Goya Beans

[DuranDuranfan]

19 hours ago, Arodash said:

YESSSSSS do we get a trophy? 

Well yeah since participation trophies are the thing.

[Calligraphette_Coe]

Or for something completely different.....

 

 

 

 

[Skycaptain]

All this makes me think of "Saturn devouring his son" 😋😋

[Guest]

On 7/15/2020 at 2:47 PM, Arodash said:

Do tell what hes done to the world apart from stopping North Korea's nuclear development? 

He hasn't stopped anything. They destroyed one building, and committed nothing else. In fact, the relationship between them and South Korea has worsened.

 

Kim Jung Un, isn't an idiot. He saw an idiot in the white house, and tried to score bolder concessions that would have been shot down by any other leader that did their homework vs wing things.

 

He isn't wasting a meeting, to end anything. He played Trump, while Trump was desperate for approval ratings and positive PR. 

 

Nice pictures, but meaningless trip. Good. Now you're the only president to do this. Okay. And? Ego boost material for his base, but hollow in actual policy. 

 

On 7/15/2020 at 2:47 PM, Arodash said:

Or, beating China back to their hole in the ground

Last time I checked, China had grown in global influence since Trump was more focused on building walls. China was busy building infrastructure and roads and railways, to sidestep their dependence on the ocean for trade. This also opens their doors to Europe.

 

With a fumbling Trump, it's rather easy for China to make friends since they have deep pockets.

 

Money talks. Trump, just talks. 

 

He has cost the US plenty of global clout and influence. 

 

So much for banging them into a hole. Speaking of, he only has a few months to dig himself out of his before the elections. 

 

On 7/15/2020 at 2:47 PM, Arodash said:

Pulling American troops out of the middle east and signing peace deals

 

And almost starting a military conflict with Iran. North Korea, too coming to think about it. His winging things tactics and NY style shit talking, almost bit him in the ass.

 

Some countries will have you gunned down for disrespect of any kind. 

 

On 7/15/2020 at 2:47 PM, Arodash said:

Bringing American factories back to the states

They are rather useless with his abysmal performance on covid. 

[Guest]

Personally I don't buy Goya. However, I disagree with boycotting a brand you use, just because their CEO backed Trump. 

 

Like pressuring him to agree with your political stance, by boycotting is a violation of his freedom of speech. 

 

Ultimately if it works, and you fold his business, great. Now you have hurt thousands of people who desperately needed those jobs just because you can't accept an opinion that doesn't match yours. 

 

What a world we live in today. 

 

The irony. People complain Trump is divisive, but what do you think cancel culture is?

[Fraggle Underdark]

On 7/16/2020 at 8:37 AM, Arodash said:

I'll put them in the Trump thread and link it to you

In the beginning of this thread someone mentioned they disagree with Trump's actions and effects on the world. They did not start a debate on this topic, they just mentioned their feelings in reference to a brand of beans. You then hounded them to defend their opinion of Trump, said "wanna make claims, back em up", and when they still weren't interested in debating the topic with you you assumed they couldn't back up their claims, by quoting them and responding only "Clear, can't back up your claims." Or I'm not sure you're actually assuming they can't, or were just acting as if their lack of interest in the debate actually made it "clear" that they couldn't back things up, in the hopes that some readers would reach that conclusion.

 

You made the claim that Democratic governors mocked Trump as a fear monger because of his covid response. I asked you for references of this and you said you would PM me with some. I don't know why you suggested pm'ing them to me since they seem highly relevant for the discussion in the thread. In any case you didn't send me any PMs and the next day I requested you post them here instead. You then said you would post them in the master Trump thread. Again not sure why you wouldn't post them here, but in any case you didn't post them in either location. I suspect that you hoped I'd forget about it.

 

Normally I'd give people more slack on this kind of thing: people get busy, looking up references isn't very fun, and most people don't tend to get around to things quickly (or at all) if they aren't fun. But you've stated your position on this: "wanna make claims, back em up". Nor is there reason to be lenient with the timing: I've given you 2 days which is much more than the immediate response you ask of others. 

 

I expect it's possible that you will actually pull up some reference. I did a little googling, didn't find anything, and didn't want to fish through a ton of other material, but you seemed eager to defend Trump and provide this information to people, so I figured why not give you the opportunity. That said, it's seeming increasingly likely that you have no references, especially given how much Trump has downplayed covid. (Which is why I asked in the first place: if such a thing happened it would surprise me, and I like to hunt down information that surprises me because that means I'm learning.) If you do have a reference I am genuinely interested in seeing it.

