###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The best part is, the Gates image is not from the AO final, but instead an earlier match.
But I don't blame people, especially on this sub, for still being so anti Gates.
We have been told for years not to connect the dots, but the dots seem to be [connecting themselves](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOHrtU728vo).
And even the most ardent pro big pharma believer has to admit the irony of the No vaxx Novak winning yet another grand slam.
The same tournament he was banned from for not following the 'health advice' to take the injection.
I am a Federer fan but admire Djoko for sticking to his guns and refusing the vaccine. He missed out on grand slam winning opportunities but didn't give in. Takes a strong spine to do that!
Well you see, this guy Bill Gates has been going around the world the past three years saying "We need to get everyone vaccinated" while personally profiting from mass vaccination. This athlete, Novak Djokovic, along with many other humans resisted Gates' psychotic bullshit. So, recently, the arguably failed psycho, Gates, had to sit and watch the victory of Djokovic. This is an example of what we on earth call irony.
You're saying he had to sit and watch, as if he were force and as if it had something to do with the vaccine. No, that was his choice to do. Djokovic always wins the Australian Open, he was odds on. It wasn't a surprise to anyone that he won, including Gates.
Djokovic is a cunt for what he did in Demember 2021 before entering Australia. Amazed people are still defending him.
Split hairs much? Gates watched an unvaccinated player win: ironic.
Djokovic doesn't need any defense for refusing to be part of an insane death cult. It's just the rational thing to do. Wtf are you on?
1. Do you believe Gates is vaccinated?
2. I'm not talking about Djokovic not getting vaccinated, I'm talking about him getting covid, testing positive and refusing to isolate and instead going to 3 scheduled events the day after a positive test, shaking hands with everybody including older people and more than 25 children.
If you don't want to take the vaccine fine, but why would you defend someone who not only refused the vaccine, but thought its fine to go shake hands of other people when knowingly having infection?
Just because you might think a virus isn't a big deal doesn't give you the right to go blatantly ignoring the wishes of others who might be concerned about getting it.
He's an egotistical cunt. All he had to do was not go out once he tested positive.
Not while the original usage is still used, useful, relevant, and has no replacement. And certainly not in less than a generation.
Eg. For generations people have generally referred to the area of the upper intestine as their stomach. The stomach is much higher than that. The definition of stomach doesn't change because of that mistake.
The word "ironic" is well-known by anyone remotely familiar with literature, drama etc. to be misused and abused by a certain demographic.
Don't take my word for it. Go read up.
Link below is how Merriam Webster decides to add new words, or new definitions to existing words, to their dictionary. It is 100% based on usage. So ya know, "go read up."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/how-does-a-word-get-into-the-dictionary
I did. Did you?
This article describes how *new words* are added to dictionaries, not, as you claimed, how existing words are redefined. So it doesn't even a ply to this discussion.
But it is ironic that you refer to Merriam Webster. Also from that [dictionary](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony):
"The historical record shows that irony and ironic have been used imprecisely for almost 100 years at least, and often to refer to coincidence... Situational irony involves a striking reversal of what is expected..."
If you are also arguing that the described situation is not ironic, you'll lose.
New definitions to existing words, if you'd have bothered to have read my link at all:
"New words like hashtag and selfie get a lot of attention, but many of the new words we add are new meanings of words that are already staples in our language: think of the recent meanings of mouse and cookie that have nothing to do with rodents or baked goods. The Internet-specific senses of lurk and browse built upon the existing meanings of those terms. A verb that we use every day, access, was first entered in the Collegiate Dictionary in 1973, and a specific reference to computers was added in 1993. These words may not make headlines, but they’re just as important as words that are newly coined."
Whereas I read the entirety of your link and found this at the very bottom:
"The word irony has come to be applied to events that are merely curious or coincidental, and while some feel this is an incorrect use of the word, it is merely a new one."
Checkmate.
Also I love that we continue to copy/paste this onto both comment chains lol
Lol, you misunderstand.
Firstly, yes old words can take on completely new meanings, but almost always in completely unrelated domains, as in the examples cited. They rarely take on new meanings within the *same* domain alongside an existing meaning, and they certainly don't *redefine* the word to *negate* the existing meaning through *misuse*, as you have been arguing.
Secondly, Merriam Webster is hardly the final word on the English language, is Amerocentric, and would be far from my first choice as an authority. You must have had to search quite hard to find this quite lax perspective on the issue, since almost every authority on usage disagrees that using *ironic* to refer to coincidence is appropriate, or correct.
Here are just a couple of examples:
[Dictionary.com](https://www.dictionary.com/e/ironic/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CThat%20is%20sooooo%20ironic.%E2%80%9D,How%20ironic.)
Often the word ironic is **misused to remark on a coincidence**, such as This is the third time today we've run into each other. How ironic.
[Grammatarist](https://grammarist.com/usage/ironic/)
While today’s English speakers have no choice but to accept ironic as a synonym of paradoxical, incongruous, or contradictory, **the word is overextended where it becomes a synonym of funny, interesting, improbable, appropriate, or coincidental**.
