Are LGBT groups and their lobbyists making inappropriate statements?

Good grief...🤣...just lay out that theory of yours regarding how unsuccessful men or women are without kids and a spouse on the "I don't want children" thread on ŽK.😲🙂

Amanda Hughes37 said:Good grief...🤣...just lay out that theory of yours regarding how unsuccessful men or women are without kids and a spouse on the "I don't want children" thread on ŽK.😲🙂

Give me a break... We could have easily raised a little little bureaucrat communist...😍

bluecyclist64 said:Not by a long shot. I don't consider it hate speech, an insult, or some kind of moral outrage to point out that people like Markićka are nothing more than primitive, reactionary agitators. It isn’t an opinion; it’s a plain fact. These are the types of individuals who dedicate their lives to trying to strip away the fundamental freedoms and rights of everyone else.

Take, for instance, this whole spectacle of crowning some poor soul the "homophobe of the year." If you ask me, it’s nothing more than a calculated media lynching designed to tear someone down under the guise of social justice.

What a media lynching. Honestly, in a country where nearly 90% of the population identifies as Catholic, being branded "Homophobe of the Year" is actually quite the achievement—if you look at it realistically, it’s almost a badge of honor.

It’s one thing to challenge tradition, but it’s quite another to be deliberately provocative by using imagery like two Madonnas locked in an embrace to insult religious sensibilities. It feels less like art and more like a calculated attempt to stir up resentment.

That poster is truly exceptional; it captures the essence of the play’s plot perfectly. However, we have to contend with a certain subset of people who lack the capacity to grasp either the fundamental nature of art or the nuance of what actually constitutes an offense.
Even the most devout follower of Madonna wouldn't be offended by a poster like that, no matter how provocative it might seem. But her cult of personality? Those devotees... they’re the ones who take offense at everything.

We are witnessing the rise of a sort of ideological climate terror. It has reached a point where any opinion that doesn't involve enthusiastically shouting "being gay is fine" from the rooftops is treated as something unacceptable—if not outright criminal.

A climate of terror? Are we seriously suggesting that activists are patrolling the streets to harass heterosexual people? Or that companies are handing out pink slips to anyone who refuses to march in a Pride parade?
What kind of hallucinations are we even talking about? Honestly, I find the term a bit hyperbolic when applied to these situations. It’s more like a fundamental disagreement on reality than anyone actually seeing things that aren't there. I remember back when I was working in downtown Chicago, dealing with some particularly delusional project managers—they weren't hallucinating, they were just willfully ignoring the data right in front of them. We seem to be following that same pattern here.

I find myself constantly wondering why those who hold no regard for the sanctity of marriage or traditional faith feel such an intense compulsion to impose their worldview on everyone else. It seems to be an endless cycle where people who reject these foundational pillars of society insist that those who cherish them must somehow validate their own shifting moral landscape—even going so far as to demand that religious institutions permit same-sex ceremonies within their sacred walls.

It’s because they’re a bunch of complete amateurs who don't have the slightest clue what they actually want.
On the other hand, you have those people who take issue with same-sex couples marrying in a church. I honestly don't understand why anyone would find that offensive. If we are all expected to share the same grocery stores, hospitals, and sidewalks, why draw a line at a religious ceremony? How exactly is a same-sex marriage supposed to diminish the sanctity or the validity of my own marriage, or yours? It just doesn't follow.

The crux of the matter is that none of this actually serves the interests of the gay community, nor does it contribute anything meaningful to their overall well-being. In reality, all this posturing just fuels a growing sense of resentment among the average American citizen—people who aren't even particularly affected by these issues, yet find themselves increasingly alienated by them.

It stands as it is. I know several members of the LGBTQ+ community who would agree with you completely on this point. And even if I were part of that community myself, the idea of participating in such counterproductive displays would never even cross my mind.

Exactly. It’s quite a fascinating dynamic. You tell someone who is loudly broadcasting fascist sentiments that they are, in fact, a fascist, and suddenly you're the one facing the social sanctions.
In my experience, the most exhausting group consists of these young, radicalized internet types who throw around terms like communism, fascism, totalitarianism, and hate speech like they’re playing a game of Mad Libs—they toss them around with the reckless abandon of a rookie linebacker charging blindly into a line of scrimmage, yet none of them actually possess a fundamental understanding of the concepts they're weaponizing. It is genuinely disheartening to witness just how uneducated the younger generations have become regarding basic political theory.

