FYI the value size pizza is almost always the largest one they have.

But defenders like you

Lol, I literally have never heard of the lady until this thread, but sure it’s me with an agenda.

With better reading comprehension instead of “man get real angry when word men used to describe things men do generally” even those quotes aren’t saying what you think they’re saying…and that’s with no attribution or sources so I don’t even know if they’re misquotes.

EDIT: Also you sidestepped your completely invalid claim that marital rape was illegal always because you argue in bad faith

All she’s saying is that she meant maritial sex is a form of violence because maritial rape was legal, which wasn’t even true.

She’s saying women cannot legally consent to sex in marriage when marital rape is legal. She wasn’t saying that all sex was violent, she was saying it was all not the “free act of a free woman” because wives were property of their husbands and could be legally raped even if they denied sexual consent.

Also, marital rape was fully legal in the entirety of the US until the 1970s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape_in_the_United_States

You seem to have a pretty loose grasp on the issues here. I get that you didn’t like the Barbie movie, but that all that means is that you didn’t like the Barbie movie.

Yep the best way to start a new moral panic is by recycling tired tropes from an older one (drug / weed panic of the 80s-90s).

Andrea Dworkin: No, I wasn’t saying that and I didn’t say that, then or ever. There is a long section in Right-Wing Women on intercourse in marriage. My point was that as long as the law allows statutory exemption for a husband from rape charges, no married woman has legal protection from rape. I also argued, based on a reading of our laws, that marriage mandated intercourse—it was compulsory, part of the marriage contract. Under the circumstances, I said, it was impossible to view sexual intercourse in marriage as the free act of a free woman. I said that when we look at sexual liberation and the law, we need to look not only at which sexual acts are forbidden, but which are compelled.

The whole issue of intercourse as this culture’s penultimate expression of male dominance became more and more interesting to me. In Intercourse I decided to approach the subject as a social practice, material reality. This may be my history, but I think the social explanation of the “all sex is rape” slander is different and probably simple. Most men and a good number of women experience sexual pleasure in inequality. Since the paradigm for sex has been one of conquest, possession, and violation, I think many men believe they need an unfair advantage, which at its extreme would be called rape. I don’t think they need it. I think both intercourse and sexual pleasure can and will survive equality.

It’s important to say, too, that the pornographers, especially Playboy, have published the “all sex is rape” slander repeatedly over the years, and it’s been taken up by others like Time who, when challenged, cannot cite a source in my work.

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/MoorcockInterview.html

Feminism suffers from being very broad.

Bah dum tiss 🥁

No

Really? I’m seeing a lot of <<headline about Trump>> with comments of “YEAH BUT BIDEN!”.

The textbook intro examples of the law of supply and demand aren’t even true in practice.

They’re all like “prices on ice cream will rise when it’s hotter out so there is more demand for it!” and I have never found that to be true at fucking all.

I really don’t care man, everyone on the Internet needs sources for things that are pretty commonly known like they don’t also have keyboards.

I honestly almost didn’t bother searching for you this time either. Each thread on the Internet isn’t the beginning of some scientific argument like a lot of randos seem to think. I used to care a little more before I realized just how worthless and stupid providing sourced claims was.

Now I know, you aren’t changing most people’s minds. They’ll still think masks don’t work, that covid is caused by 5g, that the world is flat, etc etc etc.

I’m happy to just know I’m right and whistle along and take the downvotes on the chin because it’s all worthless anyway.

Many claim to want evidence just to give you a homework assignment, and won’t be persuaded a single iota by it.

Thirty seconds of searching yielded this: https://www.delish.com/food-news/a44040735/are-restaurant-sodas-dirty/

man you guys live in some gross areas. im not sure a kid could even reach the nozle in places near me.

You tell yourself whatever you need to, but they’ve done studies and those nozzles were almost always covered in poop bacteria from the people using them, the people “cleaning” them or a combo.

Don’t care. Self serve machines are basically covered in diarrhea anyway. Everytime I awkwardly and semi-accidentally turn something into a combo I grimace as I use the taps some kid was just wiping their snot on.

Just getting over a brief cold which could’ve easily been caused by using a self-serve tea machine at a habit burger.

People stopped clicking on that.

Also:

Presenter: Can we hold all questions to the end, please? Thank you!

The end obviously never arrives.

Corporations are all about stepping over dollars to pick up pennies.

In one example of this, during one job interview / recruitment process I essentially had to do all of the background check company’s work for them.

That makes literally no sense at all, and I’m not surprised when there’s cases of people just pretending to be doctors or whatever for decades. The “doctors” probably verified their own employment history and credentials.

Looks like AI crap to me

I think you’ve (perhaps inadvertantly) hit the nail on the head by drawing a comparison to revolutionary groups. Even plagued by the encroaching mythology and rhetoric it’s easy to see why the same group of revolutionary boosters are today’s reactionary retrogrades:

In revolutionary times, monied interests and industry desired to evade England’s taxes, and today those same groups seek to continue perpetually evading the taxes of America’s government.

In other words, the rich fucks think they’ll be able to fair better under Trump as dictator than they would facing the occasional failed attempt at tax reform by Democrats.

The gravy seals are partially led by the nose by the exact same group of affluent pig fuckers as the minutemen and, in other cases, they aren’t being led as they simply are the same rich group.

Among the other elements present at the January 6th insurrection were sizable numbers of the American landlord class, some even chartering private flights to attend and participate.

The REALLY odd part about all of this, imho, is that the type of person who previously fought on the side of freedom, now is mislead to be acting on behalf of the oppressors.

I think there’s some American mythology causing you to see things this way. In short, the American revolution was fueled by Washington recruiting a lot of drunks and fuck ups, and after they won the war they wanted Washington to be king. Similar to Scotland and the movie Braveheart, the mythology has gotten so popular that people start to think the majority or even all of the fighting force was ideologically aligned to some idea of freedom and inalienable rights or something. It wasn’t.