They really saw all the weed strain names and just thought 'yes this makes sense as a flavour'

Probably even does

Well on their way already. And many States are already trying to enforce alert systems to identify the nefarious transgenders.

Aaand They're making conversion practices legal so we can expect lots of 'confused straight boy' suicide notices over the next few years.

I'd be worried about a reply here putting me on some kind of black bagging list but Trump just won a court case about enforcing a demand for lists of jews and I guarantee they didn't pause building the list of queers so hey.

Spread buttery sauce all over them

Stupid hot trans buns

I don't get the significance I'm eating crow constantly in this house.

The God Empress sits on her golden throne.

Which is also a God Empress.

They take turns.

We are all disciples of Sin now

I miss when reddit and so many other places had real posts by real people that weren't just bot slop.

Look all I'm going to say is the guy clearly has standards. He gave Shakespeare the musing for Midsummer Night's Dream after all and even got himself a self insert cameo, Good Fellow that he is.

You can't expect these modern upstarts like ballet and opera to hold muster against the truest stage.

Watch them defund the entire health service in NI just so they can claim it isn't targeted at trans people.

Then we later find out that yes transes were a target but the second Westminster learned that they had a chance to kill the NHS they just went for it before hearing the reason.

Remember to only use natural boar bristle brushes - synthetics harm the pit.

'Ethics became so much easier when I just started picking off members of the ethics review board until their replacements gave me what I want'

Of course not.

In order to be phobic against a group of people, that group needs to exist as people.

So much work has gone into ensuring that said group cannot exist as people.

No humans harmed for the right definition of human. Aren't words great!

We can also expect all the big corporates to make their contract terms significantly more complex regarding definitions of breach - particularly very stringent assessment of what might constitute damage or a failure to maintain the property, pets, etc. It will be rare for someone to get to 6 years.

FT is no longer a valid news source

TL;DR: Rich fucks buy pre-made reputation and use it to shill bullshit

Welp. We can write this off as a valid news source.

That Labubette seen some shit then.

That Labubu has seen some shit

I am now trying to construct a pickup line using the term 'glottal stop'

Nah I'm just wrecked and used 'your' instead of 'reasonable'

Never mind. D.Moore put it better than I could

I dunno. It's bluesky I just assumed you weren't an asshole.

Isn't it great when you can create the problems that get your people elected.

Yeah but while your response to millions of displaced homeless and starving brown people is to give them a blanket and food, they just want to stick shitloads of proximity sensors on the border tied to those guns they build A-10 planes around.

Besides, new big anti migration push for EU elections.

We need to protect the poor 17 year olds who don't know how to make decisions from those dastardly 18 year olds who are technically only a few hours older but it reads good in the daily mail.

You need to hit 25 without passing 18 and then you might be considered actually trans.

But it only matters before age 18. Once you're above 18 you're just a pervert.

If you are counted as a case and become 18 then you're removed as a case for having been a secret pervert. Hitting adulthood retroactively backdates pervert.

Therefore the numbers can never be that high.

So quote it directly? The issue is not referencing the Quran. The issue is screenshotting LLM summary output and treating it as a source of any kind.

It could very well have summarised badly. The references could appear fine at a glance but be pointing to completely irrelevant parts of the text.

They said 'I cited this:', referring to a previous post where they did not cite that.

They cited a bot which said some things wrapped in quotes that may or may not be accurate.

Correcting the mistake is fine. Lying about your initial source is not.