I have no beef with billionaires. I buy licenses for Windows, and I order from Amazon. But some billionaires are better about keeping their end of the bargain than others.

You were the one who specifically asked to have it spelt out to you, and even asked for something I never offered. Don't act like I'm ranting or crying. There are no systemic racist institutions targeting "people of color (everyone but whites)."

It makes you disingenuous. Everybody knows and believes black lives matter. Shouting it in the street amounts to a society-wide false accusation of racism.
If you then go on to set property on fire or use the message to swindle people out of their money, then you are a political extremist and a criminal.

Evangelicals don't think that gay people should not exist, they think people shouldn't do gay stuff. I don't know what it is with the left, and especially the alphabet mafia, but you guys have a habit of characterizing the slightest disagreement as "they are trying to erase our existence." That's not what's happening. Lighten up a bit. It's a conversation.
Nobody is trying to strip you of any fundamental civil rights. Perhaps you're trying to characterize the violation of other people's fundamental civil rights as your own civil rights, and what you're sensing is the civil rights of the innocent being protected, which sometimes necessitates not letting you do what you want to do.

Yes, evangelicals, by definition, do not leave people alone. Yes, they are given to harassment, and they need to be checked against it. But what you see at planned parenthood isn't your typical evangelical, those are activists. And yes, they can be violent, and that needs to be checked. People are free to hold signs, advocate, and form picket lines, but they are not free to interfere with people's movement, hit people, or project bodily fluids on them. But again, that's not evangelicals.

Religion doesn't inflict damage and pain — people do. Conversely, you don't seem to be able to look at religion and see the structures and advancement it has enabled. It's not that you can't know, it's that you don't want to.

Also, "the top 1%" doesn't do nothing. They govern and regulate the business, which is something that has to be done. They take all of the risk. You might like to socialize gains, but you don't want any part of the losses, do you? Businesses take the majority of the gains, but suffer all of the losses.
And no, making something does not confer ownership. If I hire you to mow my lawn, you do not then own my lawn, or my lawnmower, or the dirt. You own the consideration I paid to you to mow my lawn. Same with anything else.
If a business has parts and makes them into products, and a worker takes the parts which are not his and makes a product, that product doesn't magically become his because he put it together. The paycheck becomes his.

Right, that's the definition in the book, but in practice, for what you find in the comments sections, my description is a better fit.
If people can't "own the means of production (which, by the way, every single person does)," then they are not free to associate or trade freely. Where people can associate freely, trade freely, and own property, private businesses get started. Outlawing business necessitates interfering with people's aforementioned freedoms.
Also, "kulaks" were a thing. If a farmer was prosperous, he was taken to the cleaners, sometimes killed, and his property taken from him. Communists reek of envy.

What you described as ideal is what the US is supposed to be, and what you described evangelicals as doing is what evangelicals are actually doing, and doesn't really rise above the level of annoying. Maybe they are mentally ill, but that doesn't make them anything beyond annoying.

But people do have a first amendment right to preach. They don't have a claim to a captive audience, though.

That wasn't "evangelicals," alone. That was a lot of different kinds of people, most of whom were women. Roe vs. Wade was bad precedent. If you think women should have the freedom to abort pregnancies without interference, get it enshrined in actual law, not dubious interpretation of constitutional law.

Let me be very clear here:
There is nothing that comes from the doctrine of feminism that is true or grounded in reality. All of it is false, from the wage gap to its stupid cousin the pink tax, supposed rape culture, the glass ceiling, and toxic masculinity — all of it. Every single item in the feminist list of grievances is false. It's completely ungrounded in reality. It's nothing but a fabrication from whole cloth spun from a place of hatred towards men and disdain and jealousy of normal women who are living their best lives.
But the biggest lie — the foundational lie that underpins every other lie and the entirety of the feminism movement is their "Patriarchy Theory," so it is sometimes called. (It's not a threory, it's just completely untested conjecture.) This is the idea that men have organized society (alone) to benefit themselves, and themselves alone, at the expense of the women in their own society. This abominable lie is the common thread that runs through every wave and variant of feminism. It is not true, and it has never been true. It has never been demonstrated, and nobody who purports it has ever bothered to subject it to nullification. It has merely been granted axiomatically.
None of the feminist doctrine has ever been supported by any real academia, but instead is supported by a beachhead of nearly-unassailable woozles in their own self-referential journals and articles. But we have gone for so long without challenging it because it's perceived to be in the interest of women (although, ultimately, it is not). In actuality, it comes at the expense of all of society and amounts to nothing but a misanthropic power- and money-grab.

Women have never, ever, not once been oppressed by the men in their own society. This lie, and every other one that derives from it, amounts to the entirety of feminist doctrine. It doesn't hold up to even casual scrutiny, much less any real fact-checking or consideration of historical context.

There is no systemic oppression of women and there never has been.

What you're describing isn't "theists," but fundamentalists. Plenty of theists don't talk to the dead, know that Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and modern astronomy would look quite different were it not for the catholic church.

You don't have to give up your rights to privacy to get rid of the GDPR. The GDPR isn't the reason you have any rights to privacy, nor does it actually effect any. What it effects is an entitlement to be forgotten and to move in anonymity when your identity is clearly observable and memorable. It's an overreach, and some people don't feel like dealing with it.