RNAi [he/him]@hexbear.net to urbanism@hexbear.netEnglish · 1 day agoYeshexbear.netimagemessage-square26fedilinkarrow-up1207arrow-down10
arrow-up1207arrow-down1imageYeshexbear.netRNAi [he/him]@hexbear.net to urbanism@hexbear.netEnglish · 1 day agomessage-square26fedilink
minus-squareNephewAlphaBravo [he/him]@hexbear.netlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up70arrow-down1·1 day agoI like the implication that trains aren’t vehicles.
minus-squareJoeByeThen [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.netlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up55·1 day agoOr that the train is the one at fault. 40% of Trains strike their spouses, you know.
minus-squareKairos@lemmy.todaylinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4arrow-down1·1 day agoNo? Where is that implied?
minus-squareanarcho_blinkenist [none/use name]@hexbear.netlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up17arrow-down1·23 hours agoright in the headline, where it didn’t say “another vehicle”
minus-squareKairos@lemmy.todaylinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5arrow-down1·22 hours agoMe: “I was complented by a guy I didn’t know” You: so you must be a woman then. It absolutely doesn’t imply that. YOU are reading into it.
I like the implication that trains aren’t vehicles.
Or that the train is the one at fault. 40% of Trains strike their spouses, you know.
No? Where is that implied?
right in the headline, where it didn’t say “another vehicle”
Me: “I was complented by a guy I didn’t know”
You: so you must be a woman then.
It absolutely doesn’t imply that. YOU are reading into it.