The DDR actually had a Karl Marx Stadt, but they picked Chemnitz instead of Berlin. That's like saying "let's rename NYC to Leninsville" and then instead of NYC, you rename Milwaukee.

Really a missed opportunity, Lord Pickles would be a plausible name for a British cat, and that cat could ride on that guy's hat and pilot him like Cait Sith from FF VII.

Ants actually have a completely decentralized system of organizing labor. Each worker forages and scouts autonomously until they find something interesting for the collective, after which they chemically mark the newly discovered ressource. Other ants then follow this trail, which automatically makes them form an organized group that distributes labor evenly to transport the ressource back to the nest. Likewise, all gathered food is shared collectively.

The queen does zero organizational work and has no command over her workers, she just lays eggs to produce more workers. She's as much a part of the collective as any worker ant, only serving a different purpose due to her reproductive ability, and in fact larger colonies tend to have multiple queens in most species. Calling her a queen is anthropomorphizing the relation she has to the rest of the colony, which aren't her subjects, but her children or, in a multi-queen colony, her nieces.

I would've thought the actual reason the Tories have made themselves hated enough to lose against Keir fucking Starmer of all people is that they're the exact same kind of floundering, rabbitholed bellend as the person who's written that article, but i guess when you're an anglofascist nosferatu writing for the Economist, being honest with yourself isn't a skill you usually possess.

I thought the US already has two million killer pigs

The article makes the argument that she is not the male beauty standard for women, but the female one.

That's kinda wild tbh. Which female beauty standard is that supposed to refer to? What straight women buying into hegemonial femininity want to be like? What queer women find hot? These two standards tend to be not the same type of woman, and the latter in particular usually isn't one narrowly defined type of woman in the first place, because the entire point of a sapphic desire that defines itself in opposition to the hegemonnial way of sexualizing women is to view each other as subjects, not as objects, which only works when you understand our beauty as an expression of ourself, not as a fulfillment of an abstract and policed ideal beauty standard that by definition must always exclude most women because most women are not of the same race, body shape etc.

Which, btw, is a position that i've not only seen in all kinds of lesbian communities, but found a ton of straight dudes to very enthusiastically agree on, because viewing women as human and being able to find more than 1% of the female population hot are both kind of a prerequisite if you realistically want a fulfilling relationship with a woman, which surprisingly tends to be something most straight men actually want.

Or, tl;dr: Reactionary anti-feminists who enforce hegemonial gender roles fight to make everyone unhappy, including other cishet dudes.

A pipeline.

Well that's what happens when you seize 20kg of the finest Bolivian cocaine. You take all 10kg to the evidence locker and over time, some of these 7kg just evaporate somehow.

Cishets try to understand queer identities and queer solidarity challenge, difficulty: impossible

queer is not all encompassing

It's literally a catchall term for anybody who's not het, cis, allo or endo.

pushing bisexuals down the list in favor of pansexuals

As a bisexual trans woman exclusively dating t4t, let's NOT start the "bi is actually transphobic, you should call yourself pan" nonsense debate. It always leads to awful bad faith discussions, pushes bi erasure and completely ignores any and all actually transphobic dating behavior, of which there is plenty, none of which is connected to calling yourself bisexual.

generally dont consider using they/them to be misgendering tbh

I'm making exceptions for when pronouns are unknown, or when you're talking about people in general, and ofc for plural they like in this case that i've completely gotten wrong, but once we're adressing known individuals who've stated their pronouns, i'm under the very firm assumption that if these people would be fine with they / them, they would state it as a secondary set of pronouns. When people do not do that, i will never use a singular they / them on them just as i wouldn't he / him or she / her them if these aren't their pronouns. I know there's a bunch of folks both cis and trans who see this different than me and don't mind it, but there absolutely are trans people who find it highly offensive and hurtful, including myself, and also including PhilosophyTube, who will block anybody they / theming her. British terfs are extremly fond of using they / them to deniably misgender binary trans people, too, it's defintily not without its problems.

but its clearly being used in the plural here

It absolutely is, i hope @Tastysnack@hexbear.net sees my apology in time and that it helps her at least a bit. She sounded so upset, it's horrible i've wronged her like this.

hexbear is just a leftist version of r/egg_irl