Naturally, objectifying women is the best example you could argue againt socialism with?

Clippy coding! Newer coders won’t get the reference, older coders can hold it with the same scorn.

Nations are made of people, that make local gov, that make state govs. We need to change the smallest part that makes up the rest of the machine before you can “fix” the 2 party system.

Everyone keeps taking about the DNC like it is some colossus. We can either change it to our liking or make our own, but either way it starts by changing the smallest parts first.

It’s pretty easy to find, but JK Rowling is a TERF. She actively contributes money to anti-Trans efforts and is unapologetic about any of it.

https://ferauoft.medium.com/j-k-rowling-and-the-slippery-slope-of-terf-bigotry-67f8be6aa656

Here’s an article from a ways back.

Do you understand how far orbits are in general? We have satellites in orbit around earth at varying distances based on what service those satellites provide. Some of those orbits are 22,000 mi above earth, which is a super popular orbit distance.

I would still consider these things as part of earth because it’s a physical feature of earth. Same with the moon. In astronomical terms, getting within several thousand miles of a thing, is entering the physical space of that thing.

I’d compare it more to going to the 820 loop around Fort Worth. You’re not in Fort Worth, but if you lived in New Mexico and we’re going to a small town outside Fort Worth, you might still tell people that you’re headed to Fort Worth.

I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or not, but that’s part of the problem. They complain a lot but refuse to either fix their own baggage that makes them unattractive or refuse to lower their own standards… It’s EXACTLY like someone complaining about not finding a job, while not applying.

As I said before, semantics. I’m on your side. I agree that the Dems are hardly any better than the GOP. The 2 party system is trash, and we need actual progress instead of folks just keeping things the way they are.

Care to expand? Maybe read Rules For Radicals and you can tell me why I’m wrong.

That is semantics friend. You’re describing semantics. We disagree on the meaning of a word, because colloquially it means one thing while it means something else in other definitions.

Also your analogy is bad. You’re describing a generalization or the formation of a stereotype.

Correcting language IS NOT how you correct ideas. You correct ideas by making people experience a difference in emotion.

Agreed. People are trying so hard to be correct that they don’t want to be on the same side, they’d rather pick a flight.

Still missing my point. I agree with your stance wholeheartedly. It’s a semantics problem. The point of communication is to get an idea across, and you’re hard stuck on this pictures usage of the word liberal.

I don’t know if you’re not from the US, but I am, and what I’ve described is how that word is interpreted in the US.

Looks like my comment went over your head. You are exactly what I’m talking about.

I understand your point, but it’s pedantic either way.

Count on the Internet to bring out the pedantic comments. “Liberal” is the word used to describe pretty much anything on the “Left” in the USA.

Keep making your divisive posts about the “Liberals” vs the “Left” though. Trying to make sure you aren’t boxed in with any other “Left” pointing groups will definitely help bring people together to change the current state of things…