I migalhasn't

Ja, I get that. I'm not passing moral judgement one way or the other, I just think that people get mixed up on what the argument is even about.

For example, I can't legally sign a contract where the terms are that I become a slave to the other party. I may have consented, but the law sets a floor for what is possible to consent to. The contract is void and unenforceable, regardless of my consent.

This is not quite the same, because I don't think there is any significant suggestion that it should be flat-out illegal to participate in an orgy. What there is though, is an expectation of greater scrutiny and care.

You know how "being of sound mind" is included in certain significant contracts, like your will; but not in less significant ones, like you buying a pack of cigarettes on credit? The weight of an agreement does necessarily affect the degree of clear-mindedness required for consent to be considered acceptably certain. IMO the argument here is largely about how that threshold is determined in relation to sex.

I definitely fall more on the side that considers sex a significant enough act to warrant clear-minded consent. I also believe that there are degrees to a sexual act, and the more out there; the more clear the needed consent. I do not think it's unreasonable to expect that some dudes think "hold on a sec, this *** is completely ***ed up, we could get into so much shit if we go through with this" instead of gangbanging her. IMO that would be a better, stronger, less degenerate culture.

If you drank yourself shitfaced (as one ought to be able to do) and then, as a consequence, had your bumhole reamed by like 6 dudes I imagine you'd be pretty upset, and wouldn't regard it as merely the legitimate consequence of your actions. People are trying to set limits on legitimate consequences. This is a reasonable thing to do when the active cause of the "consequences" is other people. It is not a reasonable thing to do when the only actor in the scenario is you, as with drunk driving.

Valid

Not quite, that would just be anit-communism. Whenever I've seen it used outside of the actual McCarthy era, it's about stoking public anxiety about a hostile power to bully political and civil opposition and legitimise consolidation of power and quasi-legal crackdowns. The communist aspect is kinda secondary. You could make an argument that 2010s-era Nazi-labeling was a (relatively light) example of McCarthyism.

Teddy, I'm gonna be real with you: how can you look at that suburban slop and not see it as an intentional crushing of the soul? It's an environment where the only way you can possibly acquire basic goods and services is by paying an enormous and eternal tax in both money and time to the motor jew, and where building and living in anything other than the blandest, lowest quality shit is actively forbidden. It looks to me like an actual nightmare existence.

+me: Lurking behind the party like Gollum in Moria

Scry's having a stronk

Someone who played Pokemon please explain this to me

I mean, it's a good point. Even shitty backpacks last pretty ok -- years of daily use, often quite heavy weights involved, usually lasting (just barely) to the end of a school career. Not entirely enshittified!