i am consistently against p-dophilia but then ruqqus decides to support p-dophilia - fact. ruqqus supports 
s by way of attacking me - i was never against s until saidit but now the/my gloves are off and i will attack the saidit because they attacked me for no reason
ur all r-ght w-ng and P-DOPHILIA IS BY DEFINITION R-GHT W-NG
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It looks like the explanation is right there in the thread. The comic is a parody of stereotypical “coming out” scenarios represented in media. It psychologically primes people for the acceptance of such behaviors (both in the real world sense–that of being gay–and in the contextual sense–that of being a demon designed solely to kill everyone). Indeed, I’m curious why you’re not “outraged” about the comic itself equating gays to murderous traitors. Instead you’re upset about someone CALLING OUT this comic for its psychological propaganda. Indeed, not even that. You’re upset about the no-no word he used in doing so!
Are your feelings hurt by seeing a no-no word? What exactly is your problem with the post itself? List, specifically, what your problem is with the post. Is it really just the no-no word? Why should anyone care about your feelings when you’re defending the institutional r*pe of children and the social spread of incurable diseases?
Why are you incapable of defending your ideological beliefs using objective scientific data? Not just in the contextual sense, but in the broader sense of why you seem to want to censor people for saying truth when it hurts your feelings.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context