>>21771788First time in the Internet?
If you think that was scorn, you might want to go back to hiding under your covers.
>>21771787Again, this has nothing to do with anything.
Let's clarify this for your brain dead ass.
You said,
>Original woke movement In regards to Christianity. Complaining directly about the violence they caused in the name of their ideology.
Clearly trying to tie wokeness, which you know is unpopular here, to Christianity. Also making a direct connection to ideological violence being bad. Does you own statement make sense yet or do I have to explain your own words to you further?
I said, no one had a problem with the violence. They had other problems with wokeness. I.e. being homoerotic eunuch led race communism.
Make sense yet you fucking waste of oxygen?
