Wokeism of the day Revised Mod Note in OP and threadbanned users

EmmetSpiceland · 14-10-2020 11:59am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

IMHO most Irish have moved on. It's only a few die-hards who want to dredge up that anger. The difference in Irish society regarding the British Empire or the famine, is light years different now, than it was even thirty years ago.

I'd say that most Irish don't really care that much about it anymore, except for token gestures of appreciation.

Would certainly hope so but you do find the subject of both the famine and British “control” of Ireland will still raise the blood of, us, Irish. The famine would, certainly, invoke a sadness which, in turn, could lead to anger.

The black people of colour in the US might feel their plight isn’t exactly over either. A lot of their issues are still fresh in their minds. I mean the last “lynching” over there was in 1981.

I get how the whole slave trade, and slavery, part of their “history” shouldn’t be felt with the same level of emotion but I’d forgive them for feeling something, considering the feelings we might get when reading, or seeing, accounts of the famine.

pappyodaniel · 14-10-2020 12:01pm

bertiebomber wrote: »

rebel wilson is getting it at the moment for losing 80lbs

How dare she make me feel bad by getting healthy!

14-10-2020 12:02pm

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Would certainly hope so but you do find the subject of both the famine and British “control” of Ireland will still raise the blood of, us, Irish. The famine would, certainly, invoke a sadness which, in turn, could lead to anger.

The black people of colour in the US might feel their plight isn’t exactly over either. A lot of their issues are still fresh in their minds. I mean the last “lynching” over there was in 1981.

I get how the whole slave trade, and slavery, part of their “history” shouldn’t be felt with the same level of emotion but I’d forgive them for feeling something, considering the feelings we might get when reading, or seeing, accounts of the famine.

Sure, I get that.. but we don't base our identity on the past anymore. Ireland, for the most part, has moved on. AA people haven't. The focus on slavery/inequality is a core part of their overall culture. It's not healthy. There's comfort in dwelling on the past and being a victim.

14-10-2020 12:04pm

stefanovich wrote: »

This wasn't criticism, this was full on hate. From people with an agenda to normalise unhealthy behaviour.

It was both. Some merited, and most not. As I said, she advocated for people to feel pride in gaining weight, and then, did the opposite. She set herself up for the backlash, since she was fine with using the same people, when it suited her.

Still, Social media is pretty toxic these days. Full of hateful people looking for something to rant about.

BattleCorp · 14-10-2020 12:04pm

Deleted User wrote: »

TBF she, herself, previously advocated for the whole 'big is beautiful' malarkey, gained the attention from advocating it, and then went on to lose weight. basically she turned her back on the very movement she had previously championed.

She set herself up for the criticism.

Get away with that sh1te. How is losing weight turning her back on the very movement that she previously championed? Did she start spouting that fat people are scum or stupid or something of that ilk? Did she aye.

She lost weight, that is all. And that's not grounds for criticism.

FunLover18 · 14-10-2020 12:06pm

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I watched the Samuel L Jackson slavery doc last night on BBC, the first two episodes. I sincerely found it really informative and learnt a lot of things about slavery that I had never learnt before, it was interesting and I will follow it.

However - ( here comes the borderline racist bit )

I felt the general tone of retribution and BLM was overbearing and too much. The most jaw dropping scenes were the group of predominantly African American divers they employed and filmed to investigate a sunken slave ship deep down in the ocean. They found an elephant tusk - stop laughing - and designed a dangerous deep sea dive to retrieve it whereupon the two most over-zealous activists began crying on the boat deck and hugging each other. It was very cringey. I mean there comes a time when contemporary humans should not be getting emotional about the plight of people 300 years ago, I am sorry but you simply were not there, so please phuck off with the faux emotions.

The usual health warnings apply, I am not a racist, but hearing the old fort museum creator in Ghana talking to Sam Jackson about the place and feeding his anger actually pissed me off. It is all well and good respecting and understanding your past. But getting vigilant and overzealous with retributive angst is nonsense. IMO what's done is done and what is won is won and what's lost is lost and gone forever. I cannot disagree with understanding your past, but finger pointing at the present is garbage imo.

