Wait are they hosting HP or did they do something else? I just bought it for Succession

What’s ironic is that, although I’m not a Christian, I’m pretty sure I remember part of the Bible expressing pretty explicitly that Jesus had zero desire to rule over anyone, and I’m pretty sure (2x combo) it was implied that Christians shouldn’t either.

I can’t remember which part, but I think it was while Jesus was going somewhere and Satan kept trying to tempt him or something idk.

wretched cat fondler

That’s a banger

Dang, the one time I wanted to be on a list u_u

Apparently you didn’t make the list lol

How do I see the list? (Am working, can’t research)

What’s this show called? I keep seeing it around

Any day now…

me irl

I sense no malice behind those eyes, but I do sense chaos.

Sameeee :3

👍

…this can’t be real.

You’re pretty dead set on defending transphobia for an LBZ user

Lol

“Is this Hitler? That genocidal, racist, male, sexist, eugenicists, child murderer?”

Lol

AI coulda written a more thoughtful response

You’re flattening radically different kinds of language into the same moral category while ignoring the actual context of why they’re being said.

Yes, “grow a pair” is dismissive. I’m not pretending it’s some ultra-sensitive or compassionate phrase. It’s confrontational shorthand for “stop being cowardly and own what you’re saying.” But acting like that’s equivalent to transphobic rhetoric because both are “derisive” is an incredibly shallow way to analyze language.

Not all insults or harsh language function the same way socially, politically, or morally.

If I tell someone “grow a pair” because they’re dancing around defending bigotry while refusing to openly admit what they’re defending, I’m criticizing behavior: cowardice, evasiveness, intellectual dishonesty. Those are choices. They can stop doing those things literally whenever they want.

Transphobia targets people over an intrinsic aspect of identity. That’s not comparable to criticizing someone’s conduct in an argument.

That distinction matters.

You’re trying to collapse “language that hurts feelings” into one giant category where context supposedly disappears, but context is the entire point. A person saying “grow a pair” to someone defending prejudice is not functioning the same way as rhetoric that contributes to social hostility toward a marginalized group.

And honestly, this response feels more focused on tone-policing me than addressing the actual thing I was criticizing.

Because let’s be real here: I didn’t randomly walk up to somebody and say “grow a pair” for no reason. I said it specifically because someone was defending transphobia while trying to keep enough distance from it to avoid accountability.

That’s the behavior I was calling out.

You’re reframing the conversation into “well BOTH SIDES are using harmful rhetoric” because it’s easier than engaging with the substance of the criticism.

And your examples don’t really hold up under scrutiny either.

“Get a life,” “whatever,” “fuck off,” and “grow a pair” are not all interchangeable expressions with identical social weight or intent. Language exists on spectrums. Some phrases are dismissive. Some are hostile. Some are dehumanizing. Some reinforce systemic prejudice. Some are just rude.

Pretending they’re all equally harmful because they all contain negativity strips language of all nuance.

By your logic, criticizing literally anyone in a harsh tone becomes morally adjacent to bigotry as long as the target feels bad afterward.

That framework completely breaks down the moment you apply it consistently.

If someone says: “Stop being racist.” That’s confrontational.

If someone says: “Stop defending transphobia and own it.” That’s confrontational.

If someone says: “Grow a pair and admit what you actually believe.” That’s confrontational and insulting.

But none of those are equivalent to attacking someone for being trans.

You keep trying to move the focus from: “Is this person defending bigotry?” to: “Was the criticism phrased politely enough?”

Those are separate conversations.

You also seem to be treating emotional intensity itself as inherently suspect, as though expressing frustration toward prejudice is morally comparable to the prejudice itself. That’s a huge rhetorical sleight of hand people use constantly online.

Someone gets angry about racism, sexism, homophobia, or transphobia, and suddenly the conversation becomes: “Whoa dude, hostility isn’t productive.”

Meanwhile the original prejudice gets quietly deprioritized.

That dynamic protects the person engaging in or defending the prejudice far more often than it protects anyone else.

And your interpretation of “grow a pair” feels weirdly sanitized and over-literalized to avoid the obvious meaning in context.

Nobody genuinely thinks I was advising someone to physically “go punch trees” or perform acts of self-harm or whatever metaphorical expansion you’re trying to construct there. It’s a common expression meaning: “Stop being timid, evasive, or dishonest.”

You can criticize the phrase itself if you want. Fine. There are legitimate critiques of gendered language. But you’re trying to inflate it into something morally equivalent to discriminatory rhetoric by stretching the interpretation beyond how humans actually use language in ordinary conversation.

And the irony is that your argument unintentionally proves why context matters.

Because if someone sincerely told another person: “Kill yourself.” there’s an enormous difference between:

a cruel harassment campaign targeting a vulnerable person, and

two friends trash-talking each other in a video game lobby, and

someone making an obviously hyperbolic joke, and

someone expressing raw anger without literal intent.

The words alone are not the full moral analysis.

Intent, power dynamics, social context, target, and purpose all matter.

So when you remove all of that and reduce everything to: “Well this phrase was also mean…” you end up with a framework too simplistic to distinguish criticism from prejudice.

And honestly, the reason I said “grow a pair” specifically is because there’s a really common pattern online where people want to flirt with bigotry while maintaining plausible deniability.

They’ll defend transphobic statements. They’ll minimize transphobia. They’ll attack trans people indirectly. They’ll run interference for openly transphobic people.

But the moment they get called transphobic, suddenly they retreat into: “Whoa, why are you being so hostile?” or “I’m just asking questions.” or “Both sides are toxic.”

That’s cowardly behavior.

If someone genuinely believes trans people are delusional, harmful, invalid, or whatever else, then at least own the position openly instead of hiding behind endless semantic evasions and then acting victimized when people react negatively.

That’s what I was criticizing.

And to be clear, I’m not even saying harsh rhetoric is always optimal or persuasive. Sometimes it absolutely isn’t. Sometimes anger clouds communication. Sometimes insults derail productive dialogue. I can acknowledge that without pretending all rhetoric exists on the same moral plane.

A blunt insult directed at someone’s behavior is not equivalent to rhetoric targeting an entire marginalized class of people.

That’s the core distinction you keep trying to erase.

You also seem very focused on whether my wording was emotionally comfortable for the person I was criticizing, but not nearly as focused on the fact that they were defending rhetoric aimed at trans people in the first place.

That imbalance says a lot.

Because people often become hyper-sensitive to the tone used against prejudice while remaining strangely detached about the prejudice itself.

And that’s why “civility politics” so often becomes useless in these conversations. It creates a situation where the marginalized person or ally is expected to remain perfectly calm, perfectly patient, perfectly academic, perfectly polite, while the person defending harmful rhetoric gets endless charitable interpretation and emotional cushioning.

That standard is wildly uneven.

Again: if you want to say “grow a pair” is rude, sure. It is rude.

But rude does not automatically mean equally harmful. Confrontational does not automatically mean prejudiced. Insulting someone’s behavior does not automatically equal attacking an identity class.

Those distinctions matter if you actually care about analyzing rhetoric honestly instead of flattening everything into “negativity bad.”

And frankly, if someone is willing to defend transphobia publicly, they can probably survive being told to stop hiding behind euphemisms and own the position they’re defending.

Least inauthentic conservative ^

I didn’t even say their name, dude