Okay, yeah, dang, sorry that happened to you.

I got downvoted for mentioning that I was trans on a TRANS sub.

You know, it sounds like there's more to it than you're letting on if you got downvoted in a trans sub. Want to elaborate?

Okay, but that was out of cuckoldry, not out of gay. And it's not even healthy polyamory either; the power dynamics at worst make it rape and at best make it something that supernaturally transcends the concept of consent.

Oh, if that's what you're actually going for, then nah, I don't think so. The concept of a father and a stepfather as offensive to them seems like "own the libs" territory where "the libs" aren't really offended or annoyed and just kind of look at you like you're an idiot.

This feels like a fake shower argument transcribed into iMessage. Human beings don't argue like this.

Also, what kind of Gene Parmesan-ass name is "Enzo Panerabread'?

https://reductress.com/post/uh-oh-friend-clearly-not-the-victim-in-drama-being-described/

Not an oops! I just wanted to put it here for anyone else who was interested. Thanks for posting this; it's really funny. :)

For context, though, they were trying to sell new toys and give an in-universe explanation. It wasn't thoughtless, just severely miscalculated.

OP, this article is from October 2025. The story itself is from September.

For those OotL: PugJesus routinely picks up the slack when Grumpus doesn't provide context (seemingly never does, in fact). I approve this idea, but this is "be the change you wish to see in the world" incarnate.

You could have asked me to fill in the missing steps you're having trouble filling in...

Dude, come on, you say completely unsubstantiated bullshit on here all the time. It isn't their job to ask you to explore your stupid, baseless, bullshit claim.

(In fact, you can't see this right now because you've told me you've blocked me for debunking your paper-thin, vibes-based bullshit in the past. So I for example couldn't ask if I wanted. lmao)

This is a place where Rule 5 exists.

No, you don't get it: they're a Good Person.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Damn it. His mere exposure to these texts turned him into a child rapist. Another good one lost to the evil of the queers. This is why we need to ban these books, sheeple!!

Adding OpenRCT2, but I think most anyone who knows of OpenTTD knows of that.

A pair of pairs of scissors.

For what it's worth (I can call myself sort of a bootleg MTG biographer, having written a plurality of her Wikipedia article back in 2021):

• a) Yes, she's an idiot, but I don't think that's why she's abdicating the seat.
• b) She got into politics in the first place because of Trump. Trump's 2016 campaign is what motivated her, and between then and 2020, she spent her time e.g. posting white supremacist, Trumpian conspiracy theories on Facebook. Trump was her hero politcally, and she self-admits to not having been politically engaged at all prior to his first campaign. She more or less went into politics to help Trump uproot the "deep state", and now, probably in her mind, she's realized that Trump and his MAGA sycophants are the "deep state" – but then so are the Democrats to her. (Edit: I'd add that she was QAnon, which sees/saw Trump as a near-Christlike figure and the only one who could bring the "deep state" to justice.)
• c) I therefore think she's just fed up with participating in federal politics. She owns (or maybe owned? I never kept up) a CrossFit gym and does have other things to do with her time, and whereas I can tell you she's sincere and convicted in her beliefs, she's also totally ostracized from basically every direction, and man, I don't know what I'd have done in her shoes.
• d) Given the way she entered politics – a populist giving her trivial answers to immensely complicated problems – I can imagine this is just not what she wants to be dealing with. She wants an extreme binary of good and evil where the enemy is simultaneously strong and weak and that her hero is on the cusp of destroying the evil and just needs her help to push him over the finish line. What she'd be doing as an independent is wildly different from what she signed up to do.

this was the first photograph that didn't have the subject standing solemnly.

This is wildly incorrect. This is trivially debunked and would imply an over-60-year gap from the first confirmed photo of a person to the first one where someone's smiling in it.