In saying all that the documentary is well made and warrants a look, if only to have a giggle at the divers retrieving a 300 year old elephant tusk from the bottom of the ocean and declaring it a euphemistic symbol of the plight of African enslavement..... To be frank if I ever get kidnapped and sold to a foreign country, I would feel quite aggrieved if someone I never met or knew in 300 years time, gets a well know celebrity to pay them to deep sea dive to the bottom of the ocean and retrieve a phucking animal artifact and declare it a symbol of my existence.... and then start crying about it on live television.... please, please don't.

For a lot of black it's not in the past though is it. Slavery is but racism is not. The vast majority of african americans are descended from slaves, imagine knowing your entire existence is thanks you an industry and mindset that saw your ancestors as little more than animals, that they were lucky to even survive the journey which they would have made in chains and then live a life in servitude, and we're not just talking about one or two, we're talking generations. I didn't see the documentary but I'd imagine the elephant tusk represents the rape and pillage of an entire continent and its people. Now imagine someone telling you "what's done is done, let's move on".

Nothing you've said is racist, I'll grant you that but it's deeply insensitive and (I'm going to get lambasted by the PC gone mad brigade for saying it) it's a perfect example of the white privilege. White people don't get to decide when black people should move on, just like the Brits don't get to the decide when Ireland moves on or anyone gets to decide when the Jewish people move on.

IAMAMORON · 14-10-2020 12:08pm

Granadino wrote: »

That coffee is complete piss. Imagine the brainstorming sessions to come up with puke like that. I work in the advertising game and some of it, more so in the big ad places is puke inducing....

I spoke with some marketing chunts recently. They spoke about how many of the super global products are examining smaller marketing and advertising ploys to establish a tactful introduction of sexually discriminatory marketing techniques to increase market share. The likes of Coca Cola, Guinness, Adidas and Nike etc are looking on keenly to see how market perception materialises.

I doubt pink coca cola will catch on, or pink Guinness. But pink tracksuits and runners are around since the 70's.

14-10-2020 12:09pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

Get away with that sh1te. How is losing weight turning her back on the very movement that she previously championed? Did she start spouting that fat people are scum or stupid or something of that ilk? Did she aye.

She lost weight, that is all. And that's not grounds for criticism.

It's kinda common with all of these woke movements. People think to use them for their own purposes, and then are surprised when it turns on them. We're not talking about rational people.

I'm not excusing the behavior against her.

stefanovich · 14-10-2020 12:10pm

FunLover18 wrote: »

For a lot of black it's not in the past though is it. Slavery is but racism is not. The vast majority of african americans are descended from slaves, imagine knowing your entire existence is thanks you an industry and mindset that saw your ancestors as little more than animals, that they were lucky to even survive the journey which they would have made in chains and then live a life in servitude, and we're not just talking about one or two, we're talking generations. I didn't see the documentary but I'd imagine the elephant tusk represents the rape and pillage of an entire continent and its people. Now imagine someone telling you "what's done is done, let's move on".

Nothing you've said is racist, I'll grant you that but it's deeply insensitive and (I'm going to get lambasted by the PC gone mad brigade for saying it) it's a perfect example of the white privilege. White people don't get to decide when black people should move on, just like the Brits don't get to the decide when Ireland moves on or anyone gets to decide when the Jewish people move on.

I do not think it fair to apportion blame to white people of today for slavery of the past.

Black people were also part of the slave trade, both owners and sellers. It was all terribly wrong.

Pixel Eater · 14-10-2020 12:11pm

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

We could take a “lesson”, ourselves, from that as well, I.

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Oh totally Spice, us Paddys' are fond of a bit of anti-Brit outrage also. Although in fairness I give 6 county citizens a pass on that front.

Put it this way, the civil war commemorations should be an eye opener.

Don't get me started on the confederacy of Kilkenny, cultural nationalism or indeed Irish historical bias. The truth is out there, somewhere hidden amongst the lies and propaganda spread by the evil enemy.

Deleted User wrote: »

IMHO most Irish have moved on. It's only a few die-hards who want to dredge up that anger. The difference in Irish society regarding the British Empire or the famine, is light years different now, than it was even thirty years ago.

I'd say that most Irish don't really care that much about it anymore, except for token gestures of appreciation.

