Why is gender-nonconformity bad? Alternatively, why must one's gender align with their sex?

[YoursTruly]

yes, only two sexes...not only two genders.

Only two sexes and only two genders. Why else would go back and forth between ONLY two? They can pretend. But at the end of the day, when all the clothes come off, the makeup gets washed off, they're still only one gender and sex.

 

[DudleySmith]

11 pages of people actually taking this mentally ill OP crap seriously.

Yes, this country is indeed over the edge. Let's see which freak show ends up ruling over its final death. We can make odds on which sort of mutilated freak ends up in the White House.

 

[YoursTruly]

11 pages of people actually taking this mentally ill OP crap seriously.

Yes, this country is indeed over the edge. Let's see which freak show ends up ruling over its final death. We can make odds on which sort of mutilated freak ends up in the White House.

My guess is BLM will be the first to fall. Then in a close 2nd will come this retarded tranny thing. Gender Reassignment Regret is on the rise.
Imagine, getting your pecker cut off and then regretting it. That would be enough to commit suicide over, IMO.

 

[DudleySmith]

My guess is BLM will be the first to fall. Then in a close 2nd will come this retarded tranny thing. Gender Reassignment Regret is on the rise.
Imagine, getting your pecker cut off and then regretting it. That would be enough to commit suicide over, IMO.

Oh we ain't seen nothing yet.

Cosmetic Surgery At The Edge

If you think extreme cosmetic surgery includes Sheyla Hershey’s 38KKK breasts or Heidi Montag’s ten procedures in one day, you’re right. But there are examples that go much further than this. There’s a dark fringe of cosmetic surgery that’s pretty scary, where the subjects’ motivations range...

www.empowher.com

You may have heard about “furries,” people who consider themselves part of the “Furry Fandom,” a group that celebrates anthropomorphic animals and animal/human creatures. A recent outgrowth of the science fiction and fantasy communities, these people may simply admire anthropomorphic cartoons and literature. Others invent characters for themselves; some creating costumes to wear at furry conventions. The extreme furry, noted Donohoe, may go even further. A person with a tiger for an alter ego, he explained, may have stripes tattooed on their bodies, sharpened canine “fangs,” implanted whiskers and surgically altered faces.


There are others who choose plastic surgery to mimic the look of animals—people who are not part of the Furry Fandom. Probably the most famous is Joyce Wildenstein, who has undergone too many procedures to count in her quest to resemble a cat. Then there’s the Lizardman, a performance artist who has has modified his body to complement his act. He had his tongue split by an oral surgeon. He elected Teflon implants above each eyebrow to give the appearance of horned reptilian ridges. A cosmetic dentist filed his upper teeth into points. And to date, he estimates he’s undergone about 650 hours of tattooing.

Next, besides trying to convince 6 year olds they need sex changes and lots of hormone shots, the sicko faggot freaks will also be telling them they need to also look like their favorite cartoon characters n stuff to be 'happy'. And, they have enablers in the medical fields who would love to rake in the dough indulging these sick freaks.

Right now, there’s a plastic surgeon interested in body modification to enhance our abilities as humans: chefs with motorized fingers, soldiers with implanted location devices, people with flashlights for noses. And oh, he wants to give someone wings.

Most of the Democrats posting here obey the troll farms they get their latest fashionable 'talking points' from, so expect after the mid-terms we see more of the gimps showing up here.

 

[DudleySmith]

Furry Transhumanists and the Culture of Narcissism

"Freedom of form" as transhumanist escapism. || Jarryd Bartle

www.splicetoday.com

"Geek Culture As Social Pathology: It would be unfair to single out the furry subculture as particularly pathological. Instead, we can sit furry fandom as a minor footnote in what’s a broader culture trend toward what researchers call the “great fantasy migration.” Western liberal culture is inherently narcissistic. Both in terms of rates of diagnosed narcissistic personality disorders and precursors of inflated self-esteem—both of which are on the rise. This is less an individual character flaw and more a natural consequence of the collapse of traditional institutions (religion, the family) and the rise of unsteady global markets and economic inequality.

We’re all “self-marketers” now, driven by a need to ensure we make an individual impact on the world, lest we be forgotten. In this aim, we’re in constant competition with others to “stand out”. As social theorist Christopher Lasch noted:

All of us, actors and spectators alike, live surrounded by mirrors. In them, we seek reassurance of our capacity to captivate or impress others, anxiously searching out blemishes that might detract from the appearance we intend to project.

