“literally”

Yeah, a lot of these places act as lightning rods for kids experimenting with edginess in a consequence free environment and various types of douche nozzle.

That’s not how it works?

That is truly amazing. They’ve taken a look at the trans bathroom issue and managed to see one of the obvious flaws in the reasoning, then answered that flaw by coming up with a solution that has the same obvious flaw.

I assume this was a clause in Will Smith’s contract for Suicide Squad.

Because the humiliation is a part of the act. It makes the observer a participant.

“Just come out and say it - you hate women.”

I think that gives him waaaay too much credit. I don’t think he has any earthly idea why he opposes abortion.

I like that that argument presumes that denying a potential person existence is immoral, and so by extension suggests that by not having sex with every available woman at all times I’m basically like three Hitlers.

I find it faintly bizarre that people could equate “moral” and “legal” in that way.

I don’t really do sexting. I’m too awkward to back up that kind of forwardness. I do use certain internet sites, however, and while I hope nothing I’ve sent registers as skeevy, I have received some amazing messages.

Something that costs a million dollars? That you just hang on the wall? Ridiculous.

The temerity!

I seriously doubt I’ve spent that much on every piece of clothing I’ve ever owned.

I’d kind of respect a campaign that came out and said “we’re awful, but we aren’t those guys”.

I assume the argument being made is that everyone has the legal right to marry someone of the opposite gender. That fits the language, though clearly not the spirit.

It has little to nothing to do with marriage. They just dislike that people are gay and disagree with anything that would make their lives easier or better, because they’re labouring under the delusion that the more accepting we are as a culture, the more people will “become” gay. Because they have no earthly idea how…

Whao, whao, whao. Dietary advice being given by a disreputable source? Inconceivable!

Technically he’s talking in general, saying that men are more likely to be good at chess, rather than women incapable. Outliers don’t refute his point. It’s baseless and unsupportable, but that’s not evidence against it.

In fairness, both the post and a good number of the comments are guilty of (1).