The vast, vast majority of Irish have moved on. There's no mass protests. We aren't constantly dragging up the famine at every oppurtunity. There's no ridiculous woke articles in our media about thinks like being intimidated by Georgian architecture.

And this in the context of part of our country still under British jurisdiction and anti-Irish jokes and jibes are still acceptable in the UK. A far cry from the BLM approach.

stefanovich · 14-10-2020 12:17pm

Pixel Eater wrote: »

And this in the context of part of our country still under British jurisdiction and anti-Irish jokes and jibes are still acceptable in the UK. A far cry from the BLM approach.

A part of our country where unionists have been the majority for longer than the USA has existed.

IAMAMORON · 14-10-2020 12:18pm

FunLover18 wrote: »

For a lot of black it's not in the past though is it. Slavery is but racism is not. The vast majority of african americans are descended from slaves, imagine knowing your entire existence is thanks you an industry and mindset that saw your ancestors as little more than animals, that they were lucky to even survive the journey which they would have made in chains and then live a life in servitude, and we're not just talking about one or two, we're talking generations. I didn't see the documentary but I'd imagine the elephant tusk represents the rape and pillage of an entire continent and its people. Now imagine someone telling you "what's done is done, let's move on".

Nothing you've said is racist, I'll grant you that but it's deeply insensitive and (I'm going to get lambasted by the PC gone mad brigade for saying it) it's a perfect example of the white privilege. White people don't get to decide when black people should move on, just like the Brits don't get to the decide when Ireland moves on or anyone gets to decide when the Jewish people move on.

Nah, I completely disagree with you.

I get to decide when I can move on from something, so should you.

My Irish identity recognises its' history but the concept of self determination allows me to get on with my life now. I am allowed be respectful of our Fenian dead whilst not wallowing around Wolfe Tone statues every Easter. I have a life to be living, that is what their sacrifice was all about.

I love British people, they are my neighbours. I never lived in tenement housing on Gardner street, even though my forefathers did. That doesn't give me the right to wallow in their plight. In fact if anything it gives me the right to kick on and enjoy my life even more, it is short enough without wasting your time dwelling on a past which you did not even exist in.

AllForIt · 14-10-2020 12:22pm

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I watched the Samuel L Jackson slavery doc last night on BBC, the first two episodes. I sincerely found it really informative and learnt a lot of things about slavery that I had never learnt before, it was interesting and I will follow it.

However - ( here comes the borderline racist bit )

I felt the general tone of retribution and BLM was overbearing and too much. The most jaw dropping scenes were the group of predominantly African American divers they employed and filmed to investigate a sunken slave ship deep down in the ocean. They found an elephant tusk - stop laughing - and designed a dangerous deep sea dive to retrieve it whereupon the two most over-zealous activists began crying on the boat deck and hugging each other. It was very cringey. I mean there comes a time when contemporary humans should not be getting emotional about the plight of people 300 years ago, I am sorry but you simply were not there, so please phuck off with the faux emotions.

The usual health warnings apply, I am not a racist, but hearing the old fort museum creator in Ghana talking to Sam Jackson about the place and feeding his anger actually pissed me off. It is all well and good respecting and understanding your past. But getting vigilant and overzealous with retributive angst is nonsense. IMO what's done is done and what is won is won and what's lost is lost and gone forever. I cannot disagree with understanding your past, but finger pointing at the present is garbage imo.

In saying all that the documentary is well made and warrants a look, if only to have a giggle at the divers retrieving a 300 year old elephant tusk from the bottom of the ocean and declaring it a euphemistic symbol of the plight of African enslavement..... To be frank if I ever get kidnapped and sold to a foreign country, I would feel quite aggrieved if someone I never met or knew in 300 years time, gets a well know celebrity to pay them to deep sea dive to the bottom of the ocean and retrieve a phucking animal artifact and declare it a symbol of my existence.... and then start crying about it on live television.... please, please don't.

I think I'll pass on that. You gave a great impression of the show and I don't think I want to experience it again.

A google search shows that the UK's Guardian journalist Afua Hirsch https://twitter.com/afuahirsch is involved who seems to be the UK's official spokesperson on all things racism.