The problem is that most of us aren’t very special. We aren’t beautiful, successful, or likely to make a mark on the world. This is where fantasy helpfully fills the gap. The great fantasy migration hypothesis argues that the growth in consumer interest in “geek culture”—from anime to science fiction/fantasy and video games—is a result of grandiose personalities avoiding harsh realities. As McCain et al put it:

In the United States, narcissism has been increasing since the 1970’s, while traditional ways of supporting narcissism such as prestigious jobs and credit (e.g., the debt bubble collapse) are becoming less viable for the majority of Americans. The result for individuals is discomfort (or cognitive dissonance) with the incongruence between inflated sense of self and deflated reality. One solution for resolving this dissonance is to migrate into a fantasy world via role playing games, fandoms, and fantasy media. These hobbies present opportunities for living out a grandiose self (e.g., by role playing a powerful or charismatic character) that might not be possible in the non-fantasy world. And, of course, in some cases success in fantasy (e.g., tournament gaming, achieving cosplay fame) can lead to real world success.

This invests geeky leisure with a degree of weight not often appreciated. The reason why geeky consumers may appear fanatical or obsessive, is that consumption exists as a comforting facade in the face of difficult economic realities.

The Freedom of Form Foundation, as an extension of furry culture and therefore geek culture, incorporates this earnest defence of fantasy. However, it also draws upon a particular strand of ideology."

This current 'faggot and 'tranny' normalization crap is just another variation on the narcissistic culture replacing traditional culture. Red color added by me.

Democrats should nominate this freak for President.

When they do, everybody should vote in the Democratic Primaries to make sure he/she/it/ mutant wins. Seriously.

 

[DudleySmith]

I believe you can be a man, say, and wind up with a girl's brain, or visa versa.



What do you do in that case?

Keep the nutjob away from children, for one.

 

[YoursTruly]

Furry Transhumanists and the Culture of Narcissism

"Freedom of form" as transhumanist escapism. || Jarryd Bartle

www.splicetoday.com

"Geek Culture As Social Pathology: It would be unfair to single out the furry subculture as particularly pathological. Instead, we can sit furry fandom as a minor footnote in what’s a broader culture trend toward what researchers call the “great fantasy migration.” Western liberal culture is inherently narcissistic. Both in terms of rates of diagnosed narcissistic personality disorders and precursors of inflated self-esteem—both of which are on the rise. This is less an individual character flaw and more a natural consequence of the collapse of traditional institutions (religion, the family) and the rise of unsteady global markets and economic inequality.

We’re all “self-marketers” now, driven by a need to ensure we make an individual impact on the world, lest we be forgotten. In this aim, we’re in constant competition with others to “stand out”. As social theorist Christopher Lasch noted:



The problem is that most of us aren’t very special. We aren’t beautiful, successful, or likely to make a mark on the world. This is where fantasy helpfully fills the gap. The great fantasy migration hypothesis argues that the growth in consumer interest in “geek culture”—from anime to science fiction/fantasy and video games—is a result of grandiose personalities avoiding harsh realities. As McCain et al put it:



This invests geeky leisure with a degree of weight not often appreciated. The reason why geeky consumers may appear fanatical or obsessive, is that consumption exists as a comforting facade in the face of difficult economic realities.

The Freedom of Form Foundation, as an extension of furry culture and therefore geek culture, incorporates this earnest defence of fantasy. However, it also draws upon a particular strand of ideology."

This current 'faggot and 'tranny' normalization crap is just another variation on the narcissistic culture replacing traditional culture. Red color added by me.

Democrats should nominate this freak for President.

When they do, everybody should vote in the Democratic Primaries to make sure he/she/it/ mutant wins. Seriously.

WTF is wrong with these people?

Furry Transhumanists and the Culture of Narcissism

"Freedom of form" as transhumanist escapism. || Jarryd Bartle

www.splicetoday.com

"Geek Culture As Social Pathology: It would be unfair to single out the furry subculture as particularly pathological. Instead, we can sit furry fandom as a minor footnote in what’s a broader culture trend toward what researchers call the “great fantasy migration.” Western liberal culture is inherently narcissistic. Both in terms of rates of diagnosed narcissistic personality disorders and precursors of inflated self-esteem—both of which are on the rise. This is less an individual character flaw and more a natural consequence of the collapse of traditional institutions (religion, the family) and the rise of unsteady global markets and economic inequality.

