Posts by Michael Davis9

Does anyone happen to know how many people from Canada hold an American passport?

I’m guessing it’s probably at least 90% of Americans?

By the way, when are we actually going to see the census results? Wasn't that supposed to be out by now?

This was such an excellent documentary that dives deep into what life is actually like for Muslims living in Sweden.

Honestly, watching this makes me wonder how on earth the Democrats managed to perform so poorly in the polls.

I’m honestly so glad to hear that.

Thanks again for everything; I really appreciate the collaboration.

The real issue here is that instead of stepping in when you saw a post targeting a specific group of people, you actually chose to validate it by highlighting one part of their argument as if it were correct.

Look, I didn't say you were quoting his entire post, just a specific section of it.

The moderator's response to a post where a certain group was being collectively labeled as having limited intelligence isn't some random ban or red card—it's simply a quote of a part of that post along with some extra context.

No, what I meant was that she was just quoting a snippet of the post rather than the whole thing.

Regarding what "belonging to a group" actually means here, you could look at it from two different angles:

1) Belonging to the LGBTQ+ community;

queers, lesbians, or whatever else

— referring to that specific demographic or collective.

2) Belonging to the group organizing this party.

In either scenario, claiming that members of a group are less intelligent is just a blatant insult.

I honestly can't help but wonder what everyone's thinking about this lately. It feels like there's so much going on that we could all benefit from just sitting down and having a real, deep conversation about where things are headed. I’m curious to hear your thoughts—does anyone else feel like we're hitting a turning point? kaže:
It would be absolutely wild if Željka decided to show up at that party just to cause a complete scene and stir the pot! 🙏 I can only imagine the look on the organizer's face! 🤣

I honestly feel like people in that community—whether you call them gay, homosexual, or whatever else—just seem to lack any real intellectual depth.
Moves like this only end up hurting themselves in the long run. If UIO had just played their cards right, they could have walked away from an event like this with some serious wins for the company. 😍 It really just comes down to being smart about it. 👍

Brenda Cook4 said:That's the way to do it, man! Spot on. 🙏 👋 😂🤣

The moderator's response to that post—where everyone was being collectively labeled as low intelligence just because they were gay—wasn't actually some kind of formal warning or disciplinary strike. It was really just a snippet taken directly from the original post itself, followed by a little sarcastic nudge: "Nice one, chief." 🙏''.

Is there anything else that needs to be added?

I honestly feel like discussions about cycling shouldn't be lumped in with things like "demographics of Mexico," "men's rights," "are Americans a crazy nation," "asparagus shortages," or "industrial hemp cultivation" and all those other distractions.

At the end of the day, even the Pelješac Bridge wasn't just some niche issue handled by a political advisor; it was front and center on the main policy agenda.

In my view, mixing these topics sends an unintentional message—that the struggles facing cyclists aren't actually a pressing or vital political issue for Washington, D.C. (or even for the rest of the country).

The cycling referendum—moving from high-level policy straight to the doorstep of a political advisor.

Don't you think this is actually a pretty significant political issue?

I can totally see where they're coming from when it comes to corporations (though, just imagine some disgruntled employee at a massive firm like Amazon posting about how terrible the working conditions are—what are the odds that poor soul is going to sign their full legal name and risk getting fired?).

But when we shift the conversation over to political subreddits, public figures usually step into the spotlight by choice.
Even our elections, which serve as the primary democratic tool for holding politicians accountable, are built entirely on the foundation of the secret ballot.

Adam Vaughn5 said:Please spare us this ultra-fascist primitivism and your blatant anti-Iranian chauvinism.

A mini-skirt is itself a product of Western fashion from the 1970s; there is absolutely nothing "traditionally American" about it. However, covering one's hair with scarves is very much a part of our own traditions, stretching from the coast all the way to the heartland. Women wore them at the beginning of the last century, continued through the middle, and they are still worn today in rural parts of the country. Wearing black paired with a headscarf is also a local custom, much like the black chadors worn by widows in the Islamic Republic. It is equally traditional for both groups to cover their hair in the presence of a religious leader or the Pope.