As I read your bit out them crying over the tusk I though what I always think which is that these people what something. And it didn't take long looking at Hirsch's twitter postings to find out what that is, predictably.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/09/british-slavery-reparations-economy-compensation

Afru Hirsch was born in Norway to a British farther and a Ghana mother, was privately educated in Wimbledon (posh) and got her degree in Oxford. That's the recipe for an all but white wokey sh*t-stirrer. She is no more African or has links to slavery than I have.

I do think we should treat elephants a bit better though.

Pixel Eater · 14-10-2020 12:24pm

stefanovich wrote: »

A part of our country where unionists have been the majority for longer than the USA has existed.

Due to systematic ethnic cleansing and (very) recent civil rights oppression. Still not out with the pitchforks. And we're getting better at cricket too.

stefanovich · 14-10-2020 12:28pm

Pixel Eater wrote: »

Due to systematic ethnic cleansing and (very) recent civil rights oppression. Still not out with the pitchforks. And we're getting better at cricket too.

How many hundreds of years does one need to go back before you lose claim to a piece of land?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 14-10-2020 12:30pm

Deleted User wrote: »

TBF she, herself, previously advocated for the whole 'big is beautiful' malarkey, gained the attention from advocating it, and then went on to lose weight. basically she turned her back on the very movement she had previously championed.

She set herself up for the criticism.

Nah. She’s allowed to have a change of heart. And her weight was only a small facet of why she became so famous.

IAMAMORON · 14-10-2020 12:30pm

AllForIt wrote: »

A google search shows that the UK's Guardian journalist Afua Hirsch https://twitter.com/afuahirsch is involved who seems to be the UK's official spokesperson on all things racism.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/09/british-slavery-reparations-economy-compensation

Afru Hirsch was born in Norway to a British farther and a Ghana mother, was privately educated in Wimbledon (posh) and got her degree in Oxford. That's the recipe for an all but white wokey sh*t-stirrer. She is no more African or has links to slavery than I have.

I do think we should treat elephants a bit better though.

I didn't know her name at the time off watching, but she is actually the babe showing Jackson around the fort in Ghana. She wound him up bigtime.

Agreed on the elephants. I also learnt that the largest density of Elephant habitation is in Gabon, which interestingly returned the likeliest area of Africa were Jackson's historical DNA profile was from. How touching.

I will put a knot in my hanky in case I shed any more tears.

stefanovich · 14-10-2020 12:30pm

Pixel Eater wrote: »

Due to systematic ethnic cleansing and (very) recent civil rights oppression. Still not out with the pitchforks. And we're getting better at cricket too.

Oh and the Scots were arriving well before the plantations.

Pixel Eater · 14-10-2020 12:44pm

stefanovich wrote: »

How many hundreds of years does one need to go back before you lose claim to a piece of land?

Well there's a significant majority there who don't want to live under British rule and don't consider themselves British.

stefanovich wrote: »

Oh and the Scots were arriving well before the plantations.

The other ethnic Gaels you mean?

Anyway this is a tangent; the point is that Irish people aren't up in arms despite all the history between us and the British.

AllForIt · 14-10-2020 12:45pm

Afterthought: I've noticed an increasing number of British people (woman especially) identifying as African despite having been born in the UK. Of the ilk of Afua Hirsch. Last year I saw a black woman on the BBC's Question Time give a lil monologue talking about how 'slavery' should be taught in schools, in her strong Glaswegian accent. She went to say "I wouldn't be here if it wasn't for the slave trade". I don't think she meant that as an argument against slavery

, but I can't help but wonder where she thought she would be if it wasn't for British colonialism. Nowhere would be my guess.

If people like them continue to be given a platform to spout their nonsense the blacks in Britain will soon be identifying as African-British in the same way African-Americans identify, and wouldn't that just be fantastic.

ArrBee · 14-10-2020 12:58pm

Perhaps this little routine is relevant for this thread...

Apologies if it's already been shared.

https://youtu.be/O1xgXJ5_Q34?t=194

DrPhilG · 14-10-2020 1:05pm

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I felt the general tone of retribution and BLM was overbearing and too much.

I saw a video on Facebook a few days ago by a native American. He pointed out that the "Buffalo Soldiers" were black soldiers in the US army who used to hunt and kill native Americans in their thousands, but whilst it was important to know your history, you shouldn't seek retribution for the past.

