Here's a response to someone sharing the tweets above about "Aromantic is on a spectrum with a few replies.
View attachment 7829359
The user who replied brings up two good points. If asexual and aromantic are on a spectrum, how can they be definitive identities? Also, if asexual and aromantic are on a spectrum then shouldn't homosexuality also be on a spectrum? Lets say for example that a gay guy found 9/10 guys attractive but there were a few women who he thought were attractive, does that no longer make him gay if he found a few women sexually attractive? Some people would argue no and would claim that him finding a few women sexually attractive doesn't take away his homosexuality, but wouldn't the fact that he finds very few women attractive mean that he isn't 100% gay? If someone's lack of sexual/romantic attraction to someone can be put on a spectrum, why can't homosexuality also be put on a spectrum?
Here's a response to someone sharing the tweets above about "Aromantic is on a spectrum with a few replies.
View attachment 7829359
The user who replied brings up two good points. If asexual and aromantic are on a spectrum, how can they be definitive identities? Also, if asexual and aromantic are on a spectrum then shouldn't homosexuality also be on a spectrum? Lets say for example that a gay guy found 9/10 guys attractive but there were a few women who he thought were attractive, does that no longer make him gay if he found a few women sexually attractive? Some people would argue no and would claim that him finding a few women sexually attractive doesn't take away his homosexuality, but wouldn't the fact that he finds very few women attractive mean that he isn't 100% gay? If someone's lack of sexual/romantic attraction to someone can be put on a spectrum, why can't homosexuality also be put on a spectrum?
Here's a response to someone sharing the tweets above about "Aromantic is on a spectrum with a few replies.
View attachment 7829359
The user who replied brings up two good points. If asexual and aromantic are on a spectrum, how can they be definitive identities? Also, if asexual and aromantic are on a spectrum then shouldn't homosexuality also be on a spectrum? Lets say for example that a gay guy found 9/10 guys attractive but there were a few women who he thought were attractive, does that no longer make him gay if he found a few women sexually attractive? Some people would argue no and would claim that him finding a few women sexually attractive doesn't take away his homosexuality, but wouldn't the fact that he finds very few women attractive mean that he isn't 100% gay? If someone's lack of sexual/romantic attraction to someone can be put on a spectrum, why can't homosexuality also be put on a spectrum?
The issue here is that the sexuality/gender woo community is so divided, you'll get different answers to that question, similar to the transmedicalist crowd who believe surgery is required to count as transgender. Some people define sexuality as "who you do" but others go by self-identification. The former response would be that no, this man who find the occasional woman attractive would technically be bisexual but leans towards men, in the same way there are bisexuals who lean straight and want nothing to do with pride But other people would say that if he identifies as gay, he is gay, even if he fucks pussy once a month.
But asexual or aromantic isn't even the same as gay and straight, because there's no "in-between" label for people who can be attracted to men and women like bisexual. Instead of "do you like men, women, or both" it's "do you want to have sex with or fall in love with people or not." But you can technically have sex if you don't feel like it, be in a committed relationship that lost the romantic/sexual spark but choose to stay together, or can marry someone solely for the legal benefits, which muddles things more. The asexual/aromantic community wants to frame themselves as oppressed for not liking sex or falling in love and people who do have sex or romantic relationships are privileged, but then turn around and say asexuals/aromantics who do like sex or have an exception that they're in love with are still oppressed. This is just a spectrum and everyone is different. But if everyone have a different experience with these labels, how does that make you an identifiable oppressed class?
It's literally just postmodern identity politics and the sexuality equivalent of gender ideology.
Broderick is a truly manly name, dood. It has BRO in it, and I am now a MAN. I am so much a man, I have to assert it as much as possible, dood. I cannot use a normal male name, those sound weak and unmasculine, dood. If I had a normal male name, how would people know I'm a man, bro?
But asexual or aromantic isn't even the same as gay and straight, because there's no "in-between" label for people who can be attracted to men and women like bisexual.
I mean there is, it’s called “gray-asexual” and “gray-aromantic”, along with the “demi” identities. But those labels make the entire identification completely redundant and thus their argument for being oppressed comes off as even dumber. Literally no one is being actively oppressed for not being overly into sex or romance, but apparently merely pointing this out is considered outright bigotry in some circles. Being oppressed is a profoundly unpleasant experience, it’s not something people should desperately want to experience for the dumbest of reasons.
Some people define sexuality as "who you do" but others go by self-identification. The former response would be that no, this man who find the occasional woman attractive would technically be bisexual but leans towards men, in the same way there are bisexuals who lean straight and want nothing to do with pride But other people would say that if he identifies as gay, he is gay, even if he fucks pussy once a month.
This is once again proving that the TQ+ community has made things way more confusing with self identification. I saw posts where people were arguing that a woman who gets turned on by lesbian porn isn't gay and that she could be hetroromantic but homosexual because some were arguing that straight porn was boring. In fact one woman in a post stated that she doesn't see herself as a lesbian because she's still attracted to guys but can't see herself finding straight porn interesting. Some have argued that she could be bisexual but she said she never dated a girl before and wasn't interested in it. So then wtf is your sexuality then? How exactly can one be romantically into one sex but be sexually attracted to the other? Just say that you're bi by that point.
