a lolcow is obviously a bad and harmful thing but studying weird people online is a wonderful and soul enriching experience. but if u treat the fun of it as a product and engage with them to get more of this product, if youre "milking" the "lolcow", youre fucked. youre going down the path of darkness. it needs to be aetherial and loose. the better alternative is looking at lolbirds instead which is quite beautiful cuz, like birdwatching, its a process where u do not enact power and force over ur subject to make it show u what u want, you just let them naturally come by and show off their plumage (10000 near identically composed deviantart illustrations of different kids show character crying while getting knead into dough and baked[this happened in a single episode of a show the artist saw when they were 4]) and then u maybe show some of ur favorite feathers of theirs to your close group of friends and then let them pass on with the wind and u keep them as a sweet memory ❤

The Muran Hordes I

Following on from: https://plus.google.com/114999809330885155321/posts/cXHoqpEPMYy (archive[dot]fo[slash]PN6WJ)

@marshax-marshmallow

I’ve said this before, ill say this again. On my Tumblr, or nowhere. I will address your points there, since it’s a place i’m active on and the formatting is better for me to debate things.

Sorry, did you forget something? Your old 'this is the internet' excuse? As I've said before, I don't give a fuck about where it happens. And since you bill yourself as being so 'controversial' and partisan in the particular way that any reactionary does, you are a fucking weakling by your own standards. Don't tell me that I don't know about the pride that contrarian reactionaries have when invading new spaces of discussion and spaces of thought: it's happened to liberal talking points (even in academic circles: is Peter Singer not an example of someone who is dangerously close to biological reductionism, the kernel of racism?); it's happened to 4chan (/pol/ was filled with Swarmfront shills); it's happened to YouTube with the rise of the 'skeptics' who have accelerated rightwards. So okay, LET'S FUCKING SEE HOW YOU LIKE IT. I’ll turn up in both places just so you don’t run away from what I’m saying.

Remember, though: you don't go to see reality; it comes out of nowhere and gives you a punch in the face - so don't cry about how you've got a nosebleed in this metaphorical sense. It is just like how I had completely forgotten that you were on G+. But here I am, dealing with you anyway.

People who are reading Birdie’s G+ most often aren’t here to read some rando’s papers on Marxism and Sexual freedom, and I bet Sophia doesn’t want these things spamming her notifications. My blog is where I express those kinds of things, some people read it, either out of hate or genuine interest. I agree that you want discussion and I want too, and thats why i’m saying we should take this somewhere its most likely to happen.

All you're telling me is that people don't want my walls but that says NOTHING about what they contain. Who's the fucking contrarian now, Marsha? Huh? Who's on the side of what you - and if you're right about them, all the others - want to repress? Again, so much for being so radical.

I know that this is not a dedicated thread in any sense besides the fact that I have set many of the topics but I don't care because I am here, right now, discussing this. If you really want discussion, you'll do it here with me right now. I can fuck off to Tumblr, yes, but you should know EXACTLY why I continue on G+.

You want to go into my pathologies? Fine, I'm one step ahead of you. I also do this right here because people are obviously going to see how ridiculous I seem. I mean, what the fuck? I'm posting small essays in several comment threads underneath posts which are associated with some pubescent lolcow's pathetic attempts at being funny, edgy and critical. Of course I'm going to seem like I'm a mug. THAT IS THE POINT. But you can't get rid of people like me and what I'm saying: I know that it will haunt all of you. I want you to go further and fill in what I haven't. You don't like my calls to discuss because you want 'fun' in your online bubble, but the very reasoning behind why something is 'fun' isn't a settled matter and I will confront you on that.

After all, even if I balloon into a major lolcow (if I'm not already one!), I know what might happen. Some of the users refer to some lolcows as 'cultcows' because they gain a cult-like following from their particular stalkers and trolls. You know being a cultcow can be turned to one's advantage with some major sacrifices, right? Like how Chris-Chan retains their fame? I have the pathology of a sort of 'sacrificial catalyst'; that is why I stay here. Not quite a martyr (so you won't see me getting the equivalent of '72 virgins' any time soon; I have much better things to do than submit to a disgusting cult and waste everything that I have), but far more willing to do something for what I believe in than cowardly little you. I have so many kinks to work out and numerous torturous self-imposed programmes to go through. I don't want any of your fucking guilt, but I can turn your own pathologies against you and watch you cry as I exceed your ability by your own standards. So go on, fucking outdo me. Have a great time. Make it a special occasion. ‘Controversial’ my arse.