ELM327 · 14-10-2020 1:07pm

stefanovich wrote: »

A part of our country where unionists have been the majority for longer than the USA has existed.

If I were allowed plant people and gerrymander them so that the majority was controlled, then I could have a majority anywhere.

ELM327 · 14-10-2020 1:08pm

stefanovich wrote: »

How many hundreds of years does one need to go back before you lose claim to a piece of land?

None. Plantations dont change what a country is.

We're closer now to returning to a united ireland than we have been since the home rule movement and 1914-21.

stefanovich · 14-10-2020 1:11pm

ELM327 wrote: »

If I were allowed plant people and gerrymander them so that the majority was controlled, then I could have a majority anywhere.

So you are in favour of the annexation of the USA and return of all the land to american indians?

Also in favour of Zionism?

sbsquarepants · 14-10-2020 1:12pm

bertiebomber wrote: »

rebel wilson is getting it at the moment for losing 80lbs

Which incidentally proves my mate reds was correct, when he nonchalantly stated "If she lost a few stone, she'd get it"

1800_Ladladlad · 14-10-2020 10:53pm

Until 74.2% of Starbucks employees are transgender or non binary and a minority, I'll never buy my soy latte there. It's imperative that an accurate representation of the demographics are displayed, in order for my soy to hit the spot.

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1316415485005701120

Their coffee will still taste of sh*te even if it's being made by a minority.

MoonUnit75 · 14-10-2020 11:27pm

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

Until 74.2% of Starbucks employees are transgender or non binary and a minority, I'll never buy my soy latte there. It's imperative that an accurate representation of the demographics are displayed, in order for my soy to hit the spot.

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1316415485005701120

Their coffee will still taste of sh*te even if it's being made by a minority.

So if you identify yourself as a different gender, you get to keep your livelihood?

IAMAMORON · 15-10-2020 12:00am

MoonUnit75 wrote: »

So if you identify yourself as a different gender, you get to keep your livelihood?

Depends on who your employers are.

Would you throw on some pink eyeliner and a skirt to score a job in Starbucks? I hear wigs are optional if you have long hair. Both cis, non cis and patriarchs can apply.

It might make a difference between a future in percolation or the dole queue?

Gervais08 · 15-10-2020 7:39am

stefanovich wrote: »

I do not think it fair to apportion blame to white people of today for slavery of the past.

Black people were also part of the slave trade, both owners and sellers. It was all terribly wrong.

I’d love to provide the link but i don’t have it sorry but I seem to recall a stat from the FBI about modern slavery and more than 50% of those convicted where non-white.

the purple tin · 15-10-2020 8:00am

Gervais08 wrote: »

I’d love to provide the link but i don’t have it sorry but I seem to recall a stat from the FBI about modern slavery and more than 50% of those convicted where non-white.

They have 'house slaves' in parts of the Middle East, you never hear a peep about that from the media.

Cordell · 15-10-2020 9:55am

Never mind the media, there is the UN Human Rights Council, but Saudi Arabia was a member, and Russia and China are currently members. So instead of feeling guilty about the past how about fixing the wrongs in the present?

iebamm2580 · 15-10-2020 10:02am

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8841637/Merriam-Webster-changes-sexual-preference-offensive-term-following-SCOTUS-hearing.html

Now the liberals are saying preference is offensive, how do these people go about their day.

Cordell · 15-10-2020 10:07am

I will put my woke hat on and say they're right, there is no sexual preference, you are either straight or gay on anywhere in between, but you have no choice in the matter.

iebamm2580 · 15-10-2020 10:12am

Cordell wrote: »

I will put my woke hat on and say they're right, there is no sexual preference, you are either straight or gay on anywhere in between, but you have no choice in the matter.

you like what you like, its a preference doesn't matter whether its a choice or not the end result is the same you pick what you like. Its just trying to trip people up to be fake outraged.

sbsquarepants · 15-10-2020 10:14am

Preference doesn't imply conscious choice, it just means you like one thing more than another thing. It makes no assumption as to why.

Cordell · 15-10-2020 10:16am

Its just trying to trip people up to be fake outraged.

