When I say running around in circles I meant it feels like I try to say something...
Example:
Me: I think Martin Luther King Jr. wants everyone to judge everyone by their character, not by skin color.
The other person (L): Well that’s not inclusive enough, he didn’t say anything about gender, sexual orientation, identify, etc.
Me: well no, I believe in his speech he meant...
A second person (L2): Also he didn’t bring up people with disabilities or of various religions, he was obviously Christian.
Me: may I speak?
Persons (L1 and L2): sure not like you’re actually gonna change our mind about this.
Me: I think MLKjr. Meant judge someone on their character, how that person or persons interact with others, and by not judge them based by skin, skin could mean the shell or clothes your character wears... the first impression people get from you until you talk and slowly get to know them. For a trans woman they would wear make-up and feminine clothes, and when they interact with someone else the other person learns more about their character. Just because MLKjr. Didn’t say in words LBGTQ+ what he did say could be interpreted and put into perspective that it could mean that as well.
The sad thing, even if I said that, those two would go back demanding that he should’ve said those words exactly instead of it being read in between the lines.
That was only an example of I had to deal with at school. When it comes to politics; I try to stay out of it mostly. It’s too much of a hassle. Too many people are killed just because they wear a red hat and the red hat could have basspro logo on it, the fact was it was red, and the current president uses red on his MAGA hats. So these people who wear just a stupid “red” baseball cap that has nothing to do with MAGA are killed in broad daylight and no one says anything. It’s gotten out of control.
Killing some guy who wears Red that has nothing to do with the president terrifies me, I only own a red jacket for winter, what if someone tries to kill me even though I don’t support anyone. When it come to politics, I feel like my opinions or vote doesn’t count either way... also my mom was the one who signed the witness signature and she died so oh well.
I really miss the days when people could have differing views and we still had somewhat mutual respect for each other, now it’s a death wish and To be constantly tip toeing through a minefield of what won’t trigger the person I am trying to be friend. For me, I don’t have a filter, I’m as dense as they come, my humor is dark and stereotypical, I have difficulty reading the room, and I’m severely sexist to either women or men... (btw: I am a woman). So it’s difficult for me to make friends, aquatinces, etc. I miss the days where we had the ability to laugh at ourselves.
Anyway, it would be nice when we don’t have to take a differing opinion and suddenly make it into a war zone.
With feminism and veganism it feels like if I, a female, enjoy eating a good steak and want to be skinny and be able to wear nicer clothes, I am anti-woman and hate animals. I don’t hate animals; I just want to be able to eat good food without being forced to eat soy products and plant-based meats. When it comes to loosing weight, I just want to look at my reflection and be able to see the me I always wanted to be. I don’t like seeing myself big, I want to be smaller, thinner, and not have trouble going up stairs as if I am climbing a mountain. My lungs are constricted because of the fat on my chest. So I have to breath more times just to go two feet. Body-positivity isn’t meant for me personally, which somehow that is part of feminism... along with allowing my body hair to grow all over my body... for some women might be okay with looking like that, for me I feel gross having hair everywhere except where it’s meant to be: ON MY SCALP!
Why my appearance has to be political is beyond me. If I wear makeup it’s supporting societies standard of beauty... if I shave... it’s supporting men’s standard’s for what they want women to think is beautiful... look I don’t care honestly, and from many interactions with guys; they care more about their football games, video games, or whatever to care about if a girl shaved every last hair on their leg. (Anyway I wax, I don’t shave... waxing makes the hair take longer to grow back and the more you do it the lighter the hair becomes until it no longer grows at all.) And that’s just one of the feminists complaints, others are manspainling... that is just... (put word here).
If a man and a woman argue in a debate, it’s sexist for the man to argue the woman in the “Debate” because the woman wins by default because of she’s a “Woman.”
If this is a thing when it comes to politics, then it should be either be all men or all women... really no winning here. Why can’t we act like adults, Back then we did?
Now, it’s if you don’t think how I think, you’re racist, sexist, bigoted, ____phobic, etc.
No one is able to laugh at themselves anymore, no one can make jokes because it’s deemed offensive because it hurt someone’s feelings. Sarcasm is now offensive, toilet signs are offensive, pink and blue are offensive, logic is offensive, rationality is offensive, reason is offensive, and I can go on. Please, can we go back to when we could be human, people say stupid things that could hurt your feelings, people do stupid things too, people have differing views yet everyone here demonizes them for it. We are not a hive-mind, we are individuals with differing opinions and view points, stop expecting me and others to change what we think to match what you think.
Anyway, making everything political is going to make people go insane, going to tear apart families, and destroy civilizations.