Please, spare us the endless rambling. Pick up an actual textbook and learn the definition of hate speech.

If you said that out loud in public, there isn't a court in the European Union that wouldn't come after you.

It’s hardly a media lynching. In a country where 90% of the population is Catholic, being named "Homophobe of the Year" is actually quite an honor if you look at it realistically.

It hasn't happened yet, but I've already mentioned it will soon if they keep labeling everyone who thinks differently with such senseless, arbitrary tags.

That poster is actually perfect; it illustrates the play's premise beautifully. It's just that some people don't understand the difference between art and being offensive. The gospa herself wouldn't be offended by a poster like that even in her wildest dreams. But her followers? Well, that's what offends them...

So the message of the play is—love conquers all—I assume?
And the poster that hurts religious feelings is just considered "art"?
Fair enough.

Let's flip the script for a second:
Imagine someone puts on a show where a gay Nazi and a lesbian Communist fall madly in love. The message: love conquers all. Just like this play of "yours."
Then we make a propaganda poster showing a top lesbian activist and a top gay activist in a passionate embrace, with a Nazi flag and a Proletarian flag tied together as a curtain above them.😁
Now tell me—would you call that offensive, or would it be "art"?

Because, you know, my mom is a very peaceful and incredibly tolerant believer, and she couldn't wrap her head around the pure malice driving people to create a poster like that.
Neither could my dad, who doesn't care much for the Church or priests, but still respects everyone else's faith.

A climate of terror? What, are gays patrolling the streets harassing straight people? Are people losing their jobs because they don't march in Pride parades?
That sounds like pure delusion...

I know several gay guys who completely agree with you on this. And even if I were gay myself, it wouldn't occur to me to join in on those counterproductive spectacles.

You say there's no climate of terror?
Fine, look: your gay acquaintances actually agree with my view that this aggressive behavior and insulting dissenters is counterproductive.
Just tell me, what would happen to those friends of yours if they spoke up publicly—if they refused to be represented by a small, noisy crowd parading through the streets?
They’d be branded homofob too, and probably worse...

bluecyclist64 said:Give me a break... We could have easily raised a little little bureaucrat communist...😍

I have this nagging feeling that the two of us... maybe we're better off if this doesn't actually happen.🤣

rowdytiger13 said:

Women fought for a better, different standing in society, which naturally modernized marriage by shifting how spouses interact, but that isn't a redefinition of marriage itself. At its core, marriage remains what it has always been: a man, a woman, children, and family. Suggesting that women gaining more agency means the end of marriage is nonsense; I see those claims as nothing more than a sneaky spin from people who want to redefine marriage just to devalue and destroy it.

I'm not so sure about that.
I constantly hear traditionalists making claims like, "Everything went wrong once women got the right to vote."

There is a massive difference between fighting for labor rights, against workplace harassment, or sexual exploitation, and using those struggles as a cover to interfere with and dismantle the fundamental intuition of marriage, which has nothing to do with any of those issues.

Yeah, I figured we’d end up here.
You mentioned that women have already secured enough rights, yet clearly they haven't, as there's still plenty of room for the feminist movement to push forward.
It would be much more helpful if an actual feminist explained the goals and reasoning behind the movement; personally, I feel like a bull in a china shop in this arena, so things tend to get misinterpreted—as they obviously have here.
The feminist movement isn't actually interested in redefining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. All this noise was stirred up by organizations on the other side of the aisle, and since LGBTQ+ advocacy groups felt directly threatened by certain initiatives, they stepped in to support feminist organizations.
What the feminist movement is actually pushing for is a redefinition of the roles within a traditional marriage, rather than the definition of the institution itself. From what I gather, the actual definition isn't their concern.

Maybe a few guys still feel a little threatened, but honestly, they still love their wives just fine.😁

Yeah, I saw this coming from a mile away.
You mentioned how women fought hard enough for their rights, but clearly there’s still plenty of room left for the feminist struggle.
It’d be way better if an actual feminist explained the goals and reasons behind the movement, because honestly, I feel like a bull in a china shop when it comes to this stuff. It leads to a lot of misunderstandings, which is clearly happening here.
The feminist movement isn't actually about redefining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. That whole mess was stirred up by groups on the other side of the aisle, and since LGBT organizations felt directly attacked by that initiative, the feminist groups stepped in to back them up.
The feminist movement is fighting to redefine the roles within a traditional marriage—not the definition itself. From what I know, the literal definition isn't even their main concern.