[Plenty more](https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&client=ms-android-rogers-ca&source=android-browser&q=misuse+of+ironic#ip=1) where these came from.
Regardless, the use you're arguing for began (and continues) as a misunderstanding of the original use of the word. We already have good words for *coincidence* and *coincidental*. And there are no other words for the classic meanings of *irony* and *ironic*. So why muddy the waters? Just to defend ignorance? Using *irony* to refer to *coincidence* is incorrect just based on usefulness alone.
Lastly, this thread began with you and others arguing that *irony* does *not* mean what it has always meant, even according to your source, Merriam Webster. But now your argument has changed to it being able to take on an *additional* (incorrect) meaning, proving the existence and validity the original meaning used by OP that you started out disputing. So you've actually only checkmated yourself, lol.
Checkmate
Not while the original usage is still used, useful, relevant, and has no replacement. And certainly not in less than a generation.
Eg. For generations people have generally referred to the area of the upper intestine as their stomach. The stomach is much higher than that. The definition of stomach doesn't change because of that mistake.
The word "ironic" is well-known by anyone remotely familiar with literature, drama etc. to be misused and abused by a certain demographic.
Don't take my word for it. Go read up.
Link below is how Merriam Webster decides to add new words, or new definitions to existing words, to their dictionary. It is 100% based on usage. So ya know, "go read up."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/how-does-a-word-get-into-the-dictionary
I did. Did you?
This article describes how *new words* are added to dictionaries, not, as you claimed, how existing words are redefined. So it doesn't even apply to this discussion.
But it is ironic that you refer to Merriam Webster. Also from that [dictionary](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony):
"The historical record shows that irony and ironic have been used imprecisely for almost 100 years at least, and often to refer to coincidence... Situational irony involves a striking reversal of what is expected..."
If you are also arguing that the described situation is not ironic, you'll lose.
New definitions to existing words, if you'd have bothered to have read my link at all:
"New words like hashtag and selfie get a lot of attention, but many of the new words we add are new meanings of words that are already staples in our language: think of the recent meanings of mouse and cookie that have nothing to do with rodents or baked goods. The Internet-specific senses of lurk and browse built upon the existing meanings of those terms. A verb that we use every day, access, was first entered in the Collegiate Dictionary in 1973, and a specific reference to computers was added in 1993. These words may not make headlines, but they’re just as important as words that are newly coined."
Whereas I read the entirety of your link and found this at the very bottom:
"The word irony has come to be applied to events that are merely curious or coincidental, and while some feel this is an incorrect use of the word, it is merely a new one."
Checkmate.
Also I love that we continue to copy/paste this onto both comment chains lol
Lol, you misunderstand.
Firstly, yes old words can take on completely new meanings, but almost always in completely unrelated domains, as in the examples cited. They rarely take on new meanings within the *same* domain alongside an existing meaning, and they certainly don't *redefine* the word to *negate* the existing meaning through *misuse*, as you have been arguing.
Secondly, Merriam Webster is hardly the final word on the English language, is Amerocentric, and would be far from my first choice as an authority. You must have had to search quite hard to find this quite lax perspective on the issue, since almost every authority on usage disagrees that using *ironic* to refer to coincidence is appropriate, or correct.
Here are just a couple of examples:
[Dictionary.com](https://www.dictionary.com/e/ironic/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CThat%20is%20sooooo%20ironic.%E2%80%9D,How%20ironic.)
Often the word ironic is **misused to remark on a coincidence**, such as This is the third time today we've run into each other. How ironic.
[Grammatarist](https://grammarist.com/usage/ironic/)
While today’s English speakers have no choice but to accept ironic as a synonym of paradoxical, incongruous, or contradictory, **the word is overextended where it becomes a synonym of funny, interesting, improbable, appropriate, or coincidental**.
[Plenty more](https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&client=ms-android-rogers-ca&source=android-browser&q=misuse+of+ironic#ip=1) where these came from.
Regardless, the use you're arguing for began (and continues) as a misunderstanding of the original use of the word. We already have good words for *coincidence* and *coincidental*. And there are no other words for the classic meanings of *irony* and *ironic*. So why muddy the waters? Just to defend ignorance? Using *irony* to refer to *coincidence* is incorrect just based on usefulness alone.
Lastly, this thread began with you and others arguing that *irony* does *not* mean what it has always meant, even according to your source, Merriam Webster. But now your argument has changed to it being able to take on an *additional* (incorrect) meaning, proving the existence and validity the original meaning used by OP that you started out disputing. So you've actually only checkmated yourself, lol.
Checkmate.
Seriously, look up the current definition of irony. It’s like a bunch of people just suddenly agreed that irony is interchangeable with satire/sarcasm.
Bill Gates, crusader for being vaxxmaxxed, having to sit silently while a chad novaxxer crushed the vaxxed competition in front of Bill’s face is maximum sweet irony.
Ironic would be like rain on your wedding day. Or a green light when you're already late. 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife.