Iranian women are renowned for their beauty and elegance, just like American women, though your habit of selectively picking a photo of one ultra-conservative Iranian woman specifically to fuel anti-Iranian propaganda doesn't change that reality. Here is what your famous female politicians actually look like. 🤣

And yes, besides our shared roots, I suppose the one thing that connects us is that we both enjoy cracking jokes about such beauties (or beauties, if you will). 😂🤣

The unit value of the Iranian rial is completely irrelevant when you consider that the per capita purchasing power is around 13,000 USD—which is roughly 25% less than in the US, but still higher than in many other developing nations. Whether that converts to 34, 34,000, or 34 trillion rials doesn't matter; just because the dollar was once stronger than the Italian lira doesn't mean we were economically superior to the Italians. Honestly, the only things on this forum worth using as toilet paper are prints of your Zionist nonsense.

She is absolutely stunning, but unfortunately, the people who only view women as mere objects will never truly appreciate that kind of beauty.

I really wish we had someone like her here in the States.

melloworca6 said:Are you a teacher too? Do you even know what dyslexia is? 😢

Look, there are stupid professors out there too. I had a math teacher back in the day who was so incompetent I couldn't tell if she was genuinely dim or just playing dumb. 😁 In all honesty, the woman was as clueless as they come. She had zero grasp of math; she probably only passed her exams because someone pulled strings for her or she used other methods to get ahead.

There are plenty of idiots in management positions, too. Do you walk up to your boss and call them stupid? Or is it only socially acceptable when it involves children because they can't really defend themselves?

No. Yes.
Quincy:

Look, let’s be honest—even in academia, you run into professors who just don't seem to have their act together. I had this one math teacher back in high school who was a total nightmare. Honestly, I couldn't tell if she actually struggled with basic calculations or if she was just playing dumb to avoid explaining things properly, but either way, it was frustrating! I didn't want to be that student who calls her out for being incompetent, but man, there were days when I really wanted to ask her, "Are you actually struggling with this, or are you just pretending?" 😁 Honestly, that woman is completely clueless; she wouldn't know math if it hit her in the face. It feels like she probably only scraped through her exams because someone pulled some strings for her or she used other ways to get ahead. Does anyone else deal with bosses who are just... well, let's call them "intellectually challenged"? I’ve been wondering lately if we actually tell them how clueless they are, or if we just bite our tongues like we do when kids are acting out. I mean, you can't exactly be blunt with a toddler because they lack the capacity to defend themselves, but when it comes to a supervisor making nonsensical decisions, the rules seem different. Is it ever okay to call out that level of stupidity, or are we all just playing along to keep the peace?

Look, I’ve definitely dealt with my fair share of dim-witted professors myself—though, to be fair, they weren't necessarily dishonest, just lacking that spark of intelligence. But obviously, I don't go around walking through the halls telling people they're stupid. In this specific situation, I'm certainly not trying to defend the professor here.

I’m going to focus my comments on the second half of the title—specifically, how teachers in general approach their students. If we just sit here debating that one English teacher's specific mistakes, I don't think this discussion really gains any traction. It's pretty obvious she messed up, but let's look at the bigger picture.
Well, if that's the case, you probably shouldn't have gone with such an ambiguous headline in the first place!

crimsongull20 said:Sure, you can ask your own kid, "Are you playing dumb?" Or maybe throw it at a student during an informal field trip... but saying that in a classroom isn't exactly professional communication.

You know, it’s entirely possible that you’re dealing with someone who was once a total wunderkind—someone calm, reliable, and always pulling straight A's—only to suddenly start making incredibly questionable decisions out of nowhere. In a situation like that, asking them, "Are you just pretending to be stupid?" actually makes perfect sense. Since we already know the kid isn't actually dim-witted, the only logical conclusion left is that they're putting on an act.

Could we please get the title corrected? The teacher actually questioned whether the child was pretending to be dim, rather than just asking—she flat-out stated that they really are just stupid.
☕

I mean, look, if a kid is pulling straight A's across the board, then we're clearly looking at a case of pure teacher bias, a massive failure in the school system, or something else entirely going on behind the scenes.
It’s just impossible for a child to be truly "stupid." People only start becoming foolish once they hit the real world; until they graduate, they're just little, innocent kids doing their best.

While there’s certainly a grain of truth in what’s being said here, I’m struggling to see how a "leftist" culture—and honestly, we could spend all day debating what that even means—would actually differ from a "right-wing" one when it comes to this whole "useful idiot" label.

I mean, think about it: you'd likely find the exact same sense of resentment toward massive multinational corporations coming from both a radical leftist and a hardline right-winger. The right-winger fumes because they see globalism eroding traditional culture, whereas the leftist bristles at the unchecked expansion of foreign capital. It’s just two different sides of the same coin.

So, what’s the actual distinction between someone who was in a long-term relationship for, say, five years before ending up here, versus someone who was married for three years and then found themselves in the same boat?

