feelsokayle

@RepJackKimble Satire?

Just a friendly warning. We don’t even make $200k per year in Congress despite working nearly 140 days. If we aren’t properly compensated, a lot of us will go to the private sector and you will be left with some real idiots in Congress.

@ozemerson Kayle

Olha só que arte feia feita com AI. Quem quiser uma arte feia igual me fala o seu personagem favorito que eu mando aqui.

@fworksconfetti A very small step towards based

Ella Emhoff, stepdaughter of former Vice President Kamala Harris, from 16 December last year: "...I'm just sitting here crocheting, waiting for a friend, and I was just listening to this podcast that The Wall Street Journal put out about SSRIs and anti-anxiety meds and kind of the over-prescription of them in America. "And it was making me think a lot because I've been on SSRIs for over a decade, almost fifteen years probably, and they were calling out the lack of research on long-term use of these things. "They were calling out the lack of information that doctors give about coming off of these meds and kind of the psychological effects they can have. "And it really got me thinking how little I've thought about that, naively, obviously. "But I've noticed that every time I've gone off of it for a week or missed it or for whatever reason, like, it has been really hard for me, and I've had a really hard time. "And I guess this is just something I was wondering if you guys have thought about or relate to or kind of consider when you're thinking about going on meds like that. "Because I don't know if this is something that I feel like is being talked about enough because I feel like so many of us are on these meds, and this is, like, actually happening. "Like, people get off of them, and they kind of break down, and it can be really bad. So yeah, I guess I just want your general thoughts."

@RealDianeYap responsibility is debatable but its not the same as impact. Your choice affects others.

Seems really hard for blue voters to understand but each individual’s choices are their own and so are the consequences of those choices. None one else bears any responsibility.

@bitcloud hell nah

She's a ten but she's a red button pusher

@joeybeastmarket you left out picking blue helps save others that picked blue. There is no outcome advantage comparing everyone picking red or everyone picking blue it is the same outcome. Blue is best as it only requires 50% participation.

The literal only result of picking blue is that you increase your own chance of death from 0% to not 0%. There are only 2 reasons to pick blue: you are stupid or you are suicidal. There is only one reason to try to convince others to pick blue: you want them to die. If you don’t understand this I actually think you are not a human being

@JustinMacmahan Wrong

It’s crazy how many people believe this 54% vote would hold up in real life. We clearly learned nothing from the last election. Nobody voting red in the poll would defect to the altruistic choice, but many blue voters will defect to red with their life at stake. Blue would lose

@micha85053 @mattforney To get no deaths you need 100% on the red side but only 50% on the blue side. So from a utilitarian point of view red is riskier in regards to mortality. The question is a measure of how you view your place in humanity.

@feelsokayle @mattforney They only rescue blue voters, who should have voted red. Everyone wins if everyone votes red. This question is about helping people who do not want to be helped. They will drain your resolve until you’re resentful.

I wish I could block everyone who voted "blue" because you've demonstrated that you're incapable of understanding the prisoner's dilemma even when the math is taken out of it

@latinedisce Jews obviously, there's no Christianity without Judaism

A potentially controversial question—asked in good faith: As Christians, who do we have more in common with: - Jews, with whom we share the Old Testament but who reject Jesus, or - Muslims, who accept Jesus as a prophet but deny his divinity? Curious to read your responses—let’s keep the discussion respectful.

@9dO6cLEZJSxpnMa The misunderstanding is in whether you are using God as a proper name, a title, or a power adjective.

キリスト教を知る前はキリスト教は一神教・唯一神教だと思っていたが、今はキリスト教が一神教という言説には違和感がある。キリスト教は三一神を信じる三一神教だと思う。キリスト教がイスラムとユダヤ教と兄弟で、一神教だといった言説は、キリスト教に対する基本的な誤解から来ているように思う。

@klara_sjo I’ve never noticed that before. Now I’m noticing

The story of Rumpelstiltskin is kinda strange. It's about a little man who will weave your hay into gold (forge wealth out of nothing) He'll help you to please the king (and get in with the authorities) He'll take your child in exchange (snatch away the next generation) The only way to defeat him is to say his name (he'll start stamping his feet in rage and disappear if you name him)

1st place in $100k Chess Tournament 🥇 Giving away $20,000 to 10 people who like & RT ❤️

@RichardHanania Everyone should have a voice

Once again, smarter conservatives simply are unable to comprehend that quality actually matters. They see a chart that is dominated by Eric Daugherty, Gunther, and Catturd, and go "libs all left, that's why there's no intellectual diversity." What distinguishes these accounts isn't that they're right wing! Conservatives got their own platform, and it devolved into complete trash. If Twitter was dominated by The Dispatch, Ross Douthat, Quillette, the Manhattan Institute, Free Press, Tyler Cowen, etc, that would be one thing. This is something else. The blindness here is incredible. When you see Catturd, you think "oh, there's a fellow conservative." I see someone who shouldn't have any role in public discourse in any context regardless of who he votes for.

