You don't receive shares for free. You receive shares in return for your labour. You don't become an equal member of a partnership as soon as you join.

Of course I feel sad for them. The people of New Orleans deserve better than having swasticars in their midst.

That's the kind of right hand grip that requires years of training.

Bacterial flagella are also rotary motors! I did an optional module in biophysics as part of my physics degree and I would recommend it to anyone.

I think the most reasonable assumption would be that the Democrats reckon that coming out against Israel will lose them more zionist votes then sticking with Israel will lose them anti-genocide votes. And given the amount of money AIPAC has been throwing around against anti-zionist candidates in primaries, that might not be an incorrect reckoning.

I fail to see how eating cold solid coconut oil would be significantly harder than drinking warm liquid coconut oil.

Comments so far seems to be mostly telling you that you are valid, and I would also like to start off by affirming that, but I would also like to try to directly address your question.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, (what? Ben Shapiro doesn't own that phrase) that the behaviour and feelings you describe are not normal for transmascs. What does that mean for you? Is the transmasc label important to you? Would you change things about yourself to confirm to normal transmasc-ness? Or would you try to find a different label? When you describe yourself as a transmasc demiboy, what is it specifically you are trying to convey about your identity?

Whatever you are, or want to be, is valid, and I guarantee there's a bunch of people who will feel a similar way. Between "he/him lesbians" and "afab femboys" etc. there's a whole world of people who probably have similar feelings, and if you are feeling some conflict between your own identity and the transmasc label, maybe it's just a case of trying a slightly different label? Or just describe yourself as transmasc anyway if you want to? No one said you have to be normal.

Well I think it was offensive of Cynthia to erase the original artist's vision and it's shameful of you to defend her.

Both of you have hurt my feelings, and therefore you are in the wrong.

I don't think the argument does fail. OP is not arguing against killing in the heat of the moment in self-defence or whatever. OP is arguing specifically about executions after the fact. The only way "maximizing who survives" would be relevant is if you believe capital punishment is a deterrent, and that is arguable.

It's true. I was only ever eating bacon to keep the flying pig population in check, but now I don't have to because the wind turbines will do the job.

Thin line between opinion, free speech, and a lie.

And yet, it's there. Just as it is in defamation law.

Who defines truth, hate speech, and opinion[?]

A jury of your peers and the Public Order Act 1986.

The US has free speech. Apart from all the exceptions it carves out and designates not protected speech, including but not limited to incitement, threats and harassment, sedition, and obscenity. Obscenity in particular was famously 'defined' for a while as "I know it when I see it". So why draw the line at hate speech?

Is it not a weird state of affairs when saying "X is a paedo" is legally actionable but saying "trans people are all paedos and X is trans" isn't, even week when X's house gets burned down either way?

When the other side wins an election are you now the criminal?

Sure, the UK parliament could pass a law saying criticising the prime minister is now illegal. The courts will inevitably issue a declaration of incompatibility with human rights law, but the government, in theory, could ignore it. If the public swallows it. But there's nothing really stopping that happening in the US either. Congress could pass a law making it illegal to criticise the president, and since the president gets to pick the judges, it could almost certainly come under the sedition exception to the first amendment if the president really wanted it to pass. If the public swallows it.

And that's what it comes down to at the end of the day. Whether or not the public swallows it. For all the US right wing likes to harp on about freeze peach that sure doesn't seem to apply if you want to say something bad about America or use the word cisgender. Do you really think the American public is much less likely to support authoritarianism than the British public?

England is currently having a bunch of race riots while simultaneously throwing a shit fit over two women's boxers who aren't even trans, so I'm not feeling great about that.