dev
@shortfatotaku.bsky.social
no, because i have fucked women
June 24, 2025 at 2:24 AM
no, because i have fucked women
the difference, "all gays are actually just bi" is a false statement and "trans women are male" is a true one. they have similar forms, but the difference is in that being gay is not the same type of thing as being trans.
June 20, 2025 at 6:59 PM
the difference, "all gays are actually just bi" is a false statement and "trans women are male" is a true one. they have similar forms, but the difference is in that being gay is not the same type of thing as being trans.
i agree with all of this entirely - and yet trans women are still male. it feels wrong to them, it may even be disgusting or immoral to them, it's why they transition, to get away from as much of their maleness as they can - but some always remains.
June 20, 2025 at 6:08 PM
i agree with all of this entirely - and yet trans women are still male. it feels wrong to them, it may even be disgusting or immoral to them, it's why they transition, to get away from as much of their maleness as they can - but some always remains.
>if a guy buys your land
why did you agree to sell it, if it was yours, and you didn't want to sell it?
>you should be allowed to own your labor.
part of owning a thing is being able to sell it.
why did you agree to sell it, if it was yours, and you didn't want to sell it?
>you should be allowed to own your labor.
part of owning a thing is being able to sell it.
June 18, 2025 at 8:10 PM
>if a guy buys your land
why did you agree to sell it, if it was yours, and you didn't want to sell it?
>you should be allowed to own your labor.
part of owning a thing is being able to sell it.
why did you agree to sell it, if it was yours, and you didn't want to sell it?
>you should be allowed to own your labor.
part of owning a thing is being able to sell it.
i disagree with both of these definitions fundamentally, but they are both leftist definitions.
June 18, 2025 at 8:06 PM
i disagree with both of these definitions fundamentally, but they are both leftist definitions.
organization and management isn't doing nothing. even if your job isn't being an on-the-floor labourer at a factory, if you're the guy who makes sure that raw materials are getting to the factory on schedule, and shipping, and dealing with legal stuff, whatever, that's all real work.
June 18, 2025 at 8:05 PM
organization and management isn't doing nothing. even if your job isn't being an on-the-floor labourer at a factory, if you're the guy who makes sure that raw materials are getting to the factory on schedule, and shipping, and dealing with legal stuff, whatever, that's all real work.
another of the leftist definitions of personal/private is, property that is productive for sustenance vs for profit. if i farm a plot & grow enough food for my needs, it's personal. but if i grow excess food, even if i am the only one working the farm, it's private if i try to sell the excess.
June 18, 2025 at 8:03 PM
another of the leftist definitions of personal/private is, property that is productive for sustenance vs for profit. if i farm a plot & grow enough food for my needs, it's personal. but if i grow excess food, even if i am the only one working the farm, it's private if i try to sell the excess.
i assume you don't adhere to the liberal definition of personal/private (which means 'movable' and 'immovable' basically)
one of the leftist definitions of personal/private is, property that you work yourself vs property you own and don't work. ex: your tools vs the tools you give to your employee
one of the leftist definitions of personal/private is, property that you work yourself vs property you own and don't work. ex: your tools vs the tools you give to your employee
June 18, 2025 at 8:02 PM
i assume you don't adhere to the liberal definition of personal/private (which means 'movable' and 'immovable' basically)
one of the leftist definitions of personal/private is, property that you work yourself vs property you own and don't work. ex: your tools vs the tools you give to your employee
one of the leftist definitions of personal/private is, property that you work yourself vs property you own and don't work. ex: your tools vs the tools you give to your employee
the issue is the "not doing anything" part. organization and management IS labour, even if you're not directly working on a specific product.
June 18, 2025 at 7:59 PM
the issue is the "not doing anything" part. organization and management IS labour, even if you're not directly working on a specific product.
I do. I know several definitions of the split in fact.
Like I told you - if i owned stuff, you would collectivize it, and you would violate my individual liberties to do so. both socialists and fascists place "the common good" above the rights of the individual.
Like I told you - if i owned stuff, you would collectivize it, and you would violate my individual liberties to do so. both socialists and fascists place "the common good" above the rights of the individual.
June 18, 2025 at 7:58 PM
I do. I know several definitions of the split in fact.
Like I told you - if i owned stuff, you would collectivize it, and you would violate my individual liberties to do so. both socialists and fascists place "the common good" above the rights of the individual.
Like I told you - if i owned stuff, you would collectivize it, and you would violate my individual liberties to do so. both socialists and fascists place "the common good" above the rights of the individual.
True. Which isn't liberal whatsoever, since liberals are big fans of private property, minimal government intervention, and free trade.
it's almost like boiling everything down to "capitalism (bad evil stinky)" and "socialism (good moral cute) is really fucking dumb.
it's almost like boiling everything down to "capitalism (bad evil stinky)" and "socialism (good moral cute) is really fucking dumb.
June 18, 2025 at 7:57 PM
True. Which isn't liberal whatsoever, since liberals are big fans of private property, minimal government intervention, and free trade.
it's almost like boiling everything down to "capitalism (bad evil stinky)" and "socialism (good moral cute) is really fucking dumb.
it's almost like boiling everything down to "capitalism (bad evil stinky)" and "socialism (good moral cute) is really fucking dumb.
i'm describing the fascists and socialists teaming up to lead a revolution against the liberals, and after the liberals were toppled, the fascists backstabbed the socialists because of course they would.
imagine thinking the liberals are the problem in this scenario.
imagine thinking the liberals are the problem in this scenario.
June 18, 2025 at 7:55 PM
i'm describing the fascists and socialists teaming up to lead a revolution against the liberals, and after the liberals were toppled, the fascists backstabbed the socialists because of course they would.
imagine thinking the liberals are the problem in this scenario.
imagine thinking the liberals are the problem in this scenario.
No woman, cis or trans, would ever win again lol
June 18, 2025 at 7:54 PM
No woman, cis or trans, would ever win again lol
it turns out it did not take all that much coaxing for you to admit it. So yes, you share suppression of individual rights with the fascists, glad we agree.
June 18, 2025 at 7:54 PM
it turns out it did not take all that much coaxing for you to admit it. So yes, you share suppression of individual rights with the fascists, glad we agree.
Lol, you're making my points for me. Maybe you'll see where this goes!
June 18, 2025 at 7:53 PM
Lol, you're making my points for me. Maybe you'll see where this goes!
Not exactly. While it's true that the revolution failed, and that the socialists didn't support them, what's not true is that it would have succeeded had the socialists supported them.
June 18, 2025 at 7:52 PM
Not exactly. While it's true that the revolution failed, and that the socialists didn't support them, what's not true is that it would have succeeded had the socialists supported them.
>capital made the real alliance with fascism to crush the left.
unfortunately... no. if you think the fascists loved capitalism, you're also wrong about this one too. they saw it as a tool to subvert and exploit, but they were not themselves interested in capitalist principles.
unfortunately... no. if you think the fascists loved capitalism, you're also wrong about this one too. they saw it as a tool to subvert and exploit, but they were not themselves interested in capitalist principles.
June 18, 2025 at 7:50 PM
>capital made the real alliance with fascism to crush the left.
unfortunately... no. if you think the fascists loved capitalism, you're also wrong about this one too. they saw it as a tool to subvert and exploit, but they were not themselves interested in capitalist principles.
unfortunately... no. if you think the fascists loved capitalism, you're also wrong about this one too. they saw it as a tool to subvert and exploit, but they were not themselves interested in capitalist principles.