Skull

332 posts

Skull

Skull

@skulloftruth

Katılım Ocak 2020
4 Takip Edilen3 Takipçiler
Skull
Skull@skulloftruth·
Et toi tu esquives le débat pour rester dans l’invective. Sur ta question des 10 millions de Français s’installant chez moi : si ces personnes respectent les lois et la culture locale, il n'y a aucune raison de parler de « colonisation ». Le problème surgit lorsqu’on refuse l’intégration ou qu’on veut imposer ses propres règles, et cela vaut pour tout le monde. Mais n’oublions pas que la France est un État laïque : les musulmans ont le droit d’y vivre et d’y pratiquer leur religion. Contrairement à la France, mon pays ne revendique pas cette laïcité, donc ta question « qui viennent s’installer chez toi ? » ne se pose même pas pour moi. Je ne transforme pas ta question, j'y réponds sur le fond. Personne ne nie que l'immigration pose des défis en Europe, mais c'est le résultat de décennies de politiques migratoires mal gérées et d'un échec de l'intégration, et non de l'islam en tant que religion. Des millions de musulmans vivent en Europe paisiblement, travaillent et respectent les lois sans faire de bruit. Quant au rôle des US ou d'Israël, ce n'est pas un narratif pour « noyer le poisson ». Des faits historiques et des documents déclassifiés confirment que des services occidentaux ont, à diverses époques, instrumentalisé certains courants radicaux pour des intérêts géopolitiques. Cela a contribué à dégrader l'image de l'islam et à fracturer la coexistence entre chrétiens et musulmans, une coexistence qui a pourtant duré des siècles à Jérusalem. Tu parles d' « invasion arabo-musulmane ». Les difficultés liées à l’immigration existent, mais dès que l'on évoque l'islam, tu bascules directement dans le « reste chez toi » sans jamais accepter d'aborder le fond de la religion ou ses messages. Tes slogans d’exclusion n'offrent aucune solution. Si tu veux un vrai échange, critique l’islam sur ses textes et ses sources plutôt que par des réactions épidermiques. Sinon, nous resterons bloqués dans un dialogue de sourds.
Français
1
0
0
6
Julien l'âme Celte
Julien l'âme Celte@l_ame_Celte·
Tu ne réponds pas à la question, tu la transforme pour l'éviter: Tu réagis comment si tout d'un coup t'as 10 millions de Français (des blancs) qui viennent s’installer chez toi? Tu crierais à la colonisation ou tu dirais toi aussi "rentrez chez vous? Au lieu de répondre, tu sors le narratif CIA + Israël pour noyer le poisson de l’invasion arabo-musulmane que subit l’Europe depuis 50 ans: attentats, changement démographique, zones de non-droit, coûts sociaux.Les faits sont têtus. Bon courage pour aller contre.
Français
1
0
0
12
🧛🏼‍♀️Wilhelmina Murray 🍉🔻
Ma fille de 14 ans s’intéresse à l’Islam. Je ne sais pas par quoi commencer… J’ai laissé des messages vocaux et mails à des Mosquées mais je n’ai pas de retours… Commencer l’initier? Trouver les bons interlocuteurs ?…
Français
501
165
3.5K
513.4K
Skull
Skull@skulloftruth·
The brain is part of the body and develops as male or female in utero, directed by chromosomes and sex hormones. This is developmental biology, not philosophy. Sex is binary and determined at conception. It organizes the entire organism, including average brain differences. Rare disorders of sexual development are variations within the binary, not evidence that sex is a spectrum or that feelings override material reality. Gender dysphoria is a psychological condition. Its recent explosion aligns with social media, peer influence, and affirmation policies rather than a sudden biological revelation. Pre-affirmation eras showed high natural desistance rates. We do not affirm anorexia by starving patients or amputate healthy limbs for body integrity disorder. Sex should not be the exception where we abandon evidence-based medicine and women's rights for subjective feelings. Biology is not optional. Again, a man does not become a woman by declaring it, regardless of philosophical claims.
English
1
0
0
23
General_Cree-vis
General_Cree-vis@General_Creevis·
@skulloftruth @StrainedNoodles @notmadyfr yeah but this is no mental health issue this is a physical one. bit of a philosophical question maybe, but are you a body with a brain in it, or a brain inside a body? which part IS you?
English
1
0
0
9
mady
mady@notmadyfr·
wdym transphobic? So you are trying to make some muslim females drop their religious beliefs and let anyone around them in their OWN safe space ? not respecting their religious boundaries is islamophobic
English
57