So please, take your arguments there or stop talking to me, cause I won’t answer. Hell, you can even copy paste what you’ve said here so we can continue, but please. You dont even need to use your account afterwards.

You think I don’t know how this works? You’ll set your sex-obsessed friends on me and when you have no arguments left, you’ll spam the fuck out of me and then introduce me to all sorts of horrible people who’ll do their best to shut me down. I don’t even care any more to some extent. Prove me wrong, I dare you.

But of course, now that I’m here, you’re gonna have to actually tackle my earlier points. You don’t get to run away from those, either. And if you do get your friends involved, neither do they get to run.

Earlier posts from the G+ thread (first post first):

@marshax-marshmallow​ :

im glad you're finally standing for what you believe in, birdo everyone in this goddamn community thinks all dark humor makes terrible things look cool but it couldn't be farther from the truth, if you dont actually believe in what youre saying and treat everyone with respect, you're fine. also, if you have a rape fetish that's okay too, because as long as everything is in your head, you're not harming anyone. rape is a fetish because it's taboo, and if you think all rape fetishists think rape is okay in real life you are so terribly wrong. i cant express how proud i am of you

@explodingdisgust​ :

WELL, WELL, WELL. If it's not the contrarian little shit that I've been monitoring for the last few weeks. I've seen what you do and I've archived your precious Tumblr; do you think you can get away from your bullshit? Not when I'm around. "everyone in this goddamn community thinks all dark humor makes terrible things look cool but it couldn't be farther from the truth" Their sensitivities and lack of appreciation for the critical part of your contrarianism is not an excuse for the rest of your contrarianism to be upheld. You have made a serious position out of the 'opposite' of common Western-liberal-enlightenment values of 'decency'. I've seen your at-least-ironic racism in the first few pages of your Tumblr and I wonder whether you've changed at all. Of course, I remain quite pessimistic about that considering your 'innocent' and nonchalant response to RibChills telling you to stop sexualising her fursona. These fuckers throw the baby out with the disgusting bathwater whereas you cling onto both. I'll get to your excuses soon enough; don't think that I won't utterly demolish your entire worldview. "if you dont actually believe in what youre saying and treat everyone with respect, you're fine." Right, because respect is reducible to maintaining standards of decency while maintaining fetishes and horrific pathologies in one's own private space? And where did such ideas for such thoughts, pathologies and fetishes come from? You will tell me that it is 'human nature', that it is innate, but no biological structure (including the brain) can account for the limitless quantities and qualities of thoughts that we could possibly have. In fact, if you were to say that you were actually and inevitably controlled by brain chemicals or anything else that isn't you as a rational individual, then this idea of what you've said would be owed to such chemicals - but there is no proof that the brain structures or anything else that isn't at the level of reason itself can account for it and has simply been left hiding for all these thousands of years that human thought has been changing for.   ANY FETISH IS ABOUT REASON ALONE, and the particular manifestation of this one is contrarianism - a love of what one is denied by those who follow and construct the most dominant values in societies. But because reason is intersubjective and comes from other subjects - after all, no ideas are innate, they are all communicated otherwise right now we would be able to understand the greats of philosophy in our toddler years - it cannot be something that's simply private. It can get into the 'private' domain and it can run out - ideology is reproduced memetically by us as rational subjects. Everything becomes framed in terms