Literally no one is being actively oppressed for not being overly into sex or romance, but apparently merely pointing this out is considered outright bigotry in some circles. Being oppressed is a profoundly unpleasant experience, it’s not something people should desperately want to experience for the dumbest of reasons.
I remember when J.K Rowling came out and said asexual wasn't a real identity and people were screaming that she was committing genocide by denying their existence, and I'm thinking to myself "If this is what "discrimination" is to asexuals and aromantics then this is the least of their problems" Gay people back then and even now get executed for being gay and engaging in homosexual activity. Can these people give one example of someone getting killed for being asexual/aromantic? The only argument they could make is a woman being forced into a marriage she didn't want and getting killed for refusing sex to her husband. But here's the thing though, she was forced into a relationship with someone she didn't love. This doesn't prove that she was asexual/aromantic. The truth is that no one overall gives a fuck if you don't want sex or romance. Yes, there's assholes out there who will go "you haven't found the right person yet" but the government isn't going to force you into getting into relationships. Although some of these idiots on Reddit were actually claiming that Trump was going to force asexual/aromantics to be in relationships which was funny to see how desperate they are to be oppressed.
This is once again proving that the TQ+ community has made things way more confusing with self identification. I saw posts where people were arguing that a woman who gets turned on by lesbian porn isn't gay and that she could be hetroromantic but homosexual because some were arguing that straight porn was boring. In fact one woman in a post stated that she doesn't see herself as a lesbian because she's still attracted to guys but can't see herself finding straight porn interesting. Some have argued that she could be bisexual but she said she never dated a girl before and wasn't interested in it. So then wtf is your sexuality then? How exactly can one be romantically into one sex but be sexually attracted to the other? Just say that you're bi by that point.
Well yea they are just coping. Tumblr has so many of these people if you browse certain spaces you will run into so many of them, and it's always the same cope of them denying basic things/concepts. There's people there that are stuck in such echo chambers that they don't even realize obvious contradictions within the same sentence and when you point it out to them they lash out at you.
Trannies ruin everything they touch. I know Eric Cartman is an asshole, but God, please leave the poor children alone. On the brighter side, this is someone Cartman would make fun of, but yuck.
I knew this troon was going to go full pedo mode. She's been making her self inserts look alarmingly shorter and younger through time. I'm not saying "all short people = kids and those who fall in love with them = pedophiles," but the fact that the self-inserts have grown increasingly childish through time is what gets to me.
Why would you ship your tranny ass with Cartman? Even if he weren't an edgy, something-phobe bully, YOU, the person behind the sketchbook, are AN ADULT. And YOU MASQUERADE AS A CHILD just to jack off to him? That's predatory to the max.
IDGAF if she aged them up. She definitely had to have schlicked it to young Cartman first.
"Dudes with pussies aren't gay! I swear!" OK, then what are they? Straight women trying to be different? What is this? An admission to detransisitoning in the far future?
Sad waste of an awesome design. I thought it was a Helltaker character at first.
To make matters worse, she's obsessed with Darla Dimple and constantly makes these OCs based on that kid, but making them grown-ass adults acting so childishly, even for spoiled brats who are of age. And they look TOO CHILDLIKE, even when sexualized.
When Darla Dimple walks around and accidentally flashes her kiddie bloomers, it's not sexual - it's portrayed as a childish lack of awareness and further highlights how much of a stupid piece of shit brat she is. This person just has a tranny crossdressing fetish mixed with pedophilia.
Fuck. I respected how this artist made such whimsical, colorful characters despite the repetitive tropes and constant self-insertion, in addition to the skill with the marker and editing to make it look digital. But no! She had to make everything about her fucking self, degenerate into rape and incest fetish, delete all her older cool stuff, and now become full pedophile. It's just very, very sad.
Then who's constantly writing "Depression, AuDHD, Schizophrenia, BPD, Anxiety, FREE PALESTINE , Furry-therian-otherkin, ACAB, BLM, Transgender-nonbinary-gay-lesbian-genderfluid-aroace-bisexual-pansexual-queer , feminist , marxist, black-mexican-indian-muslim, communist, Fuck Trump and Elon, eat the rich, free healthcare and education, support Kamala" on their social media bios?
For a bit of context: Marina Agitando is a boss in the Side Order DLC. Its Marina brainwashed by her own creation which we snap her out of it after defeating her.
But, people like to treat that form as completely separate character and also ship her with regular Marina.
This is her being brought into the real world in a robot (since the DLC is like a virtual reality)
Honestly if my creator made me fat with stretch marks, I would kill them and then myself.
Here’s those other Pookawoods comics I mentioned with face-eating leopard Musk and Zuckerberg. I don’t really like either of them, but this shit is cringe.
I wanted to isolate this panel because it’s so fucking funny. Oh no, I’m so scared of the cute widdle animals that are using Bluesky instead of Facebook. Especially when, realistically, a leopard would slaughter all of them. Hell, leopard Zuck looks like he’s ten seconds away from doing just that in these last two panels.
And with that activism roles comic, every entry had someone asking “where are the rioters?” I can’t tell if they were being ironic or not, but there was eventually some cope.
, Furry-therian-otherkin, ACAB, BLM, Transgender-nonbinary-gay-lesbian-genderfluid-aroace-bisexual-pansexual-queer 
, feminist 
, marxist, black-mexican-indian-muslim, communist, Fuck Trump and Elon, eat the rich, free healthcare and education, support Kamala" on their social media bios?
