@penguinprowler.bsky.social
You think about actors’ genitals?
January 19, 2026 at 11:57 PM
You think about actors’ genitals?
Dredge - Horror Fishing Game
En Garde! - Swashbuckler Action Game with highly interactive environments
Dishonored Franchise - Stealthy Immersive Sim that gives the player a myriad of ways to solve problems.
En Garde! - Swashbuckler Action Game with highly interactive environments
Dishonored Franchise - Stealthy Immersive Sim that gives the player a myriad of ways to solve problems.
January 4, 2026 at 4:34 PM
Dredge - Horror Fishing Game
En Garde! - Swashbuckler Action Game with highly interactive environments
Dishonored Franchise - Stealthy Immersive Sim that gives the player a myriad of ways to solve problems.
En Garde! - Swashbuckler Action Game with highly interactive environments
Dishonored Franchise - Stealthy Immersive Sim that gives the player a myriad of ways to solve problems.
Kat seems pretty genuine, and the article mentions that she’s consulting her lawyers on this, but I suspect the reasons that blending aid orgs and campaigns hasn’t already been done are more related to legal issues than Kat being a uniquely kind and charitable candidate.
December 27, 2025 at 12:20 PM
Kat seems pretty genuine, and the article mentions that she’s consulting her lawyers on this, but I suspect the reasons that blending aid orgs and campaigns hasn’t already been done are more related to legal issues than Kat being a uniquely kind and charitable candidate.
But more in the senses of “These practices can put someone on very shaky ground legally, where simple mistakes can fall afoul of legal requirements” and “these practices can open up avenues for corruption.”
December 27, 2025 at 12:15 PM
But more in the senses of “These practices can put someone on very shaky ground legally, where simple mistakes can fall afoul of legal requirements” and “these practices can open up avenues for corruption.”
To be clear, I (and I assume the person you’re replying to) don’t think it’s sketchy in the sense of “Kat is trying to circumvent campaign finance law for nefarious/bribery/embezzlement purposes.”
December 27, 2025 at 12:12 PM
To be clear, I (and I assume the person you’re replying to) don’t think it’s sketchy in the sense of “Kat is trying to circumvent campaign finance law for nefarious/bribery/embezzlement purposes.”
There is also potentially some issues around clarity of purpose of a donation. If a person donates to an organization that is dressing itself up as a mutual aid org, they may not realize they’re making a political donation, which might read as deceptive to some people.
December 27, 2025 at 12:10 PM
There is also potentially some issues around clarity of purpose of a donation. If a person donates to an organization that is dressing itself up as a mutual aid org, they may not realize they’re making a political donation, which might read as deceptive to some people.
On ways to raise funds, I would assume there are also legal issues there. It might potentially create two ways of donating to a candidate. So if someone wants to donate more than the legal limit to influence a candidate, they now have a second channel where they may do so.
December 27, 2025 at 12:07 PM
On ways to raise funds, I would assume there are also legal issues there. It might potentially create two ways of donating to a candidate. So if someone wants to donate more than the legal limit to influence a candidate, they now have a second channel where they may do so.
Additionally, there may be concerns about bribery. If a campaign is running a soup kitchen, and they have a person there asking people to register to vote, that could potentially be viewed as bribery, even if the aid provided is not contingent on registering to vote.
December 27, 2025 at 12:01 PM
Additionally, there may be concerns about bribery. If a campaign is running a soup kitchen, and they have a person there asking people to register to vote, that could potentially be viewed as bribery, even if the aid provided is not contingent on registering to vote.
On uses, I would guess there are things involved in mutual aid which fall outside the realm of legal campaign uses. Let’s say someone spends campaign funds on blankets for the homeless. It may be that blankets aren’t something you can spend campaign funds on.
December 27, 2025 at 11:56 AM
On uses, I would guess there are things involved in mutual aid which fall outside the realm of legal campaign uses. Let’s say someone spends campaign funds on blankets for the homeless. It may be that blankets aren’t something you can spend campaign funds on.
I’m not a lawyer or campaign staffer, but I would guess that the two main ways are that there are particular ways you are allowed use campaign funds, and that there are particular ways you are allowed to raise them.
December 27, 2025 at 11:51 AM
I’m not a lawyer or campaign staffer, but I would guess that the two main ways are that there are particular ways you are allowed use campaign funds, and that there are particular ways you are allowed to raise them.
As someone who is affected by the Trump admin's domestic policies, though, I do think a democratic admin would be more-than-marginally preferable to the Trump admin.
November 21, 2025 at 6:27 PM
As someone who is affected by the Trump admin's domestic policies, though, I do think a democratic admin would be more-than-marginally preferable to the Trump admin.
Based on other things you've said, I don't think your issue with OP's post is one of the scale of her preference. I also think your framing here connects "wokeness" to the atrocities happening in a way I don't think is true. They seem to be distinct and mostly unrelated.
November 21, 2025 at 6:26 PM
Based on other things you've said, I don't think your issue with OP's post is one of the scale of her preference. I also think your framing here connects "wokeness" to the atrocities happening in a way I don't think is true. They seem to be distinct and mostly unrelated.