 

Even if you have one however you do not practice what you preach when it comes to discussions and references. 

[Arodash]

 

[Skycaptain]

Electing not to buy a particular brand of beans because you disagree with the political view of the chair. 

 

#firstworldproblems

 

Most of the world's population would be grateful just to be in a position to buy a tin of beans 

[Fraggle Underdark]

Thank you for posting the references after I made my comment. 

 

There's a lot of them so I'm going to offer individual feedback:

 

1: WP video about Bill de Blasio downplaying covid. This doesn't include any mention of trump or fear-mongering.

2: A very long list of a covid responses from a variety of people, given as a timeline. I didn't look through this entire thing but I did a few keyword searches. There is one mention of "Trump's fear-mongering" but this in reference to his general political approach and his particular covid response of intense immigration controls (which he's always been a fan of, obviously). For reference, your claim was "NY has done the worst especially when they called Trump a fear monger in January for bringing up Covid. Wawawaaaaa."

3: This is about a visit Pelosi took to San Francisco's Chinatown. There is no mention of Trump downplaying or fear-mongering, the closest is that Pelosi "did say she was concerned that President Donald Trump's budget cuts 19% of funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."

4: I'm counting #4 as the inline video. This is from One America News. I'm not saying people need to throw out a news source completely based on its past behavior but it seems like a good time to point out that OAN has a reputation for conspiracy theories and propaganda. I point this out for anyone on either side of the political aisle (or the pro or anti Trump republicans). Perhaps some readers of this thread feel the reputation is unearned but it's pertinent to mention this reputation. (Anyone concerned about sources: the wikipedia article about the network has 11 about claims of propaganda and conspiracy.) But let's break this one down into details:

• It mentions that a "flurry of new reports" show that Dems were obstructing Trump while he took measures to safeguard against the virus, by which they apparently mean trying to close the border. Closing the border is a particular covid response. I'm not saying it's good, bad, undeserved, or overkill. I will say it's reasonable to consider. But to critique that one approach, or the way he went about it, is not to critique responding to covid at all.
• The video says that Bernie said it was unnecessary to close borders; they then show a clip of him saying something else but it seems plausible he said what they claim. Video then says Bernie later said closing the border wasn't enough: they again show a clip of him saying something different, which is that Trump downplayed the virus from the start. (This is a very defensible claim, for example the 2nd reference Arodash posted, from Fox news, says that on Jan 22nd 'Trump responds to whether he's concerned about a possible pandemic, “No. Not at all. And we have it totally under control." ')
• The video points out that Pelosi visited Chinatown in February and encouraged people to visit and then later supported social distancing. This only shows that either she changed her mind (a good habit for people to have) or that the situation changed and she now felt a different approach was appropriate. 
• The video points out that Trump did not call the coronavirus a hoax, as confirmed by such reliable sources as The Washington Post. This is a good point and news to me. The video then points out that several prominent democrats and "media sources" continue to say that he called it a hoax. I agree people should not repeat falsehoods. It's worth pointing out that The Washington Post is good about fact-checking people's claims, from both sides of the aisle, and they've found Trump to have made more than 20 thousand false or misleading claims. If someone is very concerned about people repeating falsehoods (as I am) then the tally doesn't stack up in a very pro-Trump way.
• Whoa, the video segways from the (true) claim that some Democrats have repeated a falsehood, continuing to say: "which further stirs allegations of a deep-state cabal, with media and bureaucrats working to derail the president while he's fighting the virus." This is a wild leap and I'm beginning to see why OAN has the reputation I've heard of. I'd additionally like to point out that they don't try to claim there is a deep state (because this would require they provide more evidence and reasoning), mentioning only "allegations" while showing a speaker at CPAC 2020 (a conservative political conference). In other words, "some people somewhere claim". 

5: An article about Biden saying Trump's response to covid was xenophobic. This is not Arodash's claim of Dems calling Trump a fear-monger for bringing up covid.

6: A press release from the white house in late January about a meeting of their task force about covid.