of rape or whatever fetishes become dominant. Rape becomes accepted and eventually it seems inevitable (just like capitalism) to the extent that it would be easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of that social phenomenon. But if people 'accept' the conditions of hypersexuality which come with the rape fetish, this is not necessarily a free choice because they are in the chains of what is socially-expected of them. Even though we are not conclusively-determined by our biology or by the laws of atomic physics, we ARE determined by movements in the social field which we too determine. The social field is inescapable and all-encompassing for rational beings (in our time, humans)! I advise you to read the works of Lacan and other psychoanalysts in matters like these. ALL of your empirical evidence about 'rape fetishists being decent people' or whatever's relevant that you want to prove only impresses those who uncritically accept the bourgeois-liberal idea of the split between the public and 'private' domains. Again, as I have shown, there is no such split. This is known to Marxists, who understand that we are not reducible to 'individuals and families' as Margaret Thatcher was an idiot to suggest. At the very least, a particular fetish is the dark reflection of the society in which one is brought up - and we are indeed brought up in a society where postmodern contrarians - neo-reactionaries and fascists of all stripes, 'progressive' or not - are in a frenzy of rebellion against ageing and self-destructive liberal values. Their solution is your solution: the uncritical acceptance of the simple negative of the old values. 'Sex is only a bit of fun, like you say, but we should embrace that instead of being all serious like you say!' And so it is with outright racism, sexism, all sorts of other things. You and the other cunts are the flies who buzz in the face of the old liberals - you are at war with yourselves over which of your identities can win out (e.g. Tumblr 'SJWs' and 'neo-Nazis' from 8chan would have serious disagreements over which groups' identities matter the most but they agree with the basic premises of a general segregationism; they feel that people are intrinsically hard-wired to behave in certain ways, for example). The paradox is that this is a very serious position for you. Yes, contrarianism is a conversion of an initial critical reaction to a  given set standards into another standard position which is the simple negative of the old one. You put all your weight behind supporting 'what exists and should not exist' instead of changing the field entirely and being too contrarian for your own contrarianism. Liberals cede political ground to such identity politics because they are forced to defend free speech and uphold the domain of the 'private', which is part of the excuse that the new reactionaries use against them. But you are not reading the words of a liberal here, Marsha. I AM A PROUD AND PARTISAN MARXIST and I am not afraid to hold you or anyone else responsible for what you say as a rational subject. I seek to qualitatively-change standards, taking the best from everything in a similar way to Lacan's borrowing from other philosophers. I know that 'standing on the shoulders of giants' is what we need to do rather than 'forget everything and go full reverse gear'. This is infinitely more horrifying for you than the old conservative 'get it out of my face' mentality: I HAVE FOUND REASON TO BE BORED OF CONTRARIAN FETISHES, EVEN THE CRITICAL DIMENSION THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE. The upshot is that you are throwing VERY DANGEROUS IDEAS into childrens' minds, stripping the ideas of all critical content that they might have while branding whatever remains as hip, contrarian and critical. You want people to accept what they are trying to repress and embrace it as if it won't do anything. Sorry, Marsha. IT FUCKING WELL WILL, and you know it. Go and fuck right off from this place or be ready for another wall of text. You're not going to get away without someone shattering your excuses one-by-one. I guess it's just the internet, huh?

