to dezionize the US government and stop both the money flow to Israel and to stop their crimes at the same time.

A good interview by Amy Goodman from Democracy Now to Jeremy Scahill mostly about Hamas, whom he has interviewed personally, the last ceasefire negotiations. and the attack that took place in Qatar, that didn't kill the negotiators, but other innocent people. You can't expect much from people who use negotiations to kill negotiators. The ceasefire where both sides are supposed to cease fire against each other's armed forces, which Hamas has complied, but Israel keeps killing civilians. Ceasefire Israel way, you cease, but I don't, and target unarmed civilians and children.

@Twentyfirst He didn't say everyone, in fact, he said he would agree on low-income people paying less, which I agree. Taxes have to be regulated and progressive, meaning everyone shouldn't pay the same amount, but an amount based on their income. There would be a deeper debate about the tricks rich people and corporations use to evade paying taxes by not registering their wealth as income, but I won't get there now. Now, you seem to propose a voluntary tax system in opposition to a regulated one. Maybe you think that the people willing to pay taxes in a regulated system should be equally willing to pay them in a voluntary one, but that's flawed, because different systems produce different responses. Let's give two thoughts to a voluntary tax system. I think we can agree that most people would decide not to pay anything at all, and the ones that would consider it, would look at their slightly richer neighbors not doing it, and would be discouraged too. I don't blame any of these behaviours, but I acknowledge them, and I understand that this system is a utopia at this point in history, and is not going to change anytime soon. Then yes, a regulated system is better. For the people who still want to give money voluntarily, after they're done with their taxes, in their own country and generally in the world, there's not going to be a lack of causes where money is needed any time soon either, so they can feed their altruistic tendencies without any problem, as many do already.

A culturally Jewish man shares his views and experiences. The brainwashing they go through in their childhood to defend Israel and hate Arabs, which he started questioning at some point. He and thousands of Jews out of Israel reject Zionism now, which comes with some social costs of rejection. Calls the government of Israel Neonazis for their ideas and actions that have gone through. He says the Jewish community will have to acknowledge what has happened these last two years and since 1948, even the ones opposing it.