>>3371025 (Last Bread)

That's what I gathered, but when you come to this particular chan with an opposing thought, you have to expect to be challenged. These people, and perhaps you as well, have been publicly ostracized, censored, banned, and threatened and even assaulted for voicing their opinions. You have to expect some pushback when you go to their only safe space to potentially spark a conversation or debate. I think at this point, by you not being banned (not a threat) is evidence of a level of tolerance not granted to them nearly everywhere else. What opposing opinion(s) were you referring to?

>>3371422

Femanon here. I hereby willfully commit the crime of disagreeing with you. Please respect my First Amendment Right to say what I want, and please do not drag me away to your Gulag for re-education. Also, please to not censor me with your fascist ideals, and do not kill me for your authoritarian reasons. You are owned by a very dangerous ideology that would only result in the blood and tears of millions of people of all types, if given power. This message was very useful to Anons here, because it further justifies the reasoning behind their research and support for our President. Kindly go fuck your mother.

>>3371668

Not very new. Context, fren. Using a Femanon label is typically bullshit because it implies that the opinion of a female should be regarded differently because of gender. I agree that it is Bullshit. However when clearly speaking with someone who took time to post that dangerous trash, I will self-label since the author would likely disregard a male's opinion right off the bat. But for he/she to read that even females find this post a heaping pile of dinkeyshit, perhaps we can slowly chip at our deranged sisters' mindset. Probably won't succeed but worth a shot.

This is one of the very, very few circumstances where I find announcing my gender useful. Otherwise, gender-less opinions are best because they are then scrutinized based off their logic or lack thereof.