@marshax-marshmallow :

can you speak common english? I understood half of what you said because you feel the need to constantly bring up the Big Boy Political Labels instead of calling things for what they are, not to mention the 'holier than thou' language you parade. No, me defending free thought isn't "a spit in the face of the old western liberal contrarian ideals" or whatever and you being a PROUD, PRO LACAN AND PARTISAN MARXIST has nothing to do with any of this. Cut that bullshit, go straight to the point. And if you want people to engage in your debate, make it easy and precise for them to understand, especially since this is *Birdie's Google+* Do that, on my tumblr, and i'll try to debate with you. But I doubt you could do that without getting off your high horse

@marshax-marshmallow :

+RainbowDashie Artist Wikipedia doesn't bring up unrelated issues and neither does it use long and eloquent speech redundantly

@explodingdisgust :

So because people have NO FUCKING CLUE as to how to use dictionaries, literature and videos, I'm going to have to fucking explain everything all over again. Fucking shoot me, I do not like doing this but I consider myself ethically-bound to do so not only because I am a Marxist but because I have to try to give a bunch of kids a critical leg-up, as it were. But I will remain here to remind you that your arguments ARE DEAD and there are no two ways about it. "can you speak common english? I understood half of what you said" Right, because you can't even use one of those dictionaries that's been written by liberals let alone confront the vast tomes of thought that I am currently studying. And of course, you can't even be bothered to tell me what it is about my post that you don't understand - your only hint is that you're unfamiliar with the terminology. To everyone who isn't mentally-handicapped or a bourgeois ideologue - this is precisely the laziness of the neo-fascists! If you're serious about your position, why the fuck aren't you gonna make a much harder and more detailed defence of it? "because you feel the need to constantly bring up the Big Boy Political Labels instead of calling things for what they are," You'll be shocked to hear this but I am indeed "calling things for what they are". I am doing my best to step away from much of the horrific psychoanalytic and political terminology in my explanations of such terminology when I do include them in my work so that I'm not appearing to tailspin in the dense bodies of thought which I have confronted over the years. For example, do you not know what I mean when I make the distinction between the 'public and private domains' given the ubiquity of this sort of liberal concept? It should be very clear that the 'private domain' is simply the social world of humans (or more generally, of rational beings - a category whose only known members are humans) at the level of individuals. Come on, did you understand my use of the Margaret Thatcher quote - her erroneous judgement that society is simply 'individuals and families'? Is that 'Big Boy' enough for you, huh? What about the 'simple negation' of Western-liberal-Enlightenment values - or more simply put, of 'conservative' values? I mean 'simple negation' here in a sense that anyone who's understood Hegel, Marx and Engels in even the slightest fashion can understand it: it is simply a particular 'not' of the prevailing values around a preconceived axis - that instead of rape fetishism being a taboo, 'it's fine and doesn't even harm anyone'; that instead of ironic racism being unspeakable, 'it's nothing like that; it's absolutely fine and it's just a joke'; that instead of repressing and trying to minimise sexuality and confining it to the private space of desire, 'it's completely fine to be hypersexual and it's fucking fun too'. It is not a complete change of values, taking the best from both the proposed worldviews and discarding parts of them where they are 'both worse' and constitute a 'double blackmail'. Your particular 'simple negation' accepts much of liberal philosophy and comes to reactionary, fascistic conclusions: the hypersexual and supposedly-hedonistic libertinism (look that up) of the private domain is to be brought into public view and then celebrated as something inevitable and fun, even among children. To go a bit Zizekian: the opponents that you recognise, the conservative defenders of 'decency', have taken the blue pill because for them 'none of this overtly-sexual rubbish should happen' and it represents the degeneration of Western values; you have taken the red pill, seeing 'reality' for what it is and celebrating it. The bluepilled and redpilled consider themselves to be opposites of one another. Marxists, meanwhile, do not recognise even many liberal conclusions which both the blue and red pills depend on: we construct and take a third pill even if it's just from bits and pieces of the red pill and the blue pill - it's something more than simply the two combined. For Marxists, the private-public distinction is very weak because the very stuff of reason that 'private individuals use' is shared between people - after all, how was much of it given to them? Were they born with it? If so, where is your empirical evidence about this and how does it prove that it can be owed to something that they were born with? If I'm wrong here, toddlers would say that they understand neurobiology or quantum physics without any intervention from us! Show me a study which says that they can do that. My claim otherwise is contrapositive (in a formal-logical sense and not a dialectical one); it is based on the lack of evidence for the opposite claim. See how far I'm willing to go to drive my points home to someone who essentially claims is that I am like an arrogant priest who is speaking to the hopeless and stupid laity? Frankly, if you don't understand my points, it is because you don't fucking want to understand them and you are consciously going out of your way to not investigate. You are also involved in this excuse of a discussion whether you like it or not. 