@NateSilver538 Looks pretty representative of America to me, just not previous journalism.

These are the Twitter/X accounts with the most engagement so far in 2026. I suppose I had some intuition for how bad it was, but jeez, this is what you get when the ecosystem is broken.

@CChadChampion Hard disagree bosses are replaceable

it's gets to a point where being "brave" becomes self indulging. Crashing out of your career for Christianity becomes the easy way out.

@swamthetiber25 @thefallguy7777 @Truth_matters20 Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.

@thefallguy7777 @Truth_matters20 its th penal part, not the substitute

I abhor reformed theology more than just about anything else on Earth. Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) is problematic because it can imply a division within the Trinity, portraying the Father as punishing the Son rather than acting in perfect unity of will and love. It frames forgiveness as dependent on satisfying divine wrath through violence instead of as a free act of mercy, and can suggest God is bound by an external standard above Himself of retributive justice. It also raises coherence issues, such as how Christ’s finite suffering could satisfy an eternal penalty, and moral concerns about punishing the innocent when guilt cannot be transferred. Biblically and historically, PSA is difficult find as well.

@swamthetiber25 @Truth_matters20 You may have an aversion to punishment that is not natural. Wrath demanding death to maintain perfection is the standard. Alternatives & substitutes leading to redemption is the mercy. Similar to any parent child relationship where consequences and 2nd chances abound for growth.

Alright Bible scholar feel free to address these concerns Problems with the Penal Substitution Atonement theory (PSA): PSA implies opposition between Father and Son, contradicting Trinitarian doctrine: the three Persons share one undivided essence, will, and love, acting in perfect harmony. The idea of the Father turning against the Son in wrath fractures the seamless unity of the Triune God. God cannot simply forgive out of love but instead requires a violent sacrifice to satisfy His anger or justice. This makes forgiveness conditional on punishment rather than a free, merciful act. PSA can suggest God is constrained by a higher principle of retributive justice that even He must satisfy, limiting divine freedom and portraying Him as less sovereign or merciful than Scripture depicts. If the just penalty for sin is eternal separation from God, as some suggest, how could Jesus’ finite suffering, hours on the cross, followed by death and resurrection after three days, possibly pay that full, infinite/eternal penalty? PSA portrays God as punishing the innocent. Justice requires that only the guilty face punishment, and guilt cannot be transferred. Yet in PSA, Christ— perfectly innocent—is punished for humanity’s sins, making God appear unjust. Old Testament sacrifices weren’t about transferring punishment from the guilty to an innocent victim. They were mainly about purification and restoring the relationship with God. The Passover lamb, for example, wasn’t punished for sin; it was eaten as a sacred meal. The New Testament wouldn't break from the Old Testament typology of what sacrifices accomplished. Penal substitutionary atonement was largely absent from the early Church and only became prominent after the Reformation. Even medieval theologians like Anselm, who spoke of Christ satisfying what was owed for sin, did not promote the idea that Christ received punishment from the Father. That idea developed very late in Christian history. Scripture shows death as the result of turning from God, not a punishment he imposes. If death is a consequence, not a penalty, there is nothing for Christ to “take” in our place. He enters death to defeat it, freeing humanity from sin and restoring our life with God, not simply satisfying a legal sentence. objections: Propitiation: The New Testament word hilasterion, often translated “propitiation,” can mean cleansing or the mercy seat rather than appeasing God’s wrath. Romans 3:25 emphasizes Christ removing sin and restoring fellowship with God, not satisfying a legal penalty. The Bible never says Christ was punished by the Father to satisfy divine wrath, so PSA reads ideas into the text that were never there. Isaiah 53 Isaiah 53 is a central prophecy for defenders of penal substitutionary atonement, yet it is often taken out of context. Nowhere in Isaiah does it say that the Father is punishing Christ. Verse 4 tells us that although he “bore our griefs and carried our sorrows, yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.” Reworded, this reflects humanity’s perception that he is afflicted by God, not that God has actively punished him. Verse 5 says, “by his stripes we are healed,” not “by his stripes the Father is appeased.” A literal translation from the Septuagint makes this even clearer: “The one our sins bore and on account of us he was grieved. And we considered him to be a misery, and for calamity by God, and for ill-treatment. But he was wounded because of our sins and was made infirm on account of our lawless deeds.” Isaiah 53, properly read, is a prophecy of Christ’s healing and restorative work, emphasizing his solidarity with human suffering and the redemption he brings, rather than a narrow focus on satisfying divine wrath.

@swamthetiber25 @thefallguy7777 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. You are leaving out the mind.

@thefallguy7777 I care deeply. Hence the post.

@swamthetiber25 The word that He is bound by regarding justice is not above, it is written by Him to maintain His perfection within creation. He is above it and executing it to fulfill the design of the universe.

@swamthetiber25 The payment, whether human, animal, or godly is not finite either, death is total from the point of view of the living. On top of that, The father and son were unified in purpose on the plan, so the trinity does not appear to be defunct. Your arguments don't seem logical.