7: An article about NY governor Cuomo saying "The virus didn't come here because of anything New Yorkers did, the virus came here because the federal government missed it." It seems extremely doubtful that the state response had nothing to do with the way things played out. There appears to be justifiable criticism of some of Cuomo's wild claims from both Democrats and Republicans. This article however contains no mention of fear mongering or any suggestion that Trump made too big of a deal about covid.

8: This article is about Democratic states beginning to reopen. It also talks about a conflict between Trump's plan to retain personal control of when this happens and states' decisions of when this happens. (There's also an amusing claim of Trump's that the decision to reopen falls under federal authority. The NYTimes politely states "Mr. Trump offered no legal or constitutional basis to back up his claim to exclusive authority to reopen society." I'm reminded again of Arodash's policy here: "wanna make claims, back em up.")

 

None of these show evidence of Democratic governors accusing Trump of fear-mongering by bringing up covid.

 

I get the feeling this wall of references was meant to look impressive and to bore anyone who felt like looking into the details. I'm not even sure you've read all of them: the last in particular does not paint Trump in a very flattering light.

 

I would encourage any readers of this thread to consider the care with which Arodash reaches conclusions and to check Arodash's statements for themselves.

[Arodash]

17 minutes ago, fragglerock said:

None of these show evidence of Democratic governors accusing Trump of fear-mongering by bringing up covid.

 

It was meant as a general statement that from the start it was them who downplayed Covid. But sure, take everything literally.

 

18 minutes ago, fragglerock said:

I get the feeling this wall of references was meant to look impressive and to bore anyone who felt like looking into the details. I'm not even sure you've read all of them: the last in particular does not paint Trump in a very flattering light.

You can feel however you like, the intent wasnt to bore.

[Arodash]

And I apologize for my late response, think of it what you will, but ive been working some rather crazy extras at work leaving me little time but for short responses

[Fraggle Underdark]

6 hours ago, Arodash said:

It was meant as a general statement that from the start it was them who downplayed Covid. But sure, take everything literally.

"Democrats downplayed covid at the start" or "Democrats downplayed covid at the start more than Trump" are very different claims than "Democratic governors accused Trump of fear-mongering about covid".

 

For reference, you said "NY has done the worst especially when they called Trump a fear monger in January for bringing up Covid." I asked for a reference and said "I found a little description of CA governor calling Trump a fear monger about immigration but looks like it will take some work to track down a mention about covid fear-mongering." You responded "Everyone attacks my guy, and actually I have some praise for Newsom, he actually heeded Trump's warnings". I asked directly "Do you have actual sources of Democratic governors accusing Trump of fear-mongering about covid?" and you said "I'll shoot you a pm with some". You didn't send a PM and I asked "can you please post here with your references of Democratic governors accusing Trump of fear-mongering about covid?" You responded "I'll put them in the Trump thread and link it to you". You did not and I commented here about you not sharing references. You then made a post to the master Trump thread with 8 links and no other text and linked to that post here. I also notice there was no context in the Trump thread to which those references might have been a response.

 

It's reasonable to assume the links you posted were the requested references about Democratic governors accusing Trump of fear-mongering about covid. At no earlier point in our discussion here did you retreat your claim (Dem govs accuse Trump of covid fear-mongering) into "Democrats downplayed covid at the start". When I asked specifically for the covid fear-mongering references you said "I'll shoot you a pm with some" and then "I'll put them in the Trump thread and link it to you". If those references were meant to support the claim "Democrats downplayed covid at the start" there was no way to tell this other than guessing.

 

I also notice they do not all support this new claim. Reference 5 is about Biden saying Trump's covid response has been xenophobic. The most that can be said is that it mentions in passing Pelosi's visit to Chinatown, which you already provided a direct link for with reference 3. Reference 8 is about Democratic governors beginning to re-open their states, not about anyone's response at the start. 

 

But suppose for the sake of argument that these references were actually meant to support the claim "Democrats downplayed covid at the start". This means that you still have not sent me references for the claim "Democratic governors accused Trump of fear-mongering about covid", as you twice said you would do. If those references were not meant to support that claim, can you please post some references that are?

[SorryNotSorry]

On 7/15/2020 at 1:57 AM, Arodash said:

Goya Beans rules. Not only do they make awesome food

I couldn't find Cannelini beans in ANY of the local stores when I looked. Even the expensive hippie-food joints don't stock them. Finally ended up buying a sack of them on Amazon, and the cheapest brand is... Goya. I didn't buy them to eat, I bought them to plant. It's not the beans' fault that the CEO thinks our most incompetent president is a great guy.

