-
My[Confined]Space
Better Than Bread
Movies Coming Soon- Star Trek Books
- “Star Trek: Voyager: 16 Seven Of Nine” Review by Deepspacespines.com
- Nana Visitor Joins Us to Talk About Her New Book – Star Trek: Open a Channel: A Woman’s Trek!
- Out Today: “Star Trek #26”
- Star Trek Strange New Worlds Asylum Book Review
- John Jackson Miller Books Ranked!
- “Star Trek: The Next Generation: Headlong Flight” Review by Lessaccurategrandmother.blogspot.com
- Jumping into Adventure with “Into the Void”
- Happy 2024 Birthday to Jim Johnson!
- “Star Trek: Strange New Worlds: Asylum” Review by Trek.fm
- Beadle & Grimm Interview With StarTrekBookClub.com
- Movie Related Products
- “Deadpool & Wolverine” Review
- Kevin Smith Is Getting Closer and Closer to Dogma 2
- “The Garfield Movie” Review
- Disney Said to be Considering a Surprising Replacement for Bob Iger: EA CEO Andrew Wilson – IGN
- Amazon Is Shutting Down Freevee, Its Ad-Supported Video Streamer
- “Breathe” Review
- “Transformers One” Review
- Captain America: Brave New World | Official Trailer
- Marvel Studios’ Thunderbolts* | D23 Brazil Special Look | In Theaters May 2, 2025
- Mattel apologizes after mistakenly printing porn site on ‘Wicked’ movie dolls packaging | CNN Business
- Music Video DB
I bet you they some interesting opinions on people of colour and any of the alphabet people.
That was three quarters of a century ago.
Things have changed.
So they’re not members of AntiFa, probably don’t know what AntiFa is, and are most likely dead so can’t in fact speak for themselves… is what you’re saying.
You can’t be a member of Antifa. Antifa, as an organisation, doesn’t exist – despite the right’s protestations to the contrary. It simply stands for “anti-fascist”, which is exactly what that image (Normandy landings?) is depicting. It’s a political stance.
It’s not like the Proud boys (or simply ‘Fa’, if you prefer) – there’s no dues to pay or uniform or dumbass little initiation rituals.
So you’re saying they just all happen to often meet at an appointed time and place just completely at random, and not in an organised manner at the behest of some sort of instruction issued by a commander, or leadership of an kind.
Boy… what are the odds?
No, not completely at random, no. That would be ludicrous.
People who are anti-fascist tend to turn up when they know there will be fascists. And have done for years. I went to anti-Nazi counter protests 20+ years ago, just me and a buddy or two and we weren’t in communication with anybody – we just turned up where we knew there would be fascists. And guess what? We always found like-minded people.
This isn’t a difficult concept…
what is an alphabet person? google?
You can be a little (or a lot) racist and hate LGBTQ people and also be against fascism. It would go something like this, “I may not think much of those people, but at least they’re not fucking fascists!”
The picture is only claiming these people are against fascism. You’re trying to move the goalposts.
And you are doing something between wildly projecting and cherry-picking. The US officially banned homosexuals from serving in 1916, deeming them “sexual psychotics”. This evolved into ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’, and that wasn’t repealed until 2010!
I’m doing neither of those things.
Why are you always so incapable of debating in good faith? It’s fucking obnoxious.
“I want it to be true, therefore it is true”. Got it. Very Trumpian of you.
You’re one to talk about ‘cherry picking’ when your timeline goes “1916 something, something 2010”. Lol.
Perhaps you’d like to tell us in what period between 1916 and 2010 when the military went totally gay? Please. Tell. Us.
I don’t understand what your point is. No-one is saying that. Try and stick to one point, however stupid it may be, rather than jumping around between straw men.
So ‘There was no radical change in the US military’s policy regarding ‘No queers allowed!’ between 1916 and 2010′ is what you’re saying. Got it, thanks.
It is truly amazing how many people here will resort to “I don’t like how you’re arguing” when asked to present more than their feelings in supporting their argument. Maybe the comments section just isn’t for you.
It’s not just people here, I’m sure. Do you even know what a straw man is? In this reply you even put quote marks around an argument you imagined I made! This is laughably fucking disingenuous. And no-one even but you even mentioned feelings. You are not worth my time – I’m done.
Oh and here’s something for you to read or at least, get someone to read for you. The history of US LGBT military service is much, much more complicated than you make out.
www.thebalancecareers.com/policy-concerning-homosexuals-us-military-3347134#:~:text=Throughout%20its%20history%2C%20the%20US,ever%20since%20Revolutionary%20War%20times.
Did you even read this before posting? You obviously didn’t so here’s a quick summary:
If you read and understood all that before posting the article, you’re an idiot. If you didn’t read it before posting it, you’re a fuckhead and an idiot. So which is it?
In a nutshell:
Wow.
Righties really can’t do satire….
You always say that when you’re triggered.
No.
I said that because the video you linked to is moronic.
I found it to be hilarious, but then again I’m able to understand that the people that won ww2 weren’t all saints and had some fucked up ideas about what equality really was, but I ALSO understand that we shouldn’t judge the moral character of people in the past on the morals of today.