Absolutely, no argument here.

its a preference

Not really, preference implies that you prefer this, but if this is not available you will settle for that, which is not really the case with sexual orientation.

lawrencesummers · 15-10-2020 10:21am

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

Until 74.2% of Starbucks employees are transgender or non binary and a minority, I'll never buy my soy latte there. It's imperative that an accurate representation of the demographics are displayed, in order for my soy to hit the spot.

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1316415485005701120

Their coffee will still taste of sh*te even if it's being made by a minority.

Greta turnburg could hand delivers the beans that the Dali lama puts into the grinder while a reincarnated Ghandi foams the milk as mother Theresa misspells your name on the cup before allowing Rosa parks assemble it together and it would indeed still taste like sihit.

sbsquarepants · 15-10-2020 10:21am

Cordell wrote: »

Absolutely, no argument here.

Not really, preference implies that you prefer this, but if this is not available you will settle for that, which is not really the case with sexual orientation.

It doesn't imply anything of the sort. And also that is the case with some peoples sexual orientation.

begbysback · 15-10-2020 10:22am

Cordell wrote: »

I will put my woke hat on and say they're right, there is no sexual preference, you are either straight or gay on anywhere in between, but you have no choice in the matter.

So you are saying that in prison there is no gay for the stay?

Gervais08 · 15-10-2020 10:51am

iebamm2580 wrote: »

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8841637/Merriam-Webster-changes-sexual-preference-offensive-term-following-SCOTUS-hearing.html

Now the liberals are saying preference is offensive, how do these people go about their day.

The word choice there IS offensive, gay people have spent decades fighting against the crap that they “choose” to be gay and along come the gender morons with their “identifying as a lesbian” and “female penis” bull****.

Cordell · 15-10-2020 10:59am

begbysback wrote: »

So you are saying that in prison there is no gay for the stay?

No, you can't unsuck that coc. If you were so inclined to do it while locked up, you had it in you all along.

Gervais08 · 15-10-2020 11:13am

Cordell wrote: »

No, you can't unsuck that coc. If you were so inclined to do it while locked up, you had it in you all along.

I really want to go full on Kenneth Williams at that!!!

15-10-2020 11:46am

Gervais08 wrote: »

The word choice there IS offensive, gay people have spent decades fighting against the crap that they “choose” to be gay and along come the gender morons with their “identifying as a lesbian” and “female penis” bull****.

Perhaps, but speak to most Bisexuals and they would defend the use of the term, sexual preference, because there are preferences involved. The attraction and desire is there for both genders, but it's rare that it's completely equal. Usually, there's some preference for one or the other. Right now, I'd be considered heterosexual since I've got my attention firmly fixed on women, but I often swing the other way too... it's based on attraction, but there is a conscious decision too. A sexual preference.

The problem with these movements to shut down words, is that they seek to remove nuance from language. Context is key. The manner in which people structure their statements. People should be responsible for how they choose to structure their sentences, and the choices they make with picking certain words... this movement to remove or vilify words dumbs down the language so much.

Biker79 · 15-10-2020 12:02pm

The problem is they have a fundamental misunderstanding of language and how it communicates ideas.

They continually redefine words rather than engage with the accepted sense of the word.

Like so many other things, they are cancelling the meaning of words so they can ignore ideas, or recreate those words to their own liking.

The obvious problem with this is, once you set a precedent, then anyone can come along and say what they like and expect it to be held as true. Just because it is their truth.

Its like dealing with children.

15-10-2020 12:07pm

Biker79 wrote: »

Its like dealing with children.

To be fair, Children have more sense...

iebamm2580 · 15-10-2020 12:08pm

im tall can i be offended if somebody calls me tall? i didnt choose my height

Cordell · 15-10-2020 12:19pm

Yes, there was just as much choice on that too

wassie · 15-10-2020 12:22pm

iebamm2580 wrote: »

im tall can i be offended if somebody calls me tall? i didnt choose my height

Maybe you should stop talking down to them. :rolleyes:

IAMAMORON · 15-10-2020 12:36pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Preference doesn't imply conscious choice, it just means you like one thing more than another thing. It makes no assumption as to why.

Polygender prerogative.

Wokeism of the day *Revised Mod Note in OP and threadbanned users*

Comments

Wokeism of the day Revised Mod Note in OP and threadbanned users