"not to mention the 'holier than thou' language you parade." Fucking hell. You are serious when you say this? We are in dark times. MOTHERFUCKER, ANYONE CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT I AM SAYING IF THEY CONFRONT THE WORKS THAT I HAVE DRAGGED MYSELF THROUGH; I AM NO FUCKING PRIEST. I DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO SOME SACRED TEXT THAT ONLY I HAVE THE SPECIAL ABILITIES TO DECIPHER. Because I have done what I can think of to explain myself, the onus is on you and the other boring contrarian ARSEHOLES to get the fuck over to the literature of the traditions that I identify with and use in order to understand 'the other half' of what I'm saying. If I knew that you would never be able to approximate what I'm saying, why would I bother to explain myself instead of condescendingly passing by and sneering at you for subscribing to an 'inferior' worldview? In fact, why would I even be here at all? And no, before you fucking pipe up about how I want to 'indoctrinate children' and throw other stupid accusations in front of me, I do not want you or anyone else to take what I'm saying as scripture. I want you to critique and extend what I'm saying; I want to construct a dialectic here. I am willing to spend hours of time flooding you with oceans of text not because I wish to wave my pride before you but because I want to discuss things and explain what I'm saying. I want people - including children - to be empowered using philosophy, science and all the other kinds of knowledge and standards of reason. "No, me defending free thought isn't "a spit in the face of the old western liberal contrarian ideals" or whatever and you being a PROUD, PRO LACAN AND PARTISAN MARXIST has nothing to do with any of this." WRONG. The traditions of Marx and Lacan do concern themselves with matters such as sexuality, ideology, 'free thought', small-scale politics and all of that. If sexuality, for example, was not a concern of Marxism, then there would be little or no discussion of it among Marxists. So why would Engels, not only a Marxist but one of the founders of Marxism, write THIS? marxists.org - Origins of the Family. Chapter 2 (IV) And why would Freud, a psychoanalyst who had much to say about sexuality, have his work incorporated into political theory many times over by the Frankfurt school of Marxism if Marxist politics have nothing to do with sex? And in Lacan's case, what about his 'equations of sexuality'? Go on, go to Google, Bing, DDG or whatever search engine you want and type in 'lacan equations of sexuality'. Even besides that, you are telling me that none of what I'm saying matters, but what I am discussing entirely relates to how best it is to consider sexuality. It is not separate from politics at all - the sexual IS political, it IS a performance, it's not simply a matter of 'up-and-down movements'. Why would we question why we fuck at all? Why would we even do it in the first place if it's just a load of movements? You can try to argue that it's a matter of biology, but one can ask: 'why should we humans reproduce? Why should society be about biological reproduction?' So no, SEX IS NOT OUTSIDE POLITICS, and it is thus the concern of Marxist politics and of political philosophy in general. In fact, the great irony about your sentence here is that it is a political statement even as far as discussing sexuality is concerned. I mean, seriously? Are your understandings of philosophy and politics THAT bad? Then again, I know that you are nothing short of a troll if your insistence on repeating your boring humour (e.g. ironic racism) and your recent Discord 'raids' are anything to go by - so you have a vested interest in not sitting down, shutting the fuck up and understanding my words. Never mind that the greatest troll is to seriously engage with my arguments and leave me with the much bigger task of having to find more material. Of course, what are you actually trying to say here? You are no 'free-thinker'. Instead, you are another boring contrarian who viciously upholds the seemingly-permissive, seemingly-inclusive 'simple negative' of prevailing ideas of decency! That is as far as you will go in being critical of the current state of the world. 'Accept your sins!' you scream. 'They are inevitable and natural! Why do anything to stop them? It's the internet, for fuck's sake!' Meanwhile, here is a Marxist asking for something much more radical - and it is going to horrify you to no end. MAKE SEX BORING AGAIN. I am no enemy of the freedom-chasing power of contrarianism; I encourage its use. But contrarianism is not free enough; it is still in the chains of thinking that it's the only possible opposition to the current ruling order. So in a way, it is not me that's holier-than-thou, IT IS YOUR CONTRARIANISM ITSELF, because it fails to unlock a new critical dimension and sneers before any attempts to go further than its own particular opposition to the status quo. But it also concerns Marxism in another way because it concerns (Marxian) Communism, the unique proletarian movement which seeks the end of class divisions and the end of capitalism. You want us to accept the logic of the private space, the fantasies of domination and mindless experimentation. Do you know what this is, Marsha? IT IS THE LOGIC OF THE BOURGEOIS CLASS. Nothing is off limits for the rulers of the world besides Communism. If they want to fuck a child, for example, they can bloody well go ahead and do it without being questioned. This is outrageous! We are allowing these people to do whatever the fuck they want regardless of the very real consequences including the social blackmails and lack of real choices that people are faced with despite legally being able to do many more things? Yes, Marsha, if something is recognised as being 'legal' by a government, it does not make it right. And even if a choice is 'guaranteed' by a given legal system, it is not necessarily put in place. If people are allowed to have rocket launchers and while one person can buy a rocket launcher and another who is otherwise the same as the first person can only afford a slingshot, who is more likely to destroy the other in a fight with their weapons? The politics of freedom is the politics of tearing apart the divison of the 'private' and public domains so that we no longer fuck around and do things without criticism. But in fact, this also frees the once-bourgeois in a sense because they can move on to do better and more effective things as dictated by reason, which does not represent the will of a particular person but all people including themselves. The bourgeois defence of what they believe to be this closed-off private space is nothing more than a defence of stupidity which is supposed to be 'kept away from the masses' but never truly is.

"Cut that bullshit, go straight to the point."

Sorry, Marsha. In trying to explain my points to you, I AM OBLIGED TO TYPE OUT THESE GIANT RESPONSES in case you misunderstand what I'm claiming if you

do

decide to engage with the arguments that I bring against you. There is so much to go through that you are going to have to sit down - perhaps for years - and read the works of those who are in the same traditions as I am. Worse still, you will have to read the works of others outside such traditions to compare and critique the various ideas which they discuss. Nothing is truly simple in the world whether you like it or not. Unfortunately, we live in times of clickbait, woefully-short attention spans and a lack of self-discipline (this is true even of myself!). You are going to confront your laziness even if you want to argue your own case in an effective way.