From my perspective, the only massive differentiator among singles is whether they have kids—which doesn't necessarily require a marriage license to happen—or if they are truly flying solo.

So, what’s the actual distinction between someone who was in a long-term relationship for, say, five years before ending up here, versus someone who was married for three years and then found themselves in the same boat?

In my view, the only massive difference among singles in this group is whether they have kids—which doesn't necessarily require a marriage license—or if they are truly flying solo.

While R. Scott and S. Kubrick definitely hold the highest marks when it comes to pure artistic merit, I honestly feel like G. Lucas deserves the top spot simply because his work on Star Wars had such a massive, transformative impact on the entire science fiction genre. Even if we consider Star Wars to be more of a Star Wars Fantasy than true science fiction, you just can't deny the influence he had.

ironmoose6 said:Once again, the right starts whining whenever things don't go their way... the IRA and ETA were leftist organizations created and funded by the USSR!

The truth is, the IRA just wants to expand its national territory and they use terrorism to get there. Their list of allies has shifted through various countries and individuals since the days of Nazi Germany, depending entirely on what suits them at the moment, but their core objective remains unchanged. They aren't looking for anarchy or some kind of proletarian dictatorship. Based on that, I’d argue the IRA is a truly right-wing terrorist organization. When you look at it that way, the tiny nuances of political ideology become pretty much irrelevant.

I don't know nearly enough about ETA- to really weigh in on that part of the argument, so I'll sit this one out.

Joshua Diaz18 said:The political landscape in the US is shifting under our feet faster than most people care to admit, and if you look at the recent developments regarding immigration policy and the rise of populist movements, it’s pretty clear we’re heading toward a massive reckoning. It’s like watching a slow-motion train wreck where everyone is arguing about the color of the upholstery while the engine is flying off the tracks. You see these fringe groups trying to gain mainstream traction, using the same tired rhetoric that’s been circulating through political circles for decades, and it makes you wonder if anyone is actually steering the ship or if we're all just drifting toward the rocks. It’s the kind of systemic instability that keeps you up at night, knowing that once the momentum shifts, there’s no easy way to pull it back.

If you click this link, you'll see how the Anders Behring Breivik manifesto describes his actions as nothing more than a violent, radicalized version of Geert Wilders' ideology.

On the other hand, you’ve got the big fish in this particular pond—the British National Party. They’ve basically done a complete about-face, pivoting away from decades of blatant anti-Semitic rhetoric to redirect all that raw, radical energy from their base toward a whole different set of "problems," which, if you ask me, are actually solvable.

What’s the real distinction between the populist movement Geert Wilders leads today and the Nazi German regime back in the early 30s?

So, they’re making all these grand, public statements about how they don't condone violence? Please. It's nothing more than a cheap little performance, a way to wash their hands of the mess while still reaping the benefits of the chaos. They wrap themselves in the language of peace just to stay within the lines of what's socially acceptable, acting like they aren't fueling the fire every time they open their mouths. It's pure optics, plain and simple.
So, what’s the deal—is the target actually Muslim, or is it Jewish?

Are there any other differences worth noting?

What kind of monster would we actually be birthing if Geert Wilders’ ideology wasn't just a fringe movement, but became fully baked into the system—if his "solutions" were actually backed by the full, heavy weight of the state apparatus? It makes you wonder what the DNA of such a regime would even look like once you move past the protest rallies and start seeing those ideas codified into actual law and institutional policy.

The Nazis in Germany were burning books, beating people, and murdering Jews, Romani people, communists, and more. It was an incredibly violent atmosphere, but honestly, I don't really feel like getting bogged down in a history lesson here.

Wilders is non-violent, but there's much more to it than that. The man lives under constant police protection because he's a walking target for radical terrorists. He's essentially a victim who has had his life turned upside down because of it. Plus, Wilders holds views that have been perfectly legal and legitimate for years; he’s known for them. He doesn't want mosques or bearded terrorists in his country—a country that prides itself on being progressive and liberal. He isn't some basement-dwelling lunatic from some random neighborhood. And yet, you try to wrap his name up in the same package as a killer.

Of course, then you go ahead and throw in those German neo-Nazis and a few other fringe groups, all under a thread titled "Nationalist Underground" or "IMMIGRANT MURDERS."

The Norwegian guy actually supported the American Party of Rights, which is currently in power in that joke of a federation. What should we do with that? Should we link the American Party of Rights, and then by extension the Democratic Party and the Democratic Party, to the Norwegian too?