34
1.9K
193.1K
Skull
Skull@skulloftruth·
Exactement, l’islam est une religion, pas une race. Personne n’a dit le contraire. Critiquer une religion est légitime. En revanche, passer directement à « reste chez toi » et « tu n’es pas Français » relève du rejet xénophobe. Concernant les attentats : si demain 20 français commettaient un attentat au nom du christianisme, cela ne signifierait pas que le christianisme cautionne ces actes. De la même manière, les crimes commis par ISIS et Al-Qaeda n’engagent pas l'islam. Le vrai islam condamne le meurtre d’innocents, sauf en cas de légitime défense. D’ailleurs, il est intéressant de noter qu’Israël est le seul pays de la région qu’ils n’ont jamais attaqué, tandis que des documents déclassifiés américains montrent bien qui profitait de leur montée en puissance (en gros ces organisations terroristes sont clairement des créations d'Israël). La propreté et la pureté sont des valeurs fondamentales en Islam. C’est pour cela que des instructions détaillées sur la manière de se laver ont été données, à une époque où l’hygiène générale était bien pire qu’aujourd’hui. Ton insistance à vouloir renvoyer les gens « chez eux » et ton refus de te justifier ne font que révéler ton ignorance et ta fermeture d'esprit.
Français
1
0
0
16
Julien l'âme Celte
Julien l'âme Celte@l_ame_Celte·
Exactement, l'islam est une religion pas une race. Cette religion dicte jusqu'à la manière de se torcher le fion. Tu vas pas me faire le coup de la religion RATP (religion d'amour, de tolérance et de paix) alors que c'est en son nom qu'il y a des attentats sur mon territoire. Non je ne te hais pas mais reste chez toi ou aller viens en touriste. Tu réagis comment si tout d'un coup t'as 10 millions de Français (des blancs) qui viennent s’installer chez toi? Tu crieras comme tous les tiens à la colonisation en voulant nous foutre dehors. Mon argument? Tu n'es pas Français reste chez toi. Voilà j'ai pas besoin de me justifier chez moi pour rester avec les miens.
Français
1
1
1
37
Skull
Skull@skulloftruth·
No, "gender" as this fluid self-ID thing separate from sex is the redefinition and the root of the problem. For nearly all of human history across cultures, people understood male and female through biology and reproduction. Rare cases of gender-variant behavior or mental distress existed, often treated as illness or eccentricity. But the modern claim that a man can literally be a woman because of feelings, and that we must rewrite language, sports, spaces, and medicine around it? That is brand new. It exploded in the 2010s with social contagion, activism, and weak institutions. You will not find men identifying as real women and demanding access to female prisons, locker rooms, or teenage girls sports throughout history. When it actually mattered for medicine, safety, and fairness, societies used biological sex at birth. That is observable, immutable, and binary in our species. Gender feelings do not override gametes, chromosomes, or skeletal structure. Calling a man a woman does not make him one. It just erases the actual category that exists for a reason. Mental health issues deserve treatment, not affirmation at the expense of reality and women's rights.
English
1
0
0
19
General_Cree-vis
General_Cree-vis@General_Creevis·
@skulloftruth @StrainedNoodles @notmadyfr no redefining, simply 2 seperate things. no recent change, been that way for nearly as long as weve existed. wider acknowledgement may be recent, but that does not mean the thing itself is new
English
1
0
0
25
Skull
Skull@skulloftruth·
Convertir ou non à une religion n’a rien à voir avec le racisme. Le racisme, c’est dire à quelqu’un « rentre chez toi » et « chez moi tu te sentiras mal » simplement parce qu’il n’est pas du même groupe ethnique ou religieux que toi. C’est exactement ce que tu fais. Tu supposes que je me trouve en France (malgré le fait que je te dise le contraire) uniquement parce que je m’exprime mieux que toi, ce qui est assez ironique pour quelqu’un d’aussi fier d’être français. Sur l’hygiène : oui, beaucoup de musulmans utilisent l’eau après les toilettes (istinja), ce qui est plus propre que le papier seul. Cela n’empêche pas d’utiliser les deux si on veut. Encore une fois, un cliché qui ne tient pas. Ton discours se résume à : « Je ne te hais pas… mais reste chez toi avec ta religion ». C’est la définition classique du rejet xénophobe. Tu ne débats pas, tu veux juste l’exclusion. Et comme prévu, toujours aucun argument de fond sur la religion, uniquement de la peur, de la haine et du « va-t’en ». La bonne foi brille par son absence.