Look, we aren't really talking about feminism here, so we're drifting off-topic, but let me add that feminism isn't just one single ideology. It’s more like a collection of different ideologies, which means there are different types of feminism. Some focus on a woman's status in society. The first wave was all about voting rights, the second was about emancipation, and the third wave—which is what we see today—tries to negate gender entirely. A huge part of modern feminism focuses on LGBT rights, specifically for lesbians.
You asked me to list some lesbian feminist activists, so here’s a link to wiki. Most third-wave feminists are either openly gay or have LGBT rights and gender ideology at the center of everything they do. The activist feminists who aren't lesbians express their feminism differently, have different goals, and fight for them in a totally different way than the ones who are.

There's also a massive rift between lesbian and hetero feminists; check out this example.
You're spot on when you say the feminist movement has nothing to do with redefining marriage as a man-woman union. I'd just add that while the hetero feminist movement doesn't care about that, the lesbian movement definitely does.

Sorry again for going off-topic! 😉

bluecyclist64 said:No, you didn't make an effort.
You haven't cited a single instance of hate speech from any LGBTQ+ group. You’ve simply continued spinning a narrative that they are doing it—but they aren't, and you are lying.

Frankly, I couldn't care less how YOU perceive it; the reality is that the cited hate speech simply DOES NOT EXIST.

And you, Željkica, are the one persistently pushing this spin, trying to force words into the mouths of gay people that they never actually uttered. Wouldn't you say that puts you on the same level as those you're criticizing?

Well, damn—your little spin tactic just failed. You're lying.

So, when I try to explain where I see the hate speech, you call it spinning, while you just insist it's there. Markić distorts the truth and lies, and that's just because I say it is. When asked to clarify exactly how someone is lying or distorting things (regardless of whether I accept that opinion), there is no answer. You just state that it's true, and therefore it is, without it being spinning, making things up, or false accusations. 🙄

Please, let's not pretend here.
I am under no obligation to explain myself to someone who is being dishonest.
Once you admit that you fabricated this supposed hateful rhetoric, then perhaps we can move on to the next point, Željkica—pardon me—my little mouse, so charming and clever...
I wonder what Željko's Master's degree was in again? 🍿

🙂

Wait, since when did Željko get a Master's degree? 🍿

As far as I know, Zeljko is an MD.

Bradley Scott2 said:If you said that out loud in public, there isn't a court in the European Union that wouldn't come after you.

It’s hardly a media lynching. In a country where 90% of the population is Catholic, being named "Homophobe of the Year" is actually quite an honor if you look at it realistically.

It hasn't happened yet, but I've already mentioned it will soon if they keep labeling everyone who thinks differently with such senseless, arbitrary tags.

That poster is actually perfect; it illustrates the play's premise beautifully. It's just that some people don't understand the difference between art and being offensive. The gospa herself wouldn't be offended by a poster like that even in her wildest dreams. But her followers? Well, that's what offends them...

So the message of the play is—love conquers all—I assume?
And the poster that hurts religious feelings is just considered "art"?
Fair enough.

Let's flip the script for a second:
Imagine someone puts on a show where a gay Nazi and a lesbian Communist fall madly in love. The message: love conquers all. Just like this play of "yours."
Then we make a propaganda poster showing a top lesbian activist and a top gay activist in a passionate embrace, with a Nazi flag and a Proletarian flag tied together as a curtain above them.😁
Now tell me—would you call that offensive, or would it be "art"?

Because, you know, my mom is a very peaceful and incredibly tolerant believer, and she couldn't wrap her head around the pure malice driving people to create a poster like that.
Neither could my dad, who doesn't care much for the Church or priests, but still respects everyone else's faith.

A climate of terror? What, are gays patrolling the streets harassing straight people? Are people losing their jobs because they don't march in Pride parades?
That sounds like pure delusion...

I know several gay guys who completely agree with you on this. And even if I were gay myself, it wouldn't occur to me to join in on those counterproductive spectacles.

