That’s just because you haven’t seen all the shit he’s been talking behind your back.

They’re just saying it doesn’t count as two because Trump’s doesn’t really count. The one on the bottom left is absolutely a Nazi salute.

That’s exactly what an evil robot without red LEDs would want us to think.

I agree that we seem to use language differently, and it’s pretty interesting to see. Both of us have been upvoted by at least one or two other people as well, so it seems some people agree with you and some with me despite our completely different takes, so I don’t think either of us are really wrong.

According to the dictionary, ‘is’ and ‘was’ are respectively a present and past tense singular of the word ‘be’. The definition of the word ‘be’ (or at least, the one I find relevant here), is “having the state, quality, identity, nature, role, etc., specified”. This seems like a significantly more important part of the sentence to be emphasizing here.

On the moon he is the alien.

As opposed to who? I still just can’t understand why you would emphasize ‘he’, when there are no other subjects that we could be talking about. Like, obviously we’re talking about Neil, so why would you put emphasis on it? On the other hand, the fact that he actually ‘is/was’ an alien is pretty surprising to think about and thus the important bit. That is to say, it makes more sense to emphasize the fact that he is an alien, and not the fact that Neil is the subject.

The emphasis is not being placed on was because it’s past tense, it’s being placed on was because the shitpost is ironically somewhat accurate. You can replace it with is if you’d like for the same meaning. On the other hand, everyone knows we’re talking about Neil as there is no other relevant subject, so bringing attention to the word he doesn’t really make any sense.

Perhaps it would read better if they had said “…he actually was an alien”?

Why would he be italicized? ‘Was’ would be italicized because the emphasis is being put on the fact that he actually was an alien.

This is fire.

Yeah, the entire joke is a subversion of expectations. The only reason the joke works at all is because the format is being used “incorrectly”.

I can’t tell if I’m tired and missing your point, or if you misunderstood me.

I am specifically referring to inmate-on-inmate SA. As prisons are typically segregated by gender, the offender and victims would both be female in this case. Guard-on-inmate SA on the other hand is mostly male offenders as one might unfortunately expect.

You have such a way with words.

While certainly a minority, they are not negligible. Especially so in prisons, where inmate-on-inmate SA can be over 3 times higher for women than for men.

Well, considering the question was, “is there anything that literally only males like”, and there are in fact women that sexually assault other women, then yes, you are wrong.

Is that absolutely true?

It’s a procedurally generated perma-death deck builder, where the only thing you unlock after death are new decks (which are essentially this game’s characters, of which I believe there are 10) and harder difficulties for each deck. You complete short 15-ish minute runs, where the only thing that makes the game easier is your own skill as you get better.

Sounds like a roguelike/lite to me.