Français
1
0
0
11
Julien l'âme Celte
Julien l'âme Celte@l_ame_Celte·
N'importe que peu se convertir à ta religion donc tu vas m'expliquer où est le racisme. Tu as changé ta localisation. Je ne te hais pas, je veux juste que tu sois dans ton pays. Chez moi tu te sentiras mal. Si tu te laves à l'eau après être aller aux toilettes c'est que tu n'utilises pas de papier. Si? Mais reste chez toi quand même avec ta religion.
Français
1
0
0
17
Skull
Skull@skulloftruth·
Ce que tu décris n’est rien d’autre qu’un cliché raciste éculé, largement relayé dans les milieux anti-musulmans. Les musulmans pratiquants effectuent des ablutions plusieurs fois par jour et se lavent à l’eau après être allés aux toilettes, une pratique objectivement plus hygiénique que le simple usage de papier. Je ne suis ni français, ni résident en France. Ton “rentre chez toi” est donc aussi absurde qu’inutile. Évidemment, tu ne feras jamais l’effort d’une recherche sincère et honnête. Aux autres qui liront ce message, soyez témoins que ces bouffons n’ont rien de concret, de véridique ou d’intéressant à dire. Ils sont uniquement animés par la haine, la peur et l’ignorance, et cela ne changera pas tant qu’ils ne mettront pas leur ego de côté pour faire preuve, au moins une fois, d’un minimum d’honnêteté intellectuelle
Français
1
0
0
19
Skull
Skull@skulloftruth·
A woman is not defined as a person who possesses qualities traditionally associated with females. That definition is circular, subjective, and collapses under scrutiny because it relies on stereotypes rather than reality. Women are adult human females: the adult members of the sex that produces large gametes. This is a material, biological fact rooted in reproductive anatomy, chromosomes, and physiology. Humans are more complex than other species in many ways, but we remain a sexually dimorphic mammal species. That dimorphism, male and female, is observable and not erased by self-identification. You can stay delusional if you want, but do not defend mentally ill people or worse, support their harassment. That is exactly what is happening right now with death threats and harassment being sent to the teenage girls hosting the tournament. Redefining womanhood around feelings does not make it true and it should not come at the expense of actual females.
English
1
0
0
19
General_Cree-vis
General_Cree-vis@General_Creevis·
@skulloftruth @StrainedNoodles @notmadyfr actually a woman is a person who posesses qualities that are traditionally associated with females, not plainly an adult human female. we are much more complex than nonhuman species and do not identify ourselves the same way we identify them.
English
1
0
0
48
Skull
Skull@skulloftruth·
Adjectives and modifiers often do change or specify the core meaning of a noun. That is basic English. Peanut butter is not dairy butter. Coconut milk is not mammary milk. Imitation crab is not crab. A mock trial is not a real trial. A trans woman is not a woman. The prefix makes it a male person identifying as one. Women are adult human females. Playing with words will not turn your desires into reality. Biology confirms the distinction with chromosomes, reproductive systems, and sex-based traits regardless of language games.
English
1
0
0
73
General_Cree-vis
General_Cree-vis@General_Creevis·
@StrainedNoodles @notmadyfr no, i am correcting you. adjectives do not change the meaning of the noun. im not even getting into biology and psychology yet, this is basic english.
English
2
0
2
451
Skull
Skull@skulloftruth·
"It shows a lack of understanding of science." The irony is thick. Science shows the opposite: sex is binary and determined by gametes, chromosomes (XX/XY), and reproductive anatomy. It is immutable in humans. "Trans women" are adult human males with a psychological condition (gender dysphoria) who may take cross-sex hormones or undergo surgery. Those interventions do not change their sex. They remain biologically male, often retaining significant male physiological advantages in strength, muscle mass, bone density, lung capacity, and skeletal structure. You cannot define "woman" as "adult human female" (the standard biological definition) and then claim males who identify as women are literally women. That's incoherent. Either sex is real and matters (especially in single-sex spaces, sports, prisons, and medicine), or it doesn't. Pretending males become females by declaration or hormones isn't science. It's ideology overriding observable biology. No serious biologist claims males can become females. Policies that erase sex-based categories undermine women's rights and fair competition precisely because they ignore the material reality the science describes.
