If you “need to respect everyone” then why are you here defending JP who get far more respect than he deserves when you could be respecting and supporting the choices of minorities?

Seems like your vocal, active, respect is EXTREMELY selective! You seem to mostly fight for the respect of people who actively advocate to disrespect the weak and disenfranchised. How strange!

Lol, you show NO RESPECT but when others treat you the same all of a sudden it’s “too far” and you’re “not talking to you anymore”

GOOD. CRAWL BACK TO THE LITTLE NAZI HOLE YOU CAME OUT OF. JP SUPPORTING SCUM.

I’m not sure what part of respect and tolerance are a social contract is confusing to you. No it’s not a basic human right. If you spout off hateful rhetoric you can’t expect everyone “respect” you after. If you threaten to assault, or assault people, you can’t expect to be treated non-violently after.

When the fuck was it a “basic human right” to be treated with respect even though you’re a raging violent asshole. Last I checked violence is met with the violence required to make you stop, then usually by further punishment.

Absolute brain-dead take.

1. English is a gendered language, therefore it’s important to gender people for basic communication.

2. “Cis-male/trans-male” is more inclusive than the cisnormative “male/trans-male”.

So until everyone accepts that “male” includes cis and trans, anyone who intends to respect basic human dignity will use “Cis-male/trans-male” when discussing gender. Simple as.

Respect is a two way street. It’s a contract between people. If someone threatens you, as in his tweet, he doesn’t get to have respect. If someone is “just asking questions” like you are… You don’t get to have respect.

• Isn’t it strange that your questions seem to only go on one direction?
• Why aren’t you asking questions of JP?
• Why does he not want to be called cisgendered when that’s what he is?
• Is it because removing the prefix “cis” makes it easier to alienate trans people?
• Why are you suddenly obsessed with respecting other people’s “chosen” labels?
• Do you think “cis” and “trans” are a choice?
• Have you supported queer peoples labels in the past?
• Why do you only take on the position of “let’s respect other people’s basic humanity” when defending heinous right wing grifters?
• When have you defended the basic humanity of minorities in the past?
• Why do you demand your one sided leading questions be answered in a meaningful way but there isn’t a chance in hell you’ll answer these ones meaningfully?
• Why aren’t you pointing out that a grown ass man, brain damaged or otherwise, threatening strangers on the internet isn’t respectful behaviour?
• Why do you think disrespectful behaviour should be met with respect?
• Would you respect someone threatening to assault you?
• Would you respect someone entering your home?
• Why are you such a coward? when someone threatens you shouldn’t you defend yourself?

It’s so easy to look like you aren’t an absolutely garbage human being under the guise of “just asking questions”, but people are waking up to your bullshit right wing technique. In the words of innuendo studio

And because these folks keep showing up in each others’ metadata, regardless of what they say, Google thinks there is definitely a relationship between the guy “just asking questions” and the guy denying the Holocaust

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P55t6eryY3g

Compromise? Like by giving them only SOME states to do heinous shit in?

Why would I be in favour of a fascist federal government? Where did I say something to support that? Have we completely given up on not having federal fascism already?

Context doesn’t matter when all it does is attempt to justify heinous decisions like allowing states to restrict abortion and other fundamental rights. When it does that it’s just rambling.

You literally used the fact that states are currently undoing abortion access in your argument that you support states right to choose!

Edit here are some quotes, all I removed was rambling

The third option is we split up, and go our separate ways. Personally, I prefer the third option, and I think it’s already happening.

Take abortion, for instance. The overturning of Roe v Wade didn’t make abortion illegal throughout the whole country, it simply returned the matter to the states.

But that’s not necessarily a bad thing. I think it’s better to have a weaker federal government and for more power to be returned to the states

He should have fucking LAID INTO Republicans. They’ve been publicly inciting political violence for nearly a decade now and THIS is the result. It’s their fault and the only redeeming feature was that this was an own goal. We’re all lucky they haven’t attacked Democratic politicians yet.

