I think their actions can be rooted in misogyny but saying it has nothing to do her political views is... Wrong and contradicted by your own comment
I think the user is referencing the Gospal of Judas: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas
But not sure if there's a larger thought group here to point to
It is - it's a super affirmative position. It takes an extreme position within the sphere it's trying to criticize to make an exaggerated point to attack. It's literally a classic strawman.
Your follow up is in the same vein. Its empty rhetoric
I can get why it seems like that. But from a lived reality, I get it tbh.
These arguments are exactly why people hate vegans. It's nonsense.
Not only do you jump to an insane straw man. You showcase that you ignore a clear increasing contradiction around your world view and choose reactionary nothing.
If you care about life realize the harder question. If you care about the environment realize clear inefficiencues. Currently, you showcase nothing more than crude thoughtlessness.
If he was using their VPN, they wouldn't have been able to turn that over according to their own site: https://protonvpn.com/features/no-logs-policy#:~:text=No-logs VPN,lengths%2C or location.
This is a weird point. Like yes, Google is a government subsidized monopoly. But to keep this feature is a massive waste of resources.
Like from a tech perspective, this should not be done. Like fuck Google can be a thing and will have no impact on that
I think the way I would phrase it is that they are very consistent in their belief that there are clear lines for defining gender.
But that view breaks down the moment their definitions have to engage with reality and they are faced with the difficulty of actually making thos classifications when faced with biological realities.
I'll give the couple in the article this, I know many of the it's okay until it affects us types and none of them changed their voting habits
Why do I feel like you live on colonized land?
So nice job of not addressing the fact that you didn't read the article and nothing I said indicated that I'm trying to sow discord. I will vote for Biden and argue that others should as well
But pretending that the debate helped that cause is worthless. We are losing and pretending we are not doesn't help. Stop fighting with people pointing out reality and be more vocal on why to vote for Biden.
Lol did you? It literally cites a single voter and a poll showing Trump trending better among Latinos than previous electoral performances for that demographic. Nothing in this article actually warranted the headline and meta polls show Trump still ahead. Delusion will only hand us another 4 years of Trump
Do you know why there are sources discussing that it isn't? Admittedly can't really even find something reliable worth citing but see some historical Islam groups discussing Makka and Bakka as mentioned in the Quran and attributes to modern Mecca. But this doesn't seem to be in any mainstream articles or easily found academic paper
I'm not really familiar with the subject but curious what's the nuance I'm missing since it feels like there's a weird historical debate here I'd like to read up on
This kind of surprised me but Wikipedia says mecca at least isn't referenced in the Quran: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mecca#:~:text=Mecca is generally considered "the,was first revealed to Muhammad.
I don't know about unpolished, wasn't my cup of tea in a lot of ways but felt very polished in almost every regard I can think of
The company stopped, not the owners: https://www.esquire.com/food-drink/restaurants/a36622217/chick-fil-a-owner-donations-against-equality-act/
By that logic any article from a news distributor is garbage. Which while true, you can find the original story from a new wire. Sourcing points is key but having someone write a table of authorities when they can link a video with their thoughts and data is fine
He discusses actual polls you can look up? This isn't a video just saying things it has data
Yeah but the former is loud, obnoxious and misogynistic about it. Whereas the latter is only heard from to call out the former.