About the Creator
When Harry Reid Went Nuclear
In November 2013, a quiet but historic shift took place on the floor of the United States Senate. It did not involve explosions, foreign conflict, or dramatic speeches delivered to roaring crowds. Instead, it involved procedure—an often-overlooked but powerful force in American politics. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made a decision that would permanently change how the Senate operates. This moment came to be known as the day Harry Reid “went nuclear.” To understand why this mattered, it helps to first understand how the Senate traditionally worked. The Filibuster and Senate Tradition For decades, the U.S. Senate prided itself on being the chamber of extended debate. Unlike the House of Representatives, the Senate allowed unlimited discussion on most issues. This tradition gave rise to the filibuster, a tactic that allows a minority of senators to delay or block a vote by refusing to end debate. To stop a filibuster, the Senate needs to invoke cloture, which historically required 60 votes. This supermajority rule was meant to encourage compromise and protect minority voices. In theory, it slowed down extreme legislation. In practice, it increasingly became a tool for gridlock. By the early 2010s, the filibuster was no longer rare. It had become routine. A Senate Stuck in Neutral When Barack Obama entered his second term as president, Democrats controlled the Senate, but Republicans used the filibuster to block many of Obama’s nominees. These were not just cabinet-level officials. Judicial nominees, including those for federal appeals courts, were routinely stalled. Harry Reid, a seasoned senator from Nevada, watched as vacancies piled up. Courts were understaffed. Executive agencies struggled to function. Reid argued that this level of obstruction went beyond legitimate opposition and threatened the government’s ability to operate. Republicans countered that the filibuster was a vital check on majority power. To them, Democrats were simply frustrated that they could not push nominees through without resistance. The tension reached a breaking point in November 2013. The Nuclear Option Explained The “nuclear option” is not an official Senate rule. It is a procedural maneuver that allows the Senate to reinterpret its rules by a simple majority vote, bypassing the usual 60-vote requirement. On November 21, 2013, Harry Reid used this option to eliminate the filibuster for most presidential nominations. From that day forward, executive branch nominees and federal judicial nominees—except for Supreme Court justices—could be confirmed with a simple majority of 51 votes. It was a dramatic move. Many senators, including some Democrats, warned that it would weaken the Senate’s unique role. Reid himself had previously opposed the nuclear option. But in that moment, he argued that extraordinary obstruction required extraordinary action. Immediate Reactions and Fallout The reaction was swift and intense. Democrats praised the move as necessary and overdue. They argued that elections should have consequences and that a president deserved to staff his administration and the courts. To them, the Senate had become dysfunctional, and Reid’s decision restored basic governance. Republicans were furious. They accused Reid of breaking the Senate and destroying a tradition that had stood for over a century. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell warned that Democrats would regret the decision when they were no longer in power. That warning would later prove prophetic. Long-Term Consequences At first, the impact seemed limited. President Obama was able to fill judicial vacancies, including seats on the powerful D.C. Circuit Court. The executive branch regained momentum. But the precedent had been set. In 2017, when Republicans gained control of the Senate and Donald Trump became president, they expanded the nuclear option. This time, it was applied to Supreme Court nominations, allowing Justice Neil Gorsuch to be confirmed with a simple majority. What began as a targeted procedural fix became a fundamental shift in how power is exercised in the Senate. Was It a Mistake or a Necessity? Whether Harry Reid’s decision was right or wrong depends largely on perspective. Supporters argue that the Senate was already broken. They point out that the filibuster was being used more than ever before, not to encourage debate but to block routine governance. From this view, Reid did not break the system—he exposed how fragile it had already become. Critics argue that Reid accelerated the Senate’s decline. By removing the incentive for compromise, they say, the nuclear option turned the Senate into a body that increasingly resembles the House, driven by narrow majorities and partisan swings. Both arguments carry weight, which is why the moment remains so controversial. A Defining Legacy Harry Reid retired from the Senate in 2017 and passed away in 2021. Among his many accomplishments, the nuclear option stands out as one of the most consequential. It reshaped judicial confirmations, altered the balance of power between parties, and changed how future majorities would govern. More importantly, it forced Americans to confront a difficult question: how much tradition should be preserved when it no longer serves its intended purpose?
By Saboor Brohi about 4 hours ago in The Swamp
Ludacris and Nelly draw backlash over bookings at MAGA-coded music festival
Ludacris and Nelly headlining a mostly right-wing event is good for them. It’s also great for the genre of hip hop. The two rap veterans have showcased their talents on other stages. Why can’t they perform for mostly MAGA folks and grab that bag?
By Skyler Saunders3 days ago in Beat
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.