[Arodash]

2 hours ago, fragglerock said:

But suppose for the sake of argument that these references were actually meant to support the claim "Democrats downplayed covid at the start". This means that you still have not sent me references for the claim "Democratic governors accused Trump of fear-mongering about covid", as you twice said you would do. If those references were not meant to support that claim, can you please post some references that are?

I think you missed the part where I said it was a general statement about them downplaying covid, paraphrasing. 

[Fraggle Underdark]

5 minutes ago, Arodash said:

I think you missed the part where I said it was a general statement about them downplaying covid, paraphrasing. 

Are you suggesting that when you said "NY has done the worst especially when they called Trump a fear monger in January for bringing up Covid" your meaning was that "some Democrats downplayed covid at the beginning"?

 

When you responded to my feedback on the references you said "It was meant as a general statement that from the start it was them who downplayed Covid" and I was aware that this could theoretically mean you never meant at all what you said about Democratic governors calling Trump a fear-monger for bringing up covid. But it seemed uncharitable and rude to you to assume this is what you meant. So I interpreted your comment as saying only that your references were meant to support the new claim. But your actual meaning was that you never meant what you said about accusing Trump of fear-mongering by bring up covid?

 

I'd like to point out again that you never brought up this different meaning when I first asked you about it, the times I asked for references, the 2 times you agreed to provide them, or when you provided the sources. I stated very clearly what references I was asking you for. You've only begun to claim that your statement was about some Democrats downplaying covid after I hounded you for references, publicly called you out for not providing them, and then dug through the provided references and found that they did not support your original claim.

 

In any case, by claiming that your statement was only about Democrats downplaying covid at the beginning, you agree then that Democratic governors did not accuse Trump of fear-mongering by bringing up covid?

[Arodash]

1 minute ago, fragglerock said:

Are you suggesting that when you said "NY has done the worst especially when they called Trump a fear monger in January for bringing up Covid" your meaning was that "some Democrats downplayed covid at the beginning"?

 

When you responded to my feedback on the references you said "It was meant as a general statement that from the start it was them who downplayed Covid" and I was aware that this could theoretically mean you never meant at all what you said about Democratic governors calling Trump a fear-monger for bringing up covid. But it seemed uncharitable and rude to you to assume this is what you meant. So I interpreted your comment as saying only that your references were meant to support the new claim. But your actual meaning was that you never meant what you said about accusing Trump of fear-mongering by bring up covid?

 

I'd like to point out again that you never brought up this different meaning when I first asked you about it, the times I asked for references, the 2 times you agreed to provide them, or when you provided the sources. I stated very clearly what references I was asking you for. You've only begun to claim that your statement was about some Democrats downplaying covid after I hounded you for references, publicly called you out for not providing them, and then dug through the provided references and found that they did not support your original claim.

 

In any case, by claiming that your statement was only about Democrats downplaying covid at the beginning, you agree then that Democratic governors did not accuse Trump of fear-mongering by bringing up covid?

Semantics at this point, feel how you want to feel

[Fraggle Underdark]

13 minutes ago, Arodash said:

Semantics at this point, feel how you want to feel

Actually it isn't. A semantic dispute is one about the definition of terms. Unless you are arguing that "NY has done the worst especially when they called Trump a fear monger in January for bringing up Covid" actually means "Democrats downplayed covid at the beginning" then this is not semantics.

 

Nor was my post at all about feelings. I'm discussing your written claims in this thread and their logical conclusions, and asked you a simple question to confirm your position.

 

Normally I give people slack when they don't feel like continuing a conversation, especially a political one. But on the first page of this thread someone indicated they weren't interested in such a debate and respectfully said "I accept that you support this initiative and that's absolutely fine. Accept that I don't. I'm not looking to be convinced." To which you responded "Pm me then by all means and tell me, since, you didnt say." They said "Seriously, I'm not getting into this. Buy your beans. I mean that genuinely. If you want to support them, go for it. But I'm not required to and won't be convinced." You responded "So. Your unwilling to actually tell me what [Trump has] done so bad for the world XD Because I can actually give you stats of what hes actually done for minority groups in America, wanna make claims, back em up." They said "Yes, I am unwilling to discuss politics further at the present moment. I hope we're clear on that now?" and you responded "Clear, cant back up your claims." 