"And if you want people to engage in your debate, make it easy and precise for them to understand, especially since this is

Birdie's Google+

"

And what the fuck do you think I've been trying to do? Again, why would I even bother turning up? Get this: I know that I don't seem credible in the eyes of the hundreds of children who read her posts and I don't necessarily give a fuck - so if you accuse me of doing this to wave my fucking pride in front of you, you're dead wrong.

You can try to give me an Encyclopedia Dramatica - style diagnosis about 'the

real

reasons why I'm here' but anyone can say what I'm saying regardless of their psychology. I could've come here with a great big beaming smile on my face. I could adopt the same contrarian snark that you have. That you are confronted with an angry, grave and seemingly-parental scumbag is

irrelevant

because it subtracts nothing from the vast majority of what I'm saying. Motherfucker, do you know what an 'ad-hominem' fallacy is? Attacking a person rather than an argument which anyone can make does not attack that argument. If I said 'you're Brazillian and you come from a degenerate nation, your opinion doesn't matter', I would be making a stupid claim because I wouldn't have actually said why what you're saying is wrong - at most, I would've said something about the real social forces which led you to adopt this reasoning. So don't come to me with any ad-hominems of your own without engaging with my points themselves because it's not going to fucking work - even for your pride, especially now that you've tried to position yourself as a defender of freedom with all the dignity that comes with it.

"Do that, on my tumblr, and i'll try to debate with you."

First, I do not have access to a Tumblr page or account and I do not want to create one. Second, why NOT discuss shit here? Come on, what gets added to my arguments if I bugger off to Tumblr? Besides that, I am here because I would like to make a great big example out of you. You are 'sinfulmarsh', are you not? A crusader for 'free thought' and open 'acceptance' of (hyper-)sexuality, yes? Lover of all that's taboo, uncomfortable and other shit like that?

Well, fuck you. I am proud to turn up on some 'random' corner of the internet (which, in reality, is NOT 'random' at all but one that I've consciously-selected) and fire walls of text in your direction. If you don't like that, remember that 'it's the internet' and anything can happen; *

BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS OF REASONING

**, YOU SHOULDN'T BE MOANING SO MUCH. So much for being a contrarian, eh, Marsha? Where's your fucking 'free thought'?*

"But I doubt you could do that without getting off your high horse"

Your accusation is laced with with irony considering how your anti-intellectualism is itself an arrogant denial of my words having any worth whatsoever. You don't even bother to ask me any questions relating to the arguments themselves; do you think I won't spot that? FUCK YOU, Marsha. I am at least one step ahead of you because I know what it's like to be a contrarian; I've passed through this phase and I've become even 'worse' since. I know the tricks and the blind spot of your contrarianism; at its most general, it is the same as my own, and I am quite far beyond it as someone who seeks that 'third pill'. In fact, I am far more contrarian precisely because I seek to change values and standards. I have learned to weaponise my contrarianism! That is what is so unsettling for you about Marxists: we are you and more; we can emulate your modes of thought. We seek to take the best out of everything and turn it into something more.

---

@explodingdisgust​ :

Ah, look at this! Is 'eloquent' not a Big Boy word? Look at this motherfucker betray her own rhetorical standards. No shame, huh? And so the snake eats its own tail; the beginning of Marsha's dissonance is here. Meanwhile, for those of us who aren't busy trying to uphold degeneracy and soft forms of servitude:

https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/195805-SL-cultism-exposed!!?s=d2444b96573a3897b1e106ae6f9bf772&p=2873207#post2873207

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3bBreSgaik

---

@explodingdisgust​ :

And before anyone says that I've misunderstood them, remember that you don't get to choose how your statements are interpreted unless you craft your words very carefully. If I missed something, point it out. If not, explain yourself or get lost.

---

@marshax-marshmallow

I’ve said this before, ill say this again. On my Tumblr, or nowhere. I will address your points there, since it’s a place i’m active on and the formatting is better for me to debate things. People who are reading Birdie’s G+ most often aren’t here to read some rando’s papers on Marxism and Sexual freedom, and I bet Sophia doesn’t want these things spamming her notifications. My blog is where I express those kinds of things, some people read it, either out of hate or genuine interest. I agree that you want discussion and I want too, and thats why i’m saying we should take this somewhere its most likely to happen. So please, take your arguments there or stop talking to me, cause I won’t answer. Hell, you can even copy paste what you’ve said here so we can continue, but please. You dont even need to use your account afterwards.