English
0
0
0
55
Skull
Skull@skulloftruth·
@shur3dd3ru @82wilhelmina Al Fawzan est un extrémiste salafiste. Il n’est pas un représentant de l’islam, point final. L’utiliser comme argument révèle que tu ne cherches pas la vérité, juste à alimenter tes préjugés. Arrête de parler d’une religion dont tu n’as aucune réelle connaissance.
Français
1
0
0
24
⭐★★★★
⭐★★★★@shur3dd3ru·
@82wilhelmina Quelle inculture, tout y est écrit. Mais apparemment ça ne vous convainc pas assez qu'il faille passer par de tiers prosélytes pour mieux enfoncer le clou de l'aveuglement. En matière de culture, je vous conseille Al Fawzan parler du mariage de gamines.
Français
1
1
44
890
Skull
Skull@skulloftruth·
Ta liste d’accusations est du copié-collé typique de ceux qui n’ont jamais lu le Coran. Tous les points que tu cites ont été contextualisés et expliqués depuis des siècles. Une simple recherche suffit, mais tu préfères visiblement les images toutes faites à la lecture. Tu parles d’un texte que tu ne connais pas, en ignorant volontairement les explications historiques et théologiques disponibles partout. C’est pathétique.
Français
0
0
0
16
⭐★★★★
⭐★★★★@shur3dd3ru·
@82wilhelmina Bah déjà lire ce torchon qu'est le coran, ce serait plus rationnel que se faire embobiner par le premier gourou venu. Et ne pas fermer les yeux sur la barbarie de la religion enveloppée sous une couche de spiritualité bancale pour mieux faire avaler la pilule bleue. Sinon fuyez.
⭐★★★★ tweet media
Français
2
7
252
9.8K
Skull
Skull@skulloftruth·
Calling this 'honesty' confuses being candid with being correct. Admitting to a selfish position does not make the position inherently more valid or truthful. It just makes it transparent. The 'Statement Against Interest' logic fails here because Red voters are actually acting in their own perceived self-interest, which is personal survival at the cost of the collective. The true 'honesty' lies in acknowledging the reality of the human population. Choosing Blue is not about being 'morally superior' for the sake of it. It is the only logical response to the fact that millions of people, such as infants, the elderly, the disabled, and those without access to the choice, cannot or will not choose Red. A Red vote is an admission that you are willing to let those people die to secure your own safety, which is not a 'bold truth' but a failure to account for the vulnerability of others. TL;DR: Red voters are either logically blind to the vulnerable or just openly comfortable with letting others die for their own safety.
Skull tweet media
English
0
0
1
54
Mankosmash
Mankosmash@Mankosmash·
@BrlyThnkng @cremieuxrecueil You might not like reds, but you cannot argue that reds aren't the more honest of the two groups. Reds are taking a position that the majority of respondents consider to be selfish or even evil & subject reds to shaming. This is called a "statement against interest".
English
2
0
8
274
Crémieux
Crémieux@cremieuxrecueil·
Red and blue button pushers: who's smarter? In a mostly-subscriber sample who took a brief verbal IQ test, the answer is... Blue pushers! If the whole population has an IQ of 100 with an SD of 15, their mean IQ would be 101.9, versus 97.0 for reds.
Crémieux tweet media
English
668
283
5.7K
1.1M
Skull
Skull@skulloftruth·
Says the retard. Just admit you want to kill infants, children, blind people, mentally ill people, and anyone with even a bit of empathy, conviction, or faith. That includes your family and friends, if you have any (which I wouldn’t be surprised if you didn’t, given that mentality). x.com/i/status/20498…
English
0
0
0
5
Bwukkers
Bwukkers@bwukkers49667·
@Yesterstar_1029 @DrCramm Are you fucking retarded? Literally the only way people can die is if they push the blue button, pushing the blue button is therefore the only button that kills people
English
1
0
0
24
Skull
Skull@skulloftruth·
@Y2Ordi @IndignantDoll @cluckthesystem I preshot you. I knew you were gonna say that, that's why I posted the link (x.com/i/status/20498…) in my first reply, which answers what you just said. You red voters HAVE to change the rules to not be selfish, unempathetic, baby killing monsters (among other things).
Skull@skulloftruth