 

Were you wrong to assume that if someone is uninterested in a discussion it means they can't back up their claims? Or alternatively, should readers assume that your attempted exit from this conversation means you can't back up your claims?

[Homer]

So the entire issue is that the CEO of this bean company is a Doughnald supporter? Or is there more to it? If not, I sure hope the people behind this hysteria are proud of their fantastic use of their limited time on this planet. Does any of these boneheads ever stop and think "Wait a second, what am I doing?"

 

Always remember, you're on the "correct" side, so everything you do is fair game. Always remember, you're...

[Arodash]

6 minutes ago, fragglerock said:

Were you wrong to assume that if someone is uninterested in a discussion it means they can't back up their claims? Or alternatively, should readers assume that your attempted exit from this conversation means you can't back up your claims

They can assume whatever they like, if I get to live rent free in their head thats pretty cool

[Arodash]

 

Some, other, perspective as to why the "boycott" of Goya is, well. Stupid, just as stupid as when people boycott companies for getting "woke" in the end, you hurt the working class of that company. Especially a minority owned company that has done right by people

[Fraggle Underdark]

I didn't watch the entire video, I avoid sensationalist videos as I've found them to have very poor intellectual standards. Almost always a lot of leading questions and unjustified assumptions. For example, confusing anecdotes with data. But I clicked around some, it sounded like the same things you've posted here already. Let me know if there's anything said that you haven't already said.

 

Keep in mind Goya is a private company so their financial records are private. To determine whether the boycott or buycott is having a large effect would require the same approach every statistical question requires: independent data sampling from a meaningful (i.e. large) sample of stores. I'm guessing no one with the resources to do that has attempted to but if they have let me know.

 

On 7/18/2020 at 11:22 AM, Arodash said:

They can assume whatever they like, if I get to live rent free in their head thats pretty cool

I didn't say "can assume", I said "should assume". Were you wrong to assume someone can't back up a claim when they shy away from discussing it? Or should readers assume you can't back up your claims when you shy away from discussing them? There are only 2 logical options here.

[Arodash]

4 minutes ago, fragglerock said:

didn't say "can assume", I said "should assume". Were you wrong to assume someone can't back up a claim when they shy away from discussing it? Or should readers assume you can't back up your claims when you shy away from discussing them? There are only 2 logical options here.

Im sorry you didnt like the way I backed it up XD like I said, assume whatever you like

[Arodash]

7 minutes ago, fragglerock said:

I didn't watch the entire video, I avoid sensationalist videos as I've found them to have very poor intellectual standards

Probably shouldnt judge a book by its cover XD

[Arodash]

oh and the video wasnt just for you, it was for everyone to see. But I suppose supporting a majority owned latino company that employees latinos is such a terrible thing, lets not forget the reason the CEO was meeting with the president was so they could discuss ways his administration could better help the latino community in the states, perhaps, as someone of that minority group, he finally felt like someone was listening and so praised him, but thats so terrrrrible we must now boycott a minority owned company because they wont bow to the social justice cult that claims to stand up for minorities while also telling people to boycott the largest latino owned company in the US. 

 

I have a word for that

 

Virtue signaling. 

 

They dont really care about minorities

[Fraggle Underdark]

1 hour ago, Arodash said:

Im sorry you didnt like the way I backed it up XD

There was no "way you backed it up", you did not back it up at all. You made the claim that Democratic governors accused Trump of fear-mongering for bringing up covid. You provided no references for this despite twice saying you would. 

1 hour ago, Arodash said:

Probably shouldnt judge a book by its cover XD

This is a common adage and like most of them it has a point but should not be taken literally. We all judge books by their covers. If I see a book with the title "DONALD TRUMP IS A LITERAL MARTIAN I"M NOT KIDDING" I'm going to guess that its claims don't hold up. I'm also going to guess that it at least talks about Donald Trump and is not, for example, a book full of creole recipes.

 

But to your point I like to get familiar with something before coming to a conclusion. I've seen a variety of these videos and they hold up poorly to analysis. So when I see one that uses the same click-bait techniques I assume it's likely to also hold up poorly. I realize I could be wrong but then again, I could be wrong about "DONALD TRUMP IS A LITERAL MARTIAN I"M NOT KIDDING" and perhaps it contains the secret to great creole.