You say there's no climate of terror?
Fine, look: your gay acquaintances actually agree with my view that this aggressive behavior and insulting dissenters is counterproductive.
Just tell me, what would happen to those friends of yours if they spoke up publicly—if they refused to be represented by a small, noisy crowd parading through the streets?
They’d be branded homofob too, and probably worse...

Oh, he's just being affectionate, it's definitely not hate speech.😍

Not yet, but I already warned everyone that it’s coming if they keep labeling anyone with a different opinion without any actual criteria.

By slapping those labels on people, they are openly calling for intolerance and fueling hatred against anyone who disagrees. But clearly, some folks don't see it as hate speech at all—instead, they just call me a liar for pointing out the blatant elements of hate in those statements.😢

Casey Mitchell72 said:🙂

Wait, since when did Željko get a Master's degree? 🍿

As far as I know, Zeljko is an MD.

Oh, he's just being affectionate, it's definitely not hate speech.😍

Not yet, but I already warned everyone that it’s coming if they keep labeling anyone with a different opinion without any actual criteria.

By slapping those labels on people, they are openly calling for intolerance and fueling hatred against anyone who disagrees. But clearly, some folks don't see it as hate speech at all—instead, they just call me a liar for pointing out the blatant elements of hate in those statements.😢

So, what was your Master's degree in at KBF, studying alongside Petirk? 😂
That's the one faculty where you learn nothing but how to hate others, isn't it? And clearly, you all "enrich" your education every single Sunday when men in skirts—transgender, I assume? 😂—lecture you about premarital sex and those "wicked homosexuals" supposedly out to destroy the sanctity of the traditional American family. 😁
In America, nobody’s fooling anyone; premarital sex is practically a mystery to people like you, yet here we are, with these quasi-academic Master's holders feeling entitled to lecture everyone else on human rights. Is demanding basic human rights considered "intolerance" now?
Oh, and I guess democracy just has to swallow it all.

No, there is no such thing as hate speech from LGBT organizations (at least not officially). The only real hate speech in this clerical mess comes from the priests led by Bozanićka and the fascist scum running various political parties. ☕

Chloe Sullivan88 said:So, what was your Master's degree in at KBF, studying alongside Petirk? 😂
That's the one faculty where you learn nothing but how to hate others, isn't it? And clearly, you all "enrich" your education every single Sunday when men in skirts—transgender, I assume? 😂—lecture you about premarital sex and those "wicked homosexuals" supposedly out to destroy the sanctity of the traditional American family. 😁
In America, nobody’s fooling anyone; premarital sex is practically a mystery to people like you, yet here we are, with these quasi-academic Master's holders feeling entitled to lecture everyone else on human rights. Is demanding basic human rights considered "intolerance" now?
Oh, and I guess democracy just has to swallow it all.

No, there is no such thing as hate speech from LGBT organizations (at least not officially). The only real hate speech in this clerical mess comes from the priests led by Bozanićka and the fascist scum running various political parties. ☕

One more thing I've noticed—besides the hate speech coming from activists and their groups—is that a lot of their supporters clearly missed out on basic manners. They love calling themselves progressive, but they totally lack 🙄
common decency.

Casey Mitchell72 said:One more thing I've noticed—besides the hate speech coming from activists and their groups—is that a lot of their supporters clearly missed out on basic manners. They love calling themselves progressive, but they totally lack 🙄
common decency.

And there you have it—you just perfectly illustrated your true feelings toward transgender people.
So, apparently, simply using the term transgender is considered an act of hate by your standards.
Glad we finally cleared that up.
What’s your actual take on them? Do you honestly believe they aren't equal to you, or to a Catholic living in Boise? 🤷

As for etiquette? People get exactly the level of respect they earn. 😁

And what even is "transgender" supposed to be? Is it some new movie or maybe some sequel to Transformers?

Chloe Sullivan88 said:And there you have it—you just perfectly illustrated your true feelings toward transgender people.
So, apparently, simply using the term transgender is considered an act of hate by your standards.
Glad we finally cleared that up.
What’s your actual take on them? Do you honestly believe they aren't equal to you, or to a Catholic living in Boise? 🤷

As for etiquette? People get exactly the level of respect they earn. 😁

I haven't once insulted any LGBT members in any of my debates. You're using the word "transgender" just to take a jab at priests, which pretty much tells me everything I need to know about how you actually view the LGBT community.

