tag yourself

!r-slurs !burgers

43
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This already exists and the whites literally pay for its upkeep

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It's called Wyoming.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

me behind the fence in the back

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Are you fat?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

no why do you ask

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Oh wait nvm you're jacked I remember now

Was gonna make a r*pe joke but you can beat me up

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'd r*pe u bb

This post rests on native land

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

When I started to read as a child I would see mentions like "Soandso was sent to a concentration camp as a teenager" and I thought it was something like a scholarly retreat or countryside sanitarium. Eventually I noticed people tended to die there but I figured people died a lot and anywhere back in the day.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I hate yt coastal tech cute twinks more than I hate BIPOCs.

:#pepebreakdance:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

>alaskan

You're just us if we really loved making heroin

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:marseysmug2: this wouldn't happen to an !unblockablechads


Putting the :e: in spookie turkey merry new year

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

A true dramanaut is a dramanaut without borders

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:#marseyexcitedgif: Yes! Yes! YES!

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This should be made a reality. A containment zone for them where they can do the least harm to the rest of us is the best solution all around.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

@The_Jews in the guard tower

This post rests on native land. Indian land.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

One common response when it's pointed out that you can't always tell is "well we can tell 99% of the time", or some other high percentage pulled out of nowhere. This is a clear overestimate of how often someone can tell, but let's charitably assume that that number is true for a moment and do some maths. If you could tell who was trans or not 99% of the time, that would still lead to nearly two thirds of the people you read as trans actually being cis.

The mathematics is clear, using Bayes theorem.

Even if we very charitably assume that the sensitivity and specificity of "we can always tell" in detecting a trans person is both 98% then they are still wrong 50% of the time and accuse a cis person of being trans.

This is because there are vastly more cisgender than transgender people.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.