Bad speech to text. It should totally be deck whore.
_Snort_ if you must, because it's funny. _My_ goal, tho, is just to call you out. _T'aint_ no big thang. They/Them Москва
227 followers 261 following 4,521 posts
view profile on Bluesky
Bad speech to text. It should totally be deck whore.
Schindler’s Gary.
Lottery ticket gives better odds than Jr winning.
I'd put more money on Sr being elected than I would Jr when it comes to making a long odds bet.
Walk him and pitch to the rhino.
I mean they can obviously, more or less read posts.
Sorry to ruin people’s fun, but:
It looks to be normal gate closure for a federal holiday.
Always been a fan of Vivaldi. Favorite feature is the ability to tile a tab stack.
Why stop at legislation?
So it's hallucinating on zoomed in artifacts. It couldn't even enhance the american flag on the side of the hat correctly.
Oh... Oh.... OJHHJHHHHJHHGHGGHFGHF Sorry, just had a Blueskyism
Yeah, okay TERF. Before I mute you, may I ask you a question?
Are transgender women not women?
Trans women are women. So yeah, discrimination there, TERF.
Sure sounds like you don't want a transgender woman to use the woman's locker room.
So you are interested in denying transgender people equal rights.
Me checking who is blocking me: what the fuck was I doing 2 hours ago?
Spinalonga probably has room since 1957... /s
Oh, I'm sure it is.
Anything that doesn't allow people to get off to them.
Unlike you, I'm not about to throw all transgenders under a bus. Any more than I'd say cis het white men perform most mass shootings so stop selling them guns.
You can't. You can't keep the abusive women out either. You also can't keep the abusive men out of the men's locker room. Unless you want to figure out how to make pre-crime work.
Seriously tho, someone who cross-dresses as a fetish gets their sexual gratification from the cross-dressing. That's what a fetish is. They aren't using it to sneak into the opposite sexes locker room.
That's the level of debate your going to get if you insist on scare quotes and labeling things as fetishist.
How do you tell the difference between a woman who wants to shower with your daughter and an abusive woman who wants to shower with your daughter?
Also a good point.
Why would I care to?
I'm assuming the former but because they got smacked down with something like "If a guy dresses like a nun for Halloween, it's not a sexual thing but is technically cross-dressing."
I wonder if their use of fetishistic for cross-dressing is because they believe there are multiple reasons to cross-dress or do they think they are smearing cross-dressers.
(yes I know I don't have to tell you that)
Cross-dressing and being transgender are like colors and cars. Some cars are purple, but not all purple things are cars and not all cars are purple. They are two different things that may overlap.
Can you point to where that is defined in GS1?
I'd like to form a third party called the nuance party, but it'd get zero votes.
It is a fact, however, that Kyle Rittenhouse is a homicide. :-D
He definitely murdered my incredulity.
Love it when a TV show finale sticks the landing.
… don’t say it … … don’t say it … … don’t say it … … don’t say it … … don’t say it … HI CRABBY, I’M !
To be fair, we’re all dying, aren’t we?
The best part of living in PT was always how Monday Night Football ended at a reasonable hour. The worst part was that Monday Night Football started so early I had to rush home from work to watch the start.
I am sad I’m blocked because I wanted to teach him that Kyle Rittenhouse is a homicide.
[Giuliani's final breath] Tell my family I loved...9/11
The list of things he doesn’t understand is growing…
Now I’ll never know what rights of his were violated.
Oh no, he blocked me.
Yep, definitely a murderer.
Oh, shut up, you lying liar who lies about his salary from the 90s.
You mean Kyle Rittenhouse the homicide?
He did say that someone else (Twitter) didn't have the right to lie about him which, boy howdy Rev Falwell would like a word.
I'm assuming he thinks his free speech rights were violated but he still hasn't clearly stated what right. Could I have missed the post? Sure.