If I'm being civil—no insults, no cheap shots, no low blows—then I don't see any reason why I shouldn't get that same respect back. I deserve the same treatment. So, when it comes to manners, people just give back whatever they were taught. 😉

rowdytiger13 said:Alright... it feels like someone here is intentionally playing dumb about this one point.
In a traditional marriage, the wife stays home. She’s subordinate to her husband—at least financially—because in that setup, it’s actually considered standard and beneficial for the woman to be a homemaker.
We don't see many genuine traditional marriages anymore, at least in the West, because women themselves revolted against those imposed roles through—heaven help us—the feminist movement.
That's really what we're talking about...
The LGBT movement is aligned with feminism, whereas theoretically, they should be siding with the labor movement; instead, they share the exact same stance regarding traditional marriage and the role of women within it.

I honestly don't get what feminism is even aiming for. From where I'm sitting, it looks like they aren't trying to reform tradition from within, but rather just tear the whole thing down. Is she really so oppressed that she has to do his laundry? Or maybe she’s just as "oppressed" by having to work outside while being a total pushover at home (okay, little joke there).

But let's look at feminism within the context of America and pro-family policies. Given all the other factors, tradition is just more practical for the family unit. My take? Every woman should have one kid raised by daycare or nannies while she chases a career, only to realize later she’d rather spend money on them to make up for it, only to find out the kids prefer the nanny or grandma anyway. It happens.
How is that role "forced" on her? If she wanted a kid with him in the first place—imagine that scenario—isn't it better to actually be with the child rather than grinding away at some corporate office? (Though sometimes you have to).

Why can't we build something new, especially since we live in this day and age? Why not have a setup where a woman stays home to raise the kids, but still works for a company remotely? She could have more children, and then the older ones could help watch the younger ones. That way, we wouldn't be "destroying" tradition (if that's what people are worried about), but we'd introduce something modern without insulting the old ways. Instead of just going scorched earth on the concept of marriage. 😍

Chloe Sullivan88 said:And there you have it—you just perfectly illustrated your true feelings toward transgender people.
So, apparently, simply using the term transgender is considered an act of hate by your standards.
Glad we finally cleared that up.
What’s your actual take on them? Do you honestly believe they aren't equal to you, or to a Catholic living in Boise? 🤷

As for etiquette? People get exactly the level of respect they earn. 😁

And based on your last post, I guess gay activists and Bozanic are basically twins to you? 🤷

Look, everyone is equal, but not everyone acts like it. 😍

rowdytiger13 said:Alright... it feels like someone here is intentionally playing dumb about this one point.
In a traditional marriage, the wife stays home. She’s subordinate to her husband—at least financially—because in that setup, it’s actually considered standard and beneficial for the woman to be a homemaker.
We don't see many genuine traditional marriages anymore, at least in the West, because women themselves revolted against those imposed roles through—heaven help us—the feminist movement.
That's really what we're talking about...
The LGBT movement is aligned with feminism, whereas theoretically, they should be siding with the labor movement; instead, they share the exact same stance regarding traditional marriage and the role of women within it.

I honestly wonder how much time you spent trying to force some kind of logic onto that sentence before you finally hit send. Just because the working class is pissed off, feminists are fed up, and the queer community is struggling doesn't mean they suddenly all share a unified political agenda.

Check out these facts for a second.

Same-sex marriage was never a tradition, anywhere. Especially not part of our local culture here in America. But the way people keep pushing these relationships as if they’re totally normal, standard, or even a fundamental "RIGHT" (heaven forbid anyone actually challenges someone else's rights!), is being shoved down our throats so aggressively by the media and a tiny group of individuals that we’ve reached a point where any different opinion is immediately labeled as hate speech.

Let's look at this from another angle. I usually play the "devil's advocate," so please keep that in mind when reading my next thought.

Eating dog meat definitely isn't part of the culture in this country. On the flip side, it *is* part of certain cultures—like Korean culture, at least that's the common belief. Just imagine what would happen if someone walked into a typical American diner and casually ordered a dog meat schnitzel. Or better yet, if they insisted on their "right" to order such a thing.

A while back, just as a parody of how aggressively LGBT topics and rights are constantly being pushed, I started a thread about the consumption of dog meat in America.