Violent Republican rhetoric is not acceptable. If they don’t stop NOW this is only the beginning. Let out Dark Brandon and let them hear the fucking truth instead of this weak “violence isn’t acceptable” shit. Of course violence isn’t acceptable, we’re the party of “violence isn’t acceptable”. Republicans should stop inciting political violence and maybe this would stop. Trump has even promised a secretary of retribution and half of the list is OTHER Republicans. It’s no surprise the people attacking him are other Republicans.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/trump-s-secretary-of-retribution-has-a-target-list-of-350-people-he-wants-arrested/ar-BB1pJcNU

WOW, I love that you’re argument in favor of states rights is “sure women in all these states completely lost their bodily autonomy, but I’m not a woman so I think it’s the way to go!”

Watch him respond with “if they don’t like it they can just move to a state with abortions” as if poverty and other mechanisms that restrict mobility don’t exist. Absolutely WILD!

“it was bad before so no point fighting now”

That’s what you sound like. Not to mention it’s undeniable that Twitter has more hate speech after apartheid emerald mine oligarch Musk bought it with Saudi money.

https://phys.org/news/2023-04-analysis-speech-significantly-twitter.html

That’s not what I said. In neither situation does the deal enforce that the person HAS to use the loudspeaker for hate speech. I wish I could blame your reading comprehension but it’s painfully obvious you’re arguing in bad faith since this is the pedantic detail you’re stuck on instead of the rest of my argument.

Every Twitter user makes a deal with Twitter to get an account. This deal includes what’s acceptable behaviour. If Twitter’s policy allows hate speech then it’s Twitter’s fault their platform is spreading hate speech. If Twitter’s policy prohibits hate speech then it’s still their fault because they’re not enforcing their policy. This is something Twitter had no problem with before their degenerate new owner fired the enforcement team.

Now let’s see what pedantic detail you get stuck on this time instead of facing the fact Twitter is liable for enabling hate speech to spread faster than ever before!

What’s confusing you?

If you make a deal with someone to come on your front porch every day yelling hate speech into your loudspeaker I think you’ll find it’s pretty easy to be held accountable for what other people say.

Second, if you’ll remember, Twitter makes money from showing adds on this speech. It’s not like they’re doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. Profiting from hate speech isn’t going to be looked at kindly.

Most of the replies are correct overall. But Mattias Wandel had identified another important factor. Fans don’t just “stuck from the back” and blow out the front. They sort of suck from everywhere including the edges. This means that if you’re putting a fan right up against the window blowing in you’re sucking some room air as well. If you’re putting the fan right up against the window blowing out, some of the air you’re blowing out comes from outside in the first place.

The ideal is then to blow out from 2-5ft away. This way all the air that’s blown is room air, and it’s all blown out. The venturi effect plays a small part. The Bernoulli effect? Equations? Explains why the air stays in a “tube” for a few feet away from the fan. Technically also explains the venturi effect… Everything is Bernoulli…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L2ef1CP-yw

They’re literally saying that now.

We’re afraid of the threat that they’ll keep doing what they’re doing right now. Why? They’re already doing it. We’re idiots for letting it affect our decisions.

Looking back I don’t see anything I wrote, that says they should move

This you?

I would talk to her about looking for someplace to live she does feel safe.

Gaslighting me in a thread about gaslighting… Brilliant

It’s a response to your second paragraph which is “she’s not gaslighting you and you should reward her abusive behaviour by moving to a nicer neighborhood”.

No, this is abuse. Being scared of where you live doesn’t justify abusing your partner. Missing someone’s text doesn’t justify this kind of behaviour. The silent treatment is abusive and not the way mature adults communicate with their partners. The fact that he calls the attention seeking follow up “the usual” also shows the extent of the problem, especially when it’s pretty clear she expects him to provide the “correct” response. This post has so many red flags I thought it was a communist party parade.