We’re all “self-marketers” now, driven by a need to ensure we make an individual impact on the world, lest we be forgotten. In this aim, we’re in constant competition with others to “stand out”. As social theorist Christopher Lasch noted:



The problem is that most of us aren’t very special. We aren’t beautiful, successful, or likely to make a mark on the world. This is where fantasy helpfully fills the gap. The great fantasy migration hypothesis argues that the growth in consumer interest in “geek culture”—from anime to science fiction/fantasy and video games—is a result of grandiose personalities avoiding harsh realities. As McCain et al put it:



This invests geeky leisure with a degree of weight not often appreciated. The reason why geeky consumers may appear fanatical or obsessive, is that consumption exists as a comforting facade in the face of difficult economic realities.

The Freedom of Form Foundation, as an extension of furry culture and therefore geek culture, incorporates this earnest defence of fantasy. However, it also draws upon a particular strand of ideology."

This current 'faggot and 'tranny' normalization crap is just another variation on the narcissistic culture replacing traditional culture. Red color added by me.

Democrats should nominate this freak for President.



When they do, everybody should vote in the Democratic Primaries to make sure he/she/it/ mutant wins. Seriously.

WTF is wrong with these people?

 

[DudleySmith]

WTF is wrong with these people?


WTF is wrong with these people?
View attachment 559907

They're pedoes hoping to groom them some kiddies to rape.

 

[Donald H]

1. I will be using the big five personality measurements and the data regarding that as my back-up for any personality-related claims or arguments.
   

Thank you for your very well presented and thorough appeal to this forum for tolerance of others.

LGBTQ rights are always challenged by a country's people when the political climate shifts toward the extreme right. That's a well known trademark of the rise of fascism.

LGBTQ people must understand that the momentum won't be reversed quickly and so they must bide their time and 'lay low' for the next few years. The threat in America is very close to becoming lethal now.

 

[Donald H]

WTF is wrong with these people?


WTF is wrong with these people?

The 'wrong' is the intolerance of people who would want to act violently against them for no rational reason.

 

[peacefan]

I'll preface this by saying that I have never made a thread on any forum, nor have I explored the CDZ. I read the guidelines for this subsection, and I didn't encounter anything outlining any specific format which these debates must follow, so long as the exchange remains respectful. Thus, if I miss any rules with regards to the creation of this thread, please do tell me.

I will start this thread off with a claim or a series of interrelated claims, followed by definitions with regards to those claim(s), and then I will outline a simple argument justifying those claim(s) What I seek out of this thread is a firm counterargument to one or more of these claims, based in a traditional secular argument.

Claims

1. Gender is not defined by sex.
2. Gender-nonconformity is neither irrational nor a mental illness.
3. There is no secular reason not to accommodate the gender-nonconforming.

Definitions

1. Sex, defined as the chromosome configuration you are born with.
2. Gender, defined as the personality traits traditionally associated with one sex or the other (i.e., femininity, masculinity).
3. Gender-nonconforming, defined as someone that does not align with the gender associated with their sex.
4. Accommodation, defined as allowing these gender-nonconforming individuals to do anything others within their own gender are allowed to do, given their biology does not offer them a distinct advantage.
5. Secular, this really shouldn't need to be defined, but some people seem to think "secular" means "atheist." No, it doesn't. Secular means areligious. Religious people can and do make secular arguments, because every argument they make where they do not use religion or spirit as a crutch is a secular argument.

Arguments

1. Gender is not defined by sex. I'm sure we can agree that it is fundamentally undeniable that biological men and biological women have a set of statistically distinct traits, both physiological and psychological, and that to some extent, these traits are caused by biology. The extent to which they're caused by biology is irrelevant to our purposes here, but what is relevant is the word "statistical." In any group, including humans at-large, there is a statistical norm for any trait you'd like to pick out of the bunch (given that it may be measured numerically). However, that statistical norm is just that: statistical and a norm. Every group on this planet, including the two demographically-dominant sexes, regularly see traits that deviate significantly from the statistical norm.
   
   Case-in-point: height (see: fig. 1). As shown in this neat little chart, and as you probably already know, biological men are statistically taller than biological women. But a statistically significant chunk of men are shorter than a statistically significant chunk of women.
   
   Now, what does height have to do with gender? Gender is not synonymous with sex. Even if you are to claim that gender must align with someone's sex, the two are not the same. Gender is a set of traits that we traditionally associate with one sex or another, often pertaining to personality. As in, "men are assertive." Or, "women are neurotic." These two statements are provably true (See: fig. 2), just like sex-height claims, assuming that they are statistical statements, not absolute statements. Men are indeed more assertive. Women indeed are more neurotic. But the thing is, not all men are assertive. And not all women are neurotic. Just like with height, there is a great deal of overlap between the sexes, and there lay the issue of claiming that gender must align with one's sex.
   