 

In your case I originally asked for a reference (about Democratic governors calling Trump a fear-monger for bringing up covid) because I actually thought you might have one. You had expressed your support for not making claims unless you had evidence to back it up. So I figured you had a resource. But I'm learning that 1) you make claims for which you can't provide evidence, and 2) you don't follow your own stated principles, such as "wanna make claims, back em up."

 

1 hour ago, Arodash said:

like I said, assume whatever you like

When someone backs away from discussing something should we assume they can't back up their claims? If not then it was incorrect of you to suggest we should. If we should assume this then we should assume you can't back up your claims when you back away from them.

 

There are only 2 choices and neither has anything to do with what people can assume or what they'd like to assume. The question is whether they should assume.

 

As for my personal view, I don't think people should take someone's lack of conversation interest as evidence they can't back up their claims. People are often busy, or might guess or know that a debate with a particular person would be unproductive. I encourage people to examine someone's track record: do they seem to argue in good faith? Are they interested in changing their minds if they were wrong to begin with? (People like that end up with a lot more correct opinions over time, obviously.) Do they reason clearly or at least honestly? Do their claims hold up when you examine them?

56 minutes ago, Arodash said:

[Arodash describing the boycott motivation:] we must now boycott a minority owned company because they wont bow to the social justice cult that claims to stand up for minorities while also telling people to boycott the largest latino owned company in the US.

[later, Arodash talking about the "social justice cult":] They dont really care about minorities

This argument is only relevant for non-Latinos participating in the boycott. From what I've read many of the people participating are Latino, and they at least seem well-placed to decide whether they themselves were offended by the CEO's praise of Trump. The Latino community presumably cares about the Latino community.

[Arodash]

3 minutes ago, fragglerock said:

There was no "way you backed it up", you did not back it up at all. You made the claim that Democratic governors accused Trump of fear-mongering for bringing up covid. You provided no references for this despite twice saying you would

I did, and as I said I was paraphrasing when I said that, again, sorry you didnt  like my sources

 

4 minutes ago, fragglerock said:

This argument is only relevant for non-Latinos participating in the boycott. From what I've read many of the people participating are Latino, and they at least seem well-placed to decide whether they themselves were offended by the CEO's praise of Trump. The Latino community presumably cares about the Latino community.

I'd say the argument is relevant for anyone boycotting it. And i'm pretty sure, as usual, its a bunch of middle class white people complaining about Goya, certainly others too, but, more than likely a bunch of middle class people who have serious TAS

[Fraggle Underdark]

3 minutes ago, Arodash said:

I did, and as I said I was paraphrasing when I said that, again, sorry you didnt  like my sources

If someone agrees that "NY has done the worst especially when they called Trump a fear monger in January for bringing up Covid." means "some Democrats downplayed covid at the beginning" then yes you provided sources. I wouldn't call that paraphrasing, which does not add claims to whatever's being paraphrased, but whatever the word is unimportant.

 

Readers will note however that the actual meaning of your statements should not be taken literally, and might only mean something much weaker and more vague.

 

We also arrive at another way you don't hold yourself to the standards to which you hold others. Earlier in this thread someone said "NY has the worst case early in due to population density. Now, there is far less active cases. The worst cases are now in republican areas." You tried to correct them but this is an odd thing to do if you expect other people to "paraphrase" like this. Perhaps the person simply meant that "now republicans areas are setting many local records for covid infections"? But you "took everything literally" and argued about whether the worst cases were in Republican areas. Or is it only you we should expect to "paraphrase"?

 

7 minutes ago, Arodash said:

I'd say the argument is relevant for anyone boycotting it.

You're suggesting minorities don't really care about minorities?

8 minutes ago, Arodash said:

And i'm pretty sure, as usual, its a bunch of middle class white people complaining about Goya, certainly others too, but, more than likely a bunch of middle class people who have serious TAS

Do you have any sources for this?

 

Also I understand the people boycotting Goya are looking for alternatives, many of which are other Latino-owned businesses. (Source.)

[Arodash]

Just now, fragglerock said:

Do you have any sources for this?

Nope, like I said, im pretty sure. No sources apart from my own personal experiences and interactions.

 

1 minute ago, fragglerock said:

You're suggesting minorities don't really care about minorities?

Suggesting that no matter someone's status, its relevant. 

[Gatto]

[Arodash]

3 minutes ago, Gatto said:

This is amazing and I love all that it is