• Sarah Valentine@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    why they’re flattening the two things

    That’s not what’s going on though. The two things share one very very crucial detail in common that y’all keep pretending isnt being mentioned repeatedly in this thread. Deal with that or do not expect to continue this conversation.

    • blartcap_@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      What detail is that? It can’t be the non-consensual touch since I’ve mentioned that in most of my comments outright, including my last reply to you.

      • Sarah Valentine@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        It’s the fact that non-consensually touching a stranger’s child is absolutely unacceptable behavior. Why do you have such a hard time understanding that? Are you looking to get away with something like this in the future and want to make sure it’s downplayed sufficiently? Get outta here with this pretense of not understanding the issue.

        • blartcap_@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          24 hours ago

          So the thing that was regularly addressed is the thing you think nobody is talking about. And there’s not a single comment saying non-consensual touching is okay or questioning if it can be, but somehow you imagined there was.

          Meanwhile you’re ignoring what I told you what I’m actually questioning. Don’t pretend like you were ever trying to have a conversation when you were just looking to get angry about something nobody said.