   If a biological female's personality traits firmly fall inside the "masculine" box, and they believe the associations made with the term "male" and the pronouns "he/him" more accurately fit them, how is that wrong? I'd argue it isn't, because this individual's gender, their personality--every visible and relevant trait--goes against the gender they were assigned at birth. This is statistically evident through basic trait variance. Therefore, gender is not defined by sex.
2. Gender-nonconformity is neither irrational nor a mental illness. Assuming that the prior claim is true, it cannot be reasonably claimed that being gender-nonconforming is in itself irrational, given that there is no intrinsic part of gender-nonconformity that does not comport with reality. However, the topic of mental illness is completely different.
   
   I will start by saying there is a distinction between gender dysphoria and gender nonconformity. Gender-nonconformity is exactly how I defined it, but gender dysphoria is when the misalignment between your assigned gender and your perceived gender causes distress. Gender dysphoria is therefore a mental illness, not because gender-nonconformity is a mental illness, but rather because of the anxiety and depression that some face in light of this misalignment. The solution to mental illnesses, if possible, is to address the route cause, not to squash the symptoms; in this case, the route cause is that misalignment, so the solution is the rectification of that misalignment. Therefore, gender-nonconformity is neither irrational nor a mental illness.
3. Last but not least, there is no secular reason not to accommodate the gender-nonconforming. A "secular" reason, in my mind, is any reason guided by enlightenment rationality. Appeals to authority do not fall under "secular" reasoning, and quoting a religious text as a reason is an appeal to authority. While I am not denying the right of the individual to accept whomever they'd like into their lives, and to refer to others how they wish within the confines of their own property, my claim here is that non-accommodation of the gender-nonconforming has no rational basis.
   
   The reasoning here is simple. If one is to do something entirely rational, as follows in my second claim, and this rational action does not impose itself on the well-being of others, others can not rationally act in a discriminatory manner against them. The same applies to the assumption of an identity which does not associate itself with actions that are either irrational and/or impose themselves on the well-being of others. Gender-nonconformity is not irrational, as per the second argument, and it does not intrinsically harm the well-being of others, therefore there is no secular reason not to accommodate the gender-nonconforming.

Images

Figure 1: Relationship between height and biological sex
View attachment 551503

Figure 2: Relationship between big five personality and gender, compared between executives and non-executives
View attachment 551470

Notes (edited in after the fact, because this dumb fuck accidentally posted this early)

1. I will be using the big five personality measurements and the data regarding that as my back-up for any personality-related claims or arguments. Not only is it the most respected in the scientific community, it also has been thoroughly researched on many fronts, and that wealth of statistics is very useful for the purposes of an argument. Read more about it here.
   
   Yes, this is a Wikipedia page. If you request a more direct source, I will provide you one.

i see no real flaws in your reasoning, other than this :
it's not just biology that determines an individual's gender identity (and nowadays/soon-ish, even sex).
it's very much also their education and the opinion sharing that they do during their childhood and early adulthood.

however, i want to augment your world view, and hopefully the world views of some gender-non-conforming individuals reading this as well, with the following argumentation :

- birds of a feather want and like to flock together, in their private lives, in public spaces, and online.

- people let their opinions be known to others to see who might fit into their personal lives, and to find support among others in casual or some more significant ways.

- (severe) problems (ranging from bad feelings to wars and assassinations) have arisen on the local and wider physical ranges, ever since ancient times (pre civilization even), when these opinions collide too violently or for too long.

this is why i support the rights of all fags and dikes, but find their pride movement highly annoying and definitely the wrong course for them

 

[dblack]

I'll preface this by saying that I have never made a thread on any forum, nor have I explored the CDZ. I read the guidelines for this subsection, and I didn't encounter anything outlining any specific format which these debates must follow, so long as the exchange remains respectful. Thus, if I miss any rules with regards to the creation of this thread, please do tell me.

I will start this thread off with a claim or a series of interrelated claims, followed by definitions with regards to those claim(s), and then I will outline a simple argument justifying those claim(s) What I seek out of this thread is a firm counterargument to one or more of these claims, based in a traditional secular argument.

Claims

1. Gender is not defined by sex.
2. Gender-nonconformity is neither irrational nor a mental illness.
3. There is no secular reason not to accommodate the gender-nonconforming.

