The DEI Movement is the new Christianity
(media.scored.co)
Comments (33)
sorted by:
Except Christianity protects us from evil, while wokeism is evil.
The Bible can teach you how to be spiritual guarded against not only woke propaganda but any new trick the devil comes up with.
which translator? Which anime?
It's not an anime. It's a video game.
Also read link in SS
This is claimed to be the correct translations. In one case, it started from the wrong Kanji symbols, but I can do no better since I cannot type Kanji: https://nigger.poast.org/gaersstapa/status/2047706045238182274
https://x.com/magicgirlcrisis/status/2047696911306477617
Removed for rule 1 violations. You have an argument, use it. (Without attacking the person, attack their argument)
And remember just like Christianity and Communism, DEI is ETERNAL, JEWISH and ABRAHAMIC.
Christianity and communism and dei are not the same thing. Abraham is a Hebrew (one who has crossed over into knowledge of God) as are biblical Jews and the other tribes of Israel, at this point in time they are not all the same nor do they all agree on God, who is Christ Jesus.
Are you saying the Most High God is ok with corruption? I know Him and I assure you, He is not.
Many under few while excluding anyone who resists joining.
a) Ab (father) raham (multitude)...there can be only one father moving each single one within across.
b) Knowledge implies all known and each one at the ledge in-between, hence being moved across, while standing within the crossroad of choice.
God implies the above and the below for each one in-between. If God is only the most high, then what's the foundation for a being to stand upon?
Neat, shoo.
Use this as your argument instead of misquoting.
It’s my fucking argument. That’s why it’s in the fucking comment. No one was misquoted. It’s my fucking statement. Get over yourself immediately.
Removed for rule 1. Please rebuttal without violations dude
FUCK OFF with this fucking bullshit. There are no goddamned violations. Put it in the goddamned sidebar if you’re going to “enforce” it or I’m going to the site owners about your abuse. I’m not putting up with this shit.
Calling someone a Jew would qualify as an attack on the person and not the argument.
Did he call someone in c/Conspiracies a Jew or someone else?
@TallestSkil
Yeah, and it's a rule 1 violation (be respectful, attack the argument not the person) if used in derogation here, which this was.
SAYING THINGS THAT ONLY JEWS HAVE EVER SAID QUALIFIES IT AS CALLING OUT THE PERSON FOR BEING A FUCKING JEW.
You calling someone a Jew doesn't rebuttal their argument and this is an argument that should be rebuttaled.
Your strategy won't change things, so I'm asking you to rethink your strategy and win the argument. I rebuttaled and MrEx may very well ignore me again but at least I tried, without rule violations...
Not every single fucking day, every single fucking time it’s posted. It was rebutted millennia ago, before it ever existed. It shouldn’t be platformed.
Your strategy of “let people who will not rest until we are all murdered talk as much as they want about anything they want” isn’t going to change things.
Done. Already. Thousands of times.
THE SPAM IS STILL ALLOWED TO BE POSTED, SO IT DOESN’T FUCKING MATTER.
Many people have many different views and yeah, I've been here many times with this person and also with you, though different topics, and I'll keep on..
Huh, imagine how abhorrent a group of people would have to be in order for their name to become an insult.
It can be used as an insult, yeah. Hoping more of them see the light of life that is Jesus Christ.
a) Calling implies "asking for"...attacking implies "giving an answer".
Example: If I attack you while telling you that you asked for it, then will you accept that?
b) There's only one quality (God given)...the conflict in-between qualify vs disqualify isn't God given, but shaped by taking a side in ignorance of God.
Removed for rule 1 violation: be respectful, attack the argument not the person.
Argument:
u/Mrexreturns
I didn't make an argument or attack a person. I made a statement about my own feelings. You're not obligated to self identify as a low IQ retard.
So it wasn't in reply to the person who posted? Comment can be approved upon edit.
What the hell are you even saying? Do you know what the words you are using even mean?
I am saying you had a comment removed for a rule 1 violation, even if you think it's vague and borderline and that comment can be approved upon you editing it to remove what violates the rule. Make sense?