Even with that framing, under the Biden administration, military strikes were substantially reduced, and Trump has substantially increased the numbers. Biden's numbers were still bad, but it does seem like there's a meaningful difference between Rs and Ds from that perspective.
November 21, 2025 at 6:19 PM
Even with that framing, under the Biden administration, military strikes were substantially reduced, and Trump has substantially increased the numbers. Biden's numbers were still bad, but it does seem like there's a meaningful difference between Rs and Ds from that perspective.
I wouldn't have a problem with the hypothetical meme I described above. Democrats' treatment of Palestinians *is* hypocritical and abhorrent. Democrats are still preferable to Republicans.
November 21, 2025 at 5:51 PM
I wouldn't have a problem with the hypothetical meme I described above. Democrats' treatment of Palestinians *is* hypocritical and abhorrent. Democrats are still preferable to Republicans.
It's directly comparing democrats and republicans. Which is why I interpret it as saying that the differences between the parties aren't meaningful.
November 21, 2025 at 5:48 PM
It's directly comparing democrats and republicans. Which is why I interpret it as saying that the differences between the parties aren't meaningful.
If it were about hypocrisy, I would expect some kind of contrast being made between Democrats' ostensible support for the rights of all persons, with some sort of "but not those ones" punchline/stinger. But this meme isn't contrasting democrats treatment of some groups with their treatment of others
November 21, 2025 at 5:48 PM
If it were about hypocrisy, I would expect some kind of contrast being made between Democrats' ostensible support for the rights of all persons, with some sort of "but not those ones" punchline/stinger. But this meme isn't contrasting democrats treatment of some groups with their treatment of others
I think we're interpreting the meme differently. It reads to me as saying that both parties are essentially the same, and that democrats' support for these issues is not meaningful or important. I interpret it that way because the images are literally identical, except for the decals on the plane.
November 21, 2025 at 5:44 PM
I think we're interpreting the meme differently. It reads to me as saying that both parties are essentially the same, and that democrats' support for these issues is not meaningful or important. I interpret it that way because the images are literally identical, except for the decals on the plane.
Believing that state of affairs A is preferable to a state of affairs B doesn't entail believing that state of affairs A is good.
November 21, 2025 at 5:29 PM
Believing that state of affairs A is preferable to a state of affairs B doesn't entail believing that state of affairs A is good.
That only makes sense if you read the OP as saying bombings are okay as long as the people doing them vocally support certain causes, but she doesn't seem to be saying that bombings are okay, only that support for those causes is meaningful and preferable to the alternative.
November 21, 2025 at 5:27 PM
That only makes sense if you read the OP as saying bombings are okay as long as the people doing them vocally support certain causes, but she doesn't seem to be saying that bombings are okay, only that support for those causes is meaningful and preferable to the alternative.
We can believe that the rights of LGBT people, black people, and trans people, while still finding the US's actions in the middle east and abroad abhorrent. The meme being discussed seems to say that the rights of LGBT people, black people, and women don't matter.
November 21, 2025 at 4:30 PM
We can believe that the rights of LGBT people, black people, and trans people, while still finding the US's actions in the middle east and abroad abhorrent. The meme being discussed seems to say that the rights of LGBT people, black people, and women don't matter.
Your post reads like it's replying to an entirely different post than the one above. How did the person you're replying to defend bombing, LGBT-branded or otherwise? How did she imply that she thinks people dying is nothing?
November 21, 2025 at 4:27 PM
Your post reads like it's replying to an entirely different post than the one above. How did the person you're replying to defend bombing, LGBT-branded or otherwise? How did she imply that she thinks people dying is nothing?
What are you identifying as "major fronts?"
November 21, 2025 at 3:58 PM
What are you identifying as "major fronts?"
I feel like I must be misunderstanding something. In what way are war crimes being pinkwashed? Like Dems supported providing weapons to Israel's genocide, and they also support LGBT rights, but these seem to be distinct and unrelated to me. What's the connection that makes the former pinkwashed?
November 21, 2025 at 3:52 PM
I feel like I must be misunderstanding something. In what way are war crimes being pinkwashed? Like Dems supported providing weapons to Israel's genocide, and they also support LGBT rights, but these seem to be distinct and unrelated to me. What's the connection that makes the former pinkwashed?
"it doesn't really matter what their other beliefs are" seems incompatible with "I voted blue no matter who" to me. If their other beliefs don't matter, what distinguished democrats from republicans such that you decided to vote democrat?
November 21, 2025 at 3:38 PM
"it doesn't really matter what their other beliefs are" seems incompatible with "I voted blue no matter who" to me. If their other beliefs don't matter, what distinguished democrats from republicans such that you decided to vote democrat?
We can acknowledge the US's role in the Palestinian genocide is abhorrent while also believing that some states of affairs, while still abhorrent, are better than others.
November 21, 2025 at 7:30 AM
We can acknowledge the US's role in the Palestinian genocide is abhorrent while also believing that some states of affairs, while still abhorrent, are better than others.