Definitions

1. Sex, defined as the chromosome configuration you are born with.
2. Gender, defined as the personality traits traditionally associated with one sex or the other (i.e., femininity, masculinity).
3. Gender-nonconforming, defined as someone that does not align with the gender associated with their sex.
4. Accommodation, defined as allowing these gender-nonconforming individuals to do anything others within their own gender are allowed to do, given their biology does not offer them a distinct advantage.
5. Secular, this really shouldn't need to be defined, but some people seem to think "secular" means "atheist." No, it doesn't. Secular means areligious. Religious people can and do make secular arguments, because every argument they make where they do not use religion or spirit as a crutch is a secular argument.

Arguments

1. Gender is not defined by sex. I'm sure we can agree that it is fundamentally undeniable that biological men and biological women have a set of statistically distinct traits, both physiological and psychological, and that to some extent, these traits are caused by biology. The extent to which they're caused by biology is irrelevant to our purposes here, but what is relevant is the word "statistical." In any group, including humans at-large, there is a statistical norm for any trait you'd like to pick out of the bunch (given that it may be measured numerically). However, that statistical norm is just that: statistical and a norm. Every group on this planet, including the two demographically-dominant sexes, regularly see traits that deviate significantly from the statistical norm.
   
   Case-in-point: height (see: fig. 1). As shown in this neat little chart, and as you probably already know, biological men are statistically taller than biological women. But a statistically significant chunk of men are shorter than a statistically significant chunk of women.
   
   Now, what does height have to do with gender? Gender is not synonymous with sex. Even if you are to claim that gender must align with someone's sex, the two are not the same. Gender is a set of traits that we traditionally associate with one sex or another, often pertaining to personality. As in, "men are assertive." Or, "women are neurotic." These two statements are provably true (See: fig. 2), just like sex-height claims, assuming that they are statistical statements, not absolute statements. Men are indeed more assertive. Women indeed are more neurotic. But the thing is, not all men are assertive. And not all women are neurotic. Just like with height, there is a great deal of overlap between the sexes, and there lay the issue of claiming that gender must align with one's sex.
   
   If a biological female's personality traits firmly fall inside the "masculine" box, and they believe the associations made with the term "male" and the pronouns "he/him" more accurately fit them, how is that wrong? I'd argue it isn't, because this individual's gender, their personality--every visible and relevant trait--goes against the gender they were assigned at birth. This is statistically evident through basic trait variance. Therefore, gender is not defined by sex.
2. Gender-nonconformity is neither irrational nor a mental illness. Assuming that the prior claim is true, it cannot be reasonably claimed that being gender-nonconforming is in itself irrational, given that there is no intrinsic part of gender-nonconformity that does not comport with reality. However, the topic of mental illness is completely different.
   
   I will start by saying there is a distinction between gender dysphoria and gender nonconformity. Gender-nonconformity is exactly how I defined it, but gender dysphoria is when the misalignment between your assigned gender and your perceived gender causes distress. Gender dysphoria is therefore a mental illness, not because gender-nonconformity is a mental illness, but rather because of the anxiety and depression that some face in light of this misalignment. The solution to mental illnesses, if possible, is to address the route cause, not to squash the symptoms; in this case, the route cause is that misalignment, so the solution is the rectification of that misalignment. Therefore, gender-nonconformity is neither irrational nor a mental illness.
3. Last but not least, there is no secular reason not to accommodate the gender-nonconforming. A "secular" reason, in my mind, is any reason guided by enlightenment rationality. Appeals to authority do not fall under "secular" reasoning, and quoting a religious text as a reason is an appeal to authority. While I am not denying the right of the individual to accept whomever they'd like into their lives, and to refer to others how they wish within the confines of their own property, my claim here is that non-accommodation of the gender-nonconforming has no rational basis.
   
   The reasoning here is simple. If one is to do something entirely rational, as follows in my second claim, and this rational action does not impose itself on the well-being of others, others can not rationally act in a discriminatory manner against them. The same applies to the assumption of an identity which does not associate itself with actions that are either irrational and/or impose themselves on the well-being of others. Gender-nonconformity is not irrational, as per the second argument, and it does not intrinsically harm the well-being of others, therefore there is no secular reason not to accommodate the gender-nonconforming.

