I’ll start worrying about the “population crisis” when there are no more orphans because they’ve all been adopted.

The simpler the ‘fact’, the more likely it is to be an oversimplification and largely untrue.

In this example, you have to overlook any time someone became pregnant without consent. They never chose it to begin with, so blaming them for “not taking responsibility” for something they never wanted is oversimplifying a complicated subject to the point of falsehood.

It’s also especially funny how often this argument comes from people who, in the same breath, will talk about their savior being “of virgin birth”. You can’t argue that chastity works for everyone when it didn’t work for Mary.

And I’m sure this in no way will invade people’s privacy.

“Hmm, why is the anti-queer politician sitting next to me being served dozens of male underwear ads? Hmmmm…”

“Why is my daughter receiving ads for newborn diapers? Hmmm…”

“Why is my neighbor receiving ads for anger management? Hmmm…”

Lawsuits have been won by celebrities because a commercial used a lookalike, which still impacts the celebrity and their brand. They were in the wrong and didn’t care.

She absolutely should sue, and I hope she wins. Their BS excuse of “It’s totally someone else, but you wouldn’t know her, she goes to another school. Also we have to protect her identity for reasons” is as blatant as it gets.

Hot damn, this is a lot of condescension for the shittiest “both sides” take.

Which words are you struggling with?

If “your man card can be revoked” then you understand that gender is performative and conditional.

UV light is both: A. Damaging to eyesight. B. Invisible.

You won’t know how much damage you’re doing to yourself until the damage has been done. This is how you give mass amounts of people eye trauma, and potentially blindness.

Why are you still holding on to last year’s shit?