The reaction?

Within a few hours, I got hit with a 300-point penalty. The thread was shut down instantly.

Expired Infraction (Points: 300)
constantly opening trolling threads Left By
Roko
09:24 11.06.2013. Expired
09:50 25.06.2013

That "constantly opening trolling threads" bit refers to a total of TWO threads within two days.

It honestly doesn't matter to me that I was penalized. That's in the past. But the mere fact that I was punished so quickly and so drastically proves my entire point regarding the "right to consume dog meat."

On one hand, you have years of relentless aggression from proponents of one specific cultural pattern being tolerated, accepted, and even encouraged in America—where anyone who disagrees is branded a fascist, a bigot, or a hater in the name of "love and tolerance for our neighbors."

On the other hand, a totally jokey, harmless thread—which clearly didn't offend anyone because NOBODY IN AMERICA WOULD EVER THINK OF EATING A DOG SINCE IT'S SIMPLY NOT PART OF AMERICAN CULTURE—gets slapped with massive sanctions.

Do you see the problem? I intentionally introduced a foreign cultural pattern and "argued" for its introduction into America as something "completely normal and necessary" (you can see my "justification" for the need in the link to the original post). The response was literally a swift kick in the butt, based on the logic of "shut up, idiot, nobody would ever want that."

Then you have a handful of people doing the exact same thing all the time, and what's the reaction? Anyone who stands against them is declared a hater or a fascist.

Can you see the double standard?

Check out this clip from the movie Defiance from 9:30 to 10:11. It really hits home when you look at the cultural norms and the crazy circumstances where those rules just get tossed out the window:

http://watch32.com/movies-online/def...episode-6.html

What do you guys think? Why would a woman, right after shooting a wolf, carry the damn thing for miles on her back back to the starving hideout? Was it just to give it some sort of formal burial in a "five cemetery" type situation?

But honestly, that’s just gross. THAT ISN'T PART OF OUR CULTURE.

Jessica Kelly4 said:You’re overestimating feminism.
It was hardworking, modest engineers who actually got women out of the house.
A washing machine did more for women's rights than the entire feminist movement combined.
But that’s a whole different conversation...

Man, tell me about it. People seriously don't get how much the washing machine changed the game for women.

Because let's be real, most people have never even hand-washed a single sock. Try doing your own laundry by hand for three months straight, then you'll realize what a washing machine actually represents—and how those engineers did way more for women than all the loudest activists ever could. Though, I wouldn't recommend trying that if you have little kids. That would just be cruel. To the kids, I mean.

It’s honestly weird how few women are working as engineers. I guess it’s just easier to go out into the streets, rip off a bra, and get a standing ovation for it:
https://sites.google.com/a/lakewoodc...men-s-protests

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FEMEN

than messing around in a garage with bolts and screws only to be completely ignored by everyone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washing_machine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sewing_machine

Funny how the ones burning bras are fighting for "human rights," while the folks making washing machines and sewing machines are just "making things complicated."

What’s the secret sauce for doing laundry? Soap. Simple as that.

Check out this typical modern recipe for making your own soap.
http://www.thefamilyhomestead.com/laundrysoap.htm

I was feeling lazy, so I just grabbed the very first recipe that popped up on my Google search.

So go ahead, knock yourself out! Make your soap using that exact recipe. 🤣

And then see if you can actually survive the next, say, ten years using it.

Honestly, the whole LGBT movement is built on those same shaky premises. Nobody actually knows what they're talking about, but the people who *do* know—the ones who are brave enough to speak up—are going to get publicly destroyed. If they have a "dark past," we'll drag their names through the mud. If they don't? Fine, we'll just label them fascists and haters instead.

And there’s always some woman waiting in the wings ready to claim they're sick. Just look at:
- Strauss Kahn
- Roman Polansky
- Charlie Chaplin.

Amanda Hughes37 said:Good grief...🤣...just lay out that theory of yours regarding how unsuccessful men or women are without kids and a spouse on the "I don't want children" thread on ŽK.😲🙂

Nah, that's a danger zone for me—total Bermuda Triangle territory.

You already tricked me into a debate in the social sciences section once, and I ended up getting more bans in a couple of weeks than I have in all my years on this forum. Down in the political subreddits, people don't take kindly to different opinions. 😁