Images

Figure 1: Relationship between height and biological sex
View attachment 551503

Figure 2: Relationship between big five personality and gender, compared between executives and non-executives
View attachment 551470

Notes (edited in after the fact, because this dumb fuck accidentally posted this early)

1. I will be using the big five personality measurements and the data regarding that as my back-up for any personality-related claims or arguments. Not only is it the most respected in the scientific community, it also has been thoroughly researched on many fronts, and that wealth of statistics is very useful for the purposes of an argument. Read more about it here.
   
   Yes, this is a Wikipedia page. If you request a more direct source, I will provide you one.

I just don't give a shit. You can have three dicks and two pussies and I still don't care about your sexual preferences, your gender, or how big your tits are.

For fuck's sake people, there's more important shit to deal with.

 

[YoursTruly]

I just don't give a shit. You can have three dicks and two pussies and I still don't care about your sexual preferences, your gender, or how big your tits are.

For fuck's sake people, there's more important shit to deal with.

This is why the left is on the losing streak. They keep pushing this crap in political forums, social media and the MSM. And straight people are getting sick of it.
This is one reason why VA just got a republican governor.

Normal people are looking for normal people to lead. And I'm glad to see it.

 

[dblack]

This is why the left is on the losing streak. They keep pushing this crap in political forums, social media and the MSM. And straight people are getting sick of it.
This is one reason why VA just got a republican governor.

Normal people are looking for normal people to lead. And I'm glad to see it.

I'd never characterize myself as "normal", and I'm not looking for normal people to lead. Normal people are mostly lame. We need smart, capable leaders who can look past all the shit the media morons are obsessed with, and unite us. Unfortunately, the two party death march serves up nothing but trolls.

 

[peacefan]

I'd never characterize myself as "normal", and I'm not looking for normal people to lead. Normal people are mostly lame. We need smart, capable leaders who can look past all the shit the media morons are obsessed with, and unite us. Unfortunately, the two party death march serves up nothing but trolls.

i hope i'm not bursting any bubbles on your end, but you're a major troll yourself, bro.

 

[dblack]

i hope i'm not bursting any bubbles on your end, but you're a major troll yourself, bro.

How so?

 

[francoHFW]

They choose one ....don't you think?
( yuck)

I think I will go with psychiatrist s and psychologists and experts who say these people are to be respected, not the opinion of whatever...

 

[YoursTruly]

I'd never characterize myself as "normal", and I'm not looking for normal people to lead. Normal people are mostly lame. We need smart, capable leaders who can look past all the shit the media morons are obsessed with, and unite us. Unfortunately, the two party death march serves up nothing but trolls.

We must be from a different generation. Normal, imo, is an alpha male taking the lead as nature intended. It's why there are alpha males.
All this feminization of men has made us weaker as a species.
Women in leadership roles, I'm fine with. In fact, in many instances, women make better bosses than men.
But when we're talking about society in general, that's a different story.
The left and the over sensitive folks are trying to take all the fun out of being a man.

They're screwing it up for women too. Yeah, come to think of it. All those years of fighting to finally get women out of the category of being sexual on TV and in the work place, here comes BS like Cardi B & WAP and the other whore's making sexual objects out of women, all over again. And making her the role model for young girls.

And to top it off, allowing men to make better women than the women themselves. It's insane the direction the progressives are taking this country.

 

[peacefan]

How so?

From other recent posts by you, i gather that you hate 'socialists', and other groups that differ significantly from you, and i guesstimate that you are a republican supporter who "does not care about severe economic inequality", even when that causes severe hunger.

evidence : CDZ - a small number of incredibly wealthy and powerful people own and control a significant part of the economy and exert enormous influence

But you cross the line into actual trolling whenever you start verbally attacking individuals from other sub-cultures (like 'socialists' or 'cancel-culture' or 'gays' or 'whatever aint fully republican'), and publicly state that this makes you happy.

And trolls are best ignored, bro.

 

[YoursTruly]

From other recent posts by you, i gather that you hate 'socialists', and other groups that differ significantly from you, and i guesstimate that you are a republican supporter who "does not care about severe economic inequality", even when that causes severe hunger.

evidence : CDZ - a small number of incredibly wealthy and powerful people own and control a significant part of the economy and exert enormous influence

But you cross the line into actual trolling whenever you start verbally attacking individuals from other sub-cultures (like 'socialists' or 'cancel-culture' or 'gays' or 'whatever aint fully republican'), and publicly state that this makes you happy.

And trolls are best ignored, bro.

Dude, you're getting into a conversation with people who don't think like you do. And wonder why you're getting so triggered?

That's retarded. And an almost exact definition of trolling.