I’m just saying you’re making a big deal out of nothing. Have a good night now.

again, gender-neutral wording like they/them don’t say anything about gender or her own identity. ‘They’ does not refer to a third gender. I’m not demanding anything from her. You’re the one who brought up using the correct pronouns. So I expect you to be familiar with English grammar.

I think your language-policing is ridiculous. You can’t expect someone unfamiliar with a situation to be up-to-date with how to affirm someone’s gender correctly. Gender-neutral language functions as a safe fall-back in such situations. You can rightfully expect people to not misgender people. You cannot be rightfully offended at people using gender-neutral language. The only person I’m making demands of currently is you, because you’re making this discussion unnecessarily hostile.

Yea, they seem to have a pretty short fuse…

Also, how do you even know her preferred pronouns in English? Did you ask her?

yea, nah.

Edit: Using a word is not the same as refusing to use another word in its place.

I’m sorry but no. Using gender-neutral language does not describe gender; using ‘they’ isn’t to misgender, it just leaves the gender unspecified.

You can correctly use ‘they’ for anyone. If they’d said ‘he’, now that would’ve been different…

(Edit: typo)

yep.

The US did not really try to negotiate with the Taliban regime. The US just demanded the Taliban hand them over, then refused a quite reasonable condition to show some evidence that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attack.

At a news conference in Islamabad, the Taliban ambassador said he was sorry that people had died in the suicide attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon last week, but appealed to the United States not to endanger innocent people in a military retaliation.

“Our position on this is that if America has proof, we are ready for the trial of Osama bin Laden in light of the evidence.”

Conflating a government or regime with an international terrorist organisation is the lie the propaganda told you to accept invading and occupying an impoverished foreign country that had just gone through a famine.

The US invaded Iraq under GW Bush on a lie about WMD’s. Killed Saddam and countless Iraqis, including journalists, for nothing.

The US invaded Afghanistan rather than negotiate with its ruling power to hand over Bin Laden, then didn’t get their hands on him for another decade even though the US won the war and took over the country from day 1. 20+ years of bloody occupation later you lost the war and the Taliban is back in power. Another pointess war started with deception.

Don’t get me started on Vietnam.

You guys have some twisted idea of democracy where the ‘Democrats’ don’t even elect their own candidates.

Please stop exporting democracy. The world doesn’t want your perverse version.

Hitler killed himself btw.

Ikr!

free world

lmao

I take issue with inaccurate language. This is how trains crash. A conspiracy is where 2 or more people plan something in secret. A conspiracy theory is where an outsider speculates about the nature of such plans. Also, without wanting to speculate myself, logically it was either a lone actor or a group conspiring, since it clearly wasn’t publicised in advance. I personally doubt it was some grand conspiracy.

How do you spread a conspiracy? I think you mean speculation.

Ta

If float away you likely will drown. Your floater will slowly loose air, or you’ll loose it, or the waves will be too high and engulf you in the wrong moments, or you loose consciousness and breathe water. My contention is you’re less likely to drown without floating devices as you’ll consciously try to stay in the shallow parts of the beach. Especially if you’re someone who couldn’t swim. I believe this is why we only ever took the floaties to the pool.

I was never allowed any floating device at the beach as a child. Because of the high risk of floating away. I’m so happy she surrived though.

It doesn’t matter to you Hillary stole the primaries from Bernie, boosted Trump’s visibility, and still lost against him? Polls at the time showed for Bernie vs Trump Bernie would’ve won. You can thank Hillary for giving you Trump for president. But I think you’d rather kill the messenger.

It doesn’t matter if it’s first amendment protected to assist a fascist to take power.

Again, the indicment relates to 2010/2011 publications only. Nothing to do with Trump.

As a matter of fact, Julian has denied that the source was Russia. The reported ‘offer’ from the Trump admin was rejected because WikiLeaks NEVER reveals its sources.

Not that I agree with your assessment, but you’d be hard-pressed to find a news outlet that doesn’t have a bias. This case isn’t about whether you have sympathy for his perceived bias. It is about the threat to the ability of any outlet to publish true information in the public interest, anywhere in the world. The charges relate to 2010/2011 publications only: the diplomatic cables, guantanamo detainee assessment briefs, Iraq Rules of Engagement, and Iraq and Afghanistan war logs. The US’ overreach in jurisdiction is already being copied by other nations such as Russia. It’s the first amendment that’s under threat.

P.S. that Wikipedia article is full of disinformation. A New York judge actually threw out the case against WikiLeaks publishing DNC emails as it is 1st amendment protected news in the public interest. It revealed how the DNC rigged the primaries. The Podesta emails also revealed Clinton’s ‘pied piper’ strategy: she wanted to run against Trump, so got the media to boost coverage on him. She clearly underestimated him. Bernie could have won against him.

And the Wikipedia is completely unbiased impartial neutral and aaaalways accurate