@jaroonn I wish I could say the same about your contribution to it. Unfortunately slinging an insult by implying that only people who live in trailer parks hold these views is neither inspiring nor discourse.
If your point is that you are more intelligent, civilized or sophisticated than us this seems like a strange way to demonstrate it.
@lololulu19 If you mean that accepting yourself as you are is essential to be at peace with yourself, I'm inclined to agree. I don't see how any good can come from rejecting the reality of your own physical being.
I wasn't able to identify him or the source, but...
Longer video of him jerking off
A small photoset (probably promo material)
That last one was posted in 2012 so that gives you some idea of when this production was made.
Enjoy!
Ironically that's almost right. It should be: "the climate change measures I promote with my virtue signaling are having a disproportionate impact on black communities". Since they're making everyone poorer and thus the poorest communities suffer the most...
The people we call "liberals" today simply write their own press releases. They select their words not based on what would be an accurate descriptor but based on how they want to be perceived. It's all about manipulating the population to go along with their agenda (i.e. propaganda). They're not even shy about it... Their "scholars" (read: ideologues) openly admit that such manipulation is not only excusable by the goodness of their goals, it's also incumbent on any "good person" to do this in order to help steer public opinion in the "right direction".
Just to name a few examples...
"Anti-racism" means racism (and anti-fascism means fascism).
"Gender-affirming care" means "mutilating and sterilizing vulnerable and confused people for profit".
"Welfare" means "we force you to hand over your money so we can redistribute it to those we deem more deserving", because who wouldn't want more welfare? (same goes for "social security")
"Diversity and inclusion" means "less white men and everyone must see things our way".
"Equity" means "discrimination based on immutable characteristics".
"Safe space" means "only those who agree with us are welcome".
"Personal truth" means "an uncontestable falsehood you refuse to stop believing in".
"Green" typically means "more harmful to the environment".
And so on... Nearly every buzzword they popularize is used to refer to pretty much the exact opposite of what the word actually means.
If you ask me it's inaccurate to view the group that today calls itself liberals as being the same group that used to fight for freedom, having since gone astray. It's actually the same close-minded group we used to call fascists/racists/intolerant/etc, they've just rebranded themselves to be more appealing. Or to put it another way: they hijacked the good reputation earned by old-school liberals to make themselves seem like the good guys. Not unlike how the modern trans movement piggybacked on the positive public image of the gay rights movement.
@blablarg18 That is indeed how I meant it, referring solely to the volume of posts. I probably should've chosen my words with more sensitivity but you know that's not how we do things. 
It makes sense for people to prefer the comfort of like-minded individuals over infuriating arguments, and I'm pretty sure that effect happens on both sides. I don't mean to imply that anyone is at fault for it. Seems natural for things to play out that way. But I also think it's something we should try to overcome or we might be doomed to live in this polarized clown world nightmare forever.
Lol... I'm pretty new here and I thought maybe I can find someone on the "other side" who's willing to have serious conversations about the things we disagree on. But it seems that ship has sailed and sunk.
@lololulu19 I would love to hear more about that. Do you think your friend has always been gay and is using the trans identity to ease through their own internal homophobia?
@Rapsey-0 That side track doesn't interest me. My point here is Google AI.
I respect that. I'll try to steer clear of it and limit my point as it pertains to the Google AI.
Libs 100% believe that their morality is a universal truth. That's why they feel it's justified to impose it on the rest of the world, for example by having AI parrot their views on what is good or evil. Doesn't matter what the topic is. Gender-confused children? Race-relations? History? The AI answer should always present their ideas on what is good and what is evil, because they see their moral views as "the truth" and everyone who has a different view is just wrong / stupid / evil.
If you don't like it when the libs use AI as a vehicle to spread their own morality (which they believe to be universal) then why would you want it to spread yours?
My personal wish for the future of AI is that it can be a source of factual information. I would prefer for it not to make any moral claims or judgements, even ones I agree with.
Necessary disclaimer: I 100% believe that anyone who participates in the sexual exploitation of children deserves the most severe punishment.
(Pedophilia is rape of the weak & innocent. Desire & action are different, BUT, even person who merely desires to rape the weak & innocent, is indeed evil - until they can acknowledge their desire as evil & reject it, ie. "repent".)
Interesting view. But is a person who rejects the desire and repents not still a pedophile? What would you consider sufficient rejection / repentance?
Thanks for sharing your perspective @jaroonn, I find it illuminating.
Since then, the Republican party was evolved from being the party of limited government, to an umbrella organization of various "conservative" "Christian" "right-wing" causes.
Is that not an inevitable thing that happens on both sides? In a two-party system it seems inevitable that each side comprises an alliance of voting blocs. The left seems just as much an amalgamation of strange bedfellows. Now you even have LGBTQ+ people standing shoulder to shoulder with people who believe homosexuality should carry the death penalty. 
I do agree that the GOP seems to have moved away from being the party of limited government, but I don't think that's because it has fractured into various right-wing subgroups. In fact, from what I've heard, the people in these subgroups almost unanimously want limited government. I think the problem here is that any organization that exists wants to keep existing (because the people in it don't want to lose their jobs). So the GOP doesn't want to shrink down even though that's what almost all republican voters want.
But leaving aside the motivations of party politicians (who look after their own interests) and the parties themselves (which change over the decades or centuries), there does seem to be some kind of ideological distinction. I've often wondered about this question: what fundamentally distinguishes the left from the right?
So far the two things I have found that appear to be constant across time and cultures are:
Is that latter point something you don't observe at all? I mean... Even the name itself, the "democrats", as if they are somehow more democratic than the opposition. Rather ironic when much of their agenda is explicitly anti-democratic (representing the interests of minorities rather than the interests of the democratic majority, and often at the expense thereof). But it works...
A few months ago a friend confessed to me that the older he got, the more right-leaning he became. He said that in the past he had always considered himself left-wing, because in his mind the left were the good guys and the right were the evil ones.
I asked him why he thought that, even though I already knew the answer, because I had recently asked myself that exact same question.
"Because that's what I was always told."
To me it seems clear that a lot of the support the left gets is not based on whether their arguments are sound, but rather on their public image being presented as "this is who you vote for if you're a good person".
Lol... I'm pretty new here and I thought maybe I can find someone on the "other side" who's willing to have serious conversations about the things we disagree on. But it seems that ship has sailed and sunk.
@lololulu19 If you mean that accepting yourself as you are is essential to be at peace with yourself, I'm inclined to agree. I don't see how any good can come from rejecting the reality of your own physical being.
Have you checked the trans category on GT? It seems to be getting regular uploads. You can leave the search box empty, just select that category only and hit search. The default sorting option will show you the most recent uploads first.
@jaroonn I was mocking the tendency of people on the left to idolize Obama. Could you please explain how this is disparaging and to whom?
I don't expect you to agree with how I would rate Obama's performance as president, or with my assessment of how he is regarded. But if you're going to suggest that I'm being derogatory then by all means, make your case.
Even without hormone medication that would be possible. Being on estrogen makes it far more likely but there could be other reasons. For example it could be that the trans person feels intense dysphoria about their own genitals, so to them it would ruin the experience to get them involved, even if they are fully functional.
@blittle I'm sorry, I wasn't really referring to transgender people. I don't want to scapegoat anyone either. This has already been more of a tangent than such a random thought warranted so I think I'll just leave it there before I dig myself a deeper hole.