Because you haven't answered it. Your rights were not violated. Even if they actually did commit defamation, your rights weren't violated.
So, what right of yours was violated. You used that language without expressing what right you are referring to.
There is no "Right to not be lied about."
What rights of yours were violated?
And that email was only sent to you. They did not publicly accuse you of those two things.
Oh no, are you talking about Kyle Rittenhouse the homicide who is a murderer?
Oh no.
Is that a yes, my calling you a liar is defamatory?
Okay, what sort of proof shows they tried to delete the evidence? I'm not asking to see the proof, just what you think constitutes the proof.
Like, if I said your talk of your 90s salary was all lies, would you say that is defamatory?
We listen. We just also are well versed in defamation law, not to mention the common mistakes people make with regards to it.
.... How do you think they tried to delete the evidence that incriminated them?
The only possible fact that could be false is whether or not he violated "the Rules" as that is all that you or I would be privy to.
Limits on arbitration are not the same thing.
I assure you they can 100% do it for false pretenses.
So you believe they committed defamation upon you?
No one would consider "X suspends accounts that violate the rules" to be particularly vicious, whether true or not.
I mean, I had an account shut down and all anyone who isn't me could see is that my account was suspended for violating "the rules".
Let's start with something you just said. Spreading vicious lies. Did Twitter publish any information about why your account was shut down?
Maybe, if only that it is only *as* wrong.
What right do you believe they violated?
I broke my X button with this guy.
You keep saying that like it's a mantra that makes you feel better about yourself.
The oughts were great for it with Big Tech doing RIFs and huge payouts back when people stayed at one business long enough for it to matter.
So the higher unemployment rate then was a good thing and the lower unemployment rate now is a bad thing. Your intellect is truly dizzying.
Sounds like you have an open and shut case that in no way will be thrown by the user agreement you agreed to to use the site.
There was a 19-month run of >9% unemployment in the early '80s.
How is any number of posts "self glorifying"?
Oh, so at least you've come to accept that there was national debt in the 90s. Baby steps are good.
I mean, he would shoehorn in how he was the 9/11 mayor at every opportunity. Bringing up this unrelated and unnecessary event seems 100% Rudy.
Hey, Daniel, how's your lawsuit against Twitter going?
He is definitely setting off some Poe alarms.
I'm willing to believe he was born before the 90s. Barely, tho.
They should ban cars.
Aside from the obvious ‘I’m Old Jamie Lee Curtis gif’ response, have you flipped through what you can get on PlutoTV?
I will never forgive google for destroying DejaNews.
With how often he's accusing people of not being alive in the 90s, he's treading close to "every accusation is an admission" territory.
It's Mannings all the way down.
I mean I certainly wasn't on Bluesky in the 80s.
Where did I say we were struggling? I was correcting your statement that the unemployment rate was lower than it is now with data.
I was post-collegiate in the 90s. I played those "classic games" you review when they first came out. My first console was a Telstar.
Did we not get anything for that money?
Okay. Produce the unemployment numbers for the 90s that shows lower values than now. Here’s the Bureau of Labor Statistics data that will let you get the 90s: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000?years_option=all_years
It has been way too many years since my macro and micro classes.
Exactly. And they can be bad if an under developed country is harvested for its goods for pennies on the dollar. But, in other scenarios, it’s just that a country produces a less expensive product while getting a more expensive product, right?
I might argue they aren’t good. And they aren’t bad. They’re just a fact of life.
“By January of 1835, for the first and only time, all of the government’s interest-bearing debt was paid off.” https://treasurydirect.gov/government/historical-debt-outstanding/ We still had debt. It was almost 6 billion when Clinton left office. You’re confusing a budget surplus for zero debt.
Looks like 1999 had a lower unemployment rate. 97 and 98 were both below 5.0.
The unemployment rate in the 90s was (mostly) higher than it is today.
The last time we had zero debt was under Jackson. .. last and only, iirc.