Notice how fast you change the rules the moment you realize the prompt includes infants, children, the elderly, blind people, color blind folks, illiterate people, and yes your own family and loved ones. The original setup is clear. Every single human on the planet has to privately press a button. No exemptions. No only literate adults. No custom labels for your comfort. Red majority means blue button pressers die. That is millions, probably billions in practice, including babies. You are happy to red pill when it is abstract game theory. But when it means knowingly gambling with and accepting the deaths of kids, your parents, siblings, or friends who might press blue out of hope or principle? Suddenly you want to nerf the scenario to only adults who can read. That is not strength or intelligence. That is coping so you do not have to admit what red actually endorses: sacrificing others, including the most vulnerable, to guarantee your own survival. Changing the rules to only adults is just dodging the real question. Stand on the original prompt. Knowing it would kill infants, children, and likely some of your own loved ones who press blue, you still choosing red? If yes, then it is not just mistrust. It is accepting murder as the price of your personal safety. The original tweet nails it. Picking red means you are okay with wiping out 30 percent plus of people because you assume others are too dumb or selfish to coordinate on blue, while that is just gaslighting yourself to cope with what you're really doing: sacrificing innocents because you're too weak to even protect your loved ones.

English
0
0
0
5
Ordi
Ordi@Y2Ordi·
@skulloftruth @IndignantDoll @cluckthesystem But the more interesting scenario is this one: Only people who can fully understand the decision have to participate. Anyone who still presses 'blue' under those conditions is just a retard. And not even an empathetic one, just a regular retard. 🙂
English
2
0
0
14
Roo
Roo@cluckthesystem·
Blue: Easiest win goal, 51% and everyone is golden. 49% room for misalignment, not everyone has to get it. Huge error catch all. Blue is not opposition when you vote with them, they are teammates. Red: You for sure wont die. Alot of your frens and other innocents might.
English
79
4
104
4.3K
Skull
Skull@skulloftruth·
Says the unempathetic retard. "Simply idiots" when they're just kids, infants, blind people, mentally disabled people, and people with conviction, empathy, or simply loved ones (family, friends, etc.). Emphasis on this picture which clearly shows an infant that can't move away from the crusher. x.com/i/status/20498…
Skull tweet media
English
1
0
0
24
Skull
Skull@skulloftruth·
@CapsuleCorpKami @Cel_Stardew Red voter LOVE to change the rules to cope with the fact they're sociopaths. x.com/i/status/20498…
Skull@skulloftruth

Notice how fast you change the rules the moment you realize the prompt includes infants, children, the elderly, blind people, color blind folks, illiterate people, and yes your own family and loved ones. The original setup is clear. Every single human on the planet has to privately press a button. No exemptions. No only literate adults. No custom labels for your comfort. Red majority means blue button pressers die. That is millions, probably billions in practice, including babies. You are happy to red pill when it is abstract game theory. But when it means knowingly gambling with and accepting the deaths of kids, your parents, siblings, or friends who might press blue out of hope or principle? Suddenly you want to nerf the scenario to only adults who can read. That is not strength or intelligence. That is coping so you do not have to admit what red actually endorses: sacrificing others, including the most vulnerable, to guarantee your own survival. Changing the rules to only adults is just dodging the real question. Stand on the original prompt. Knowing it would kill infants, children, and likely some of your own loved ones who press blue, you still choosing red? If yes, then it is not just mistrust. It is accepting murder as the price of your personal safety. The original tweet nails it. Picking red means you are okay with wiping out 30 percent plus of people because you assume others are too dumb or selfish to coordinate on blue, while that is just gaslighting yourself to cope with what you're really doing: sacrificing innocents because you're too weak to even protect your loved ones.

English
0
0
0
5
Kami
Kami@CapsuleCorpKami·
@Cel_Stardew Buddy the ppl voting will be able bodied adults. Just read the question correctly
English
4
0
56
3K
Arrrtk
Arrrtk@Artankhos·
@xplanetv @GoodPoliticGuy You reds are so retarded with these strawman examples. I can perfectly frame it so reds are responsibles for the deaths instead: Red: let's release this man-eater tiger so we can go to a safe place from it! Blue: just don't release the tiger man.
English
1
0
0
36
Skull
Skull@skulloftruth·
@xplanetv @GoodPoliticGuy YOU are doing the meme (notice the baby that represents the innocent people that CAN'T get out of the crusher).
Skull tweet media
English
0
0
1
15