That’s…sad in a different way.

Pretty sure they were used in self-defense in a more dangerous era. Might be an urban legend though, I never verified.

Those donuts have divots.

Where is the jam secreted?

Yeah, more confirmation that being a shithead isn’t cultural. It’s an individuals problem that is unfortunately ubiquitous.

I thought he was always on Fox. Which is merely a very stupid, malicious child pretending to be a news channel.

How hard it is to meet with Muslium or Arab or Palestinian, snd say something to make them trust her?

I don’ t get this. Why promise something you are sure you can’t commit to? Why desire for a politician to lie to you?? Politicians are already dragged for false promises on things they’ve actually tried (but failed) to accomplish. But you want them to whisper sweet nothings in your ear about an incredibly politically-complex issue…for what? I don’t want her to say it unless she means to do it.

I don’t get what this statement is getting at in relation to the above post?

Title feels like clickbait. Would be more convinced it was deliberate clickbait if the thumbnail didn’t directly show the sign saying “negro” and not the actual slur.

But that just makes the choice of title more confusing.

Perhaps you could say that if you arbitrarily remove any nuance or qualifications at all from the statement.

A reasonable person would see a message advising women to hide who they vote for from their signficant others and question why they (Harris’s advisors) thought the message would land. And what that says about the people those women are married to.

They’ll unleash such violent violence that women’s voice won’t ever again.

Did any famous people dodge the draft (and also underachieve their whole life) and succeed? I need a more achievable role model.

It does?

Made significantly more difficult because the American president is the one doing the asking.

No need for (a). That’s barely a cover and certainly not part of his racist mathematics.

I’ll give him a select list of hearts I want him to dance-fight his way through.

Subtitle A: “The dancing just went from ‘dirty’ to ‘deadly’.”

Subtitle B: “Watch out, he’s changed his shoes.”

Talibangelical cats. Like Rumtumtugger, Mr. Mistoffelees, and the Nefarious Netanyahu.

I imagine the difference is a between “why” and “why not”.

A generally educated couple might encounter the question of “Is there I reason why I should have kids?”, decide “yes, because I’d like to”, and have 1-3 kids. More poorly educated couples encounter the question “is there a reason why I should not have kids?”, decide “no”, and have 2-3 more.

If you’re a cheater, it all makes sense.

Sorry, I didn’t sanitize my output, assuming this would forestalled by the redirect to my other comment explaining I see how I was applying my implicit biases and connotations to what “argument” means.

I didn’t call out the addition of competitions then because I didn’t think this would sprawl as long as it did. I will do so now:

I never said a word about competitions and that, in my mind, has no inherent bearing on the healthiness of a relationship as there can be different types of competition. So we can immediately excise that from further discussion.

Addressing the sole part that is relevant now: I now agree arguments aren’t necessarily angry, by everyone’s definition. But that was the tone and definition with which I made the original comments up until that first reply to chicken.

You can see that segment as a revision of my first reply to you. Have a good whatever.

Yeah, I can admit my definition of argument might not widely applicable. Not to say my understanding of the word is the sole definition but people often use words wrong, so I shouldn’t die on the hill that my interpretation is the correct one.

But, to your second point, I read the OOP as the supposed “gf” (I still assume the OOP is fake) being the main instigator for the argument while the writer is more passive. The gf is able to leave but is also the one who rejoins the argument later, after having ChatGPT corrall her talking points.

But that’s getting more into the weeds of analysis than I csre to go.