Reminder: Having sex with children is a stated end goal, and critical childhood theory is the means.

submitted by iamonlyoneman from threadreaderapp.com

all 11 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]DirewolfGhost 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Watching Snowpiercer, one of the final scenes makes a big deal about the final match being associated with mechanical child servitude. Unimpeded access to any and all children is the final hurdle to their satanic vision.

[–]Site_rly_sux 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Let's look at this one diagram from appendix F of Dipshits "theory of teabagging"

See? It proves me right about everything.

That's how we argue points on twitter nowadays - apparently it convinced OP

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (8 children)

no comrade, this is all foolishness. have some more legal marijuana and watch sportball on the televisor, your children are safe in school... the government says so!

[–]Site_rly_sux 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

None of those are in the link you submitted. All I saw in the link was "look at this diagram i found on page 1375 of 'theory of ballsacks'"

It's kind of a strawman argument to pretend that your link was about...the government giving weed to kids of whatever the fuck

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

Yes of course comrade, be at ease! The state is virtuous and the agents of the state would never lead your children astray. Have more high-fructose corn syrup and take a hit of your legal marijuana cigarette, and do not think about unpleasant ideas like this1

[–]Site_rly_sux 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Again, that's a fake strawman argument you're assembling which isn't supported by the link

Seeing as you're 100% making this up, why on earth did you stop at HFCS and legal weed? It just reveals the pathetic limits of your weirdo imagination

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

If you just lead with "I'm neurodivergent and bad at understanding analogies and/or satire" sometimes it would be easier to converse

[–]Site_rly_sux 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

That wasn't satire, though. And it wasn't an analogy. You were just... drawing an imaginary line between figure 76 of some technical handbook, and the weird corners of your imagination. Doesn't sound great

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

or go with unintentionally obtuse as a personality trait, that's cool too i guess

[–]Site_rly_sux 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Well the philosophy you're using appendix F to talk about is exclusionary for other humans who exist. So you rightly ought to be challenged to see if you're talking from your chest or not. You weren't, in this case. Actually you only wanted to talk about legal weed or some nonsense. So we just did a vibe check and you revealed yourself as a backbone-less exclusionary dickhead, and if a bit of obtuseness is my cost for that then I'm fine with it

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I'm autistic and don't want to admit when your points go over my head

got it, thanks for confirming