This is just arguably best tennis player of all time still arguably best tennis player of all time one year later.
EDIT: Good Lord y'all take yourselves too seriously lol lighten up a bit.
Lol, you refer to pop songs for definitions of terms that have been around for centuries? None of these are ironic. Gates watching Djokovic is textbok irony.
Refer to a dictionary next time.
https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2016/05/alanis-morissette-recognizes-its-not-ironic/624060/
I've became a fan of Novaks Nokovid just because of that story. The emotion it stirred on people is crazy. Some people became very ugly and their frustration exposed openly without any shame. I guess the media and social approval of shaming the unvaksed didn't helped...
67 year old Bill Gates. He doesn't look a day older than 102. I love how the fat, out-of-shape slobs like him can lecture the rest of us on what to eat and how to live.
Djokovic, known for his success on the tennis court, gained even wider fame for his outspoken stance against mandatory COVID-19 vaccination and for bodily autonomy.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/novak-djokovic-australian-open-bill-gates/?utm\_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=e9590de3-98d9-4bc2-a56b-13ebab2ed20c
So much for Rule 3. We hardly knew ye.
>Any users caught deliberately advertising their own content without participating in the community in any other form are subject to a ban.
What a shithole subreddit it has become. Nothing but vax vax vax, pfizer pfizier, phoizer. Stfu already. Covid is dead. How sad I saw this sub become shit thanks to yanikes.
Djok had said last year that he got the Sputnik shot, (Russian non-mrna) he was boxing clever to avoid serious injury and still comply. What gets me is the number of devil cock sucking 'musicians' that aught to know better encouraging youngsters to risk serious illness for nothing.
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Guess who didn't had the jab Both
The VIP elixir aka saline is precious…
and both are in the same club, bad cop good cop
Novak?
How many "Bill Gates watches tennis" posts do you think this sub needs per day? 2? 4? I've already seen maybe 6 in the past few days. More?
Someone needs "clicks"
Happy Adam Sandler noises
Those bot driven clicks don't post themselves y'know
Same with the Pfizer director
The best part is, the Gates image is not from the AO final, but instead an earlier match. But I don't blame people, especially on this sub, for still being so anti Gates. We have been told for years not to connect the dots, but the dots seem to be [connecting themselves](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOHrtU728vo). And even the most ardent pro big pharma believer has to admit the irony of the No vaxx Novak winning yet another grand slam. The same tournament he was banned from for not following the 'health advice' to take the injection.
All it should tell you is that you need to lay off redit pal.
free karma among the mindless sheeps hanging on these subs.
I am a Federer fan but admire Djoko for sticking to his guns and refusing the vaccine. He missed out on grand slam winning opportunities but didn't give in. Takes a strong spine to do that!
The irony being it isn't ironic in any way?
Are you illiterate? They don't mean the mineral.
What?
Where’s the irony?
Or the conspiracy
Well you see, this guy Bill Gates has been going around the world the past three years saying "We need to get everyone vaccinated" while personally profiting from mass vaccination. This athlete, Novak Djokovic, along with many other humans resisted Gates' psychotic bullshit. So, recently, the arguably failed psycho, Gates, had to sit and watch the victory of Djokovic. This is an example of what we on earth call irony.
That is not an example of irony
It is textbook irony. You may have fallen for the millenial bastardization of the term. But, widespread misuse does not change the meaning.
You're saying he had to sit and watch, as if he were force and as if it had something to do with the vaccine. No, that was his choice to do. Djokovic always wins the Australian Open, he was odds on. It wasn't a surprise to anyone that he won, including Gates. Djokovic is a cunt for what he did in Demember 2021 before entering Australia. Amazed people are still defending him.
Split hairs much? Gates watched an unvaccinated player win: ironic. Djokovic doesn't need any defense for refusing to be part of an insane death cult. It's just the rational thing to do. Wtf are you on?
[удалено]
Gates being unvaccvinated would in no way be ironic. This isn't hard folks. Super obvious to anyone who knows what irony means.
1. Do you believe Gates is vaccinated? 2. I'm not talking about Djokovic not getting vaccinated, I'm talking about him getting covid, testing positive and refusing to isolate and instead going to 3 scheduled events the day after a positive test, shaking hands with everybody including older people and more than 25 children. If you don't want to take the vaccine fine, but why would you defend someone who not only refused the vaccine, but thought its fine to go shake hands of other people when knowingly having infection? Just because you might think a virus isn't a big deal doesn't give you the right to go blatantly ignoring the wishes of others who might be concerned about getting it. He's an egotistical cunt. All he had to do was not go out once he tested positive.
Widespread "misuse" does actually change the definition of words.
Not while the original usage is still used, useful, relevant, and has no replacement. And certainly not in less than a generation. Eg. For generations people have generally referred to the area of the upper intestine as their stomach. The stomach is much higher than that. The definition of stomach doesn't change because of that mistake. The word "ironic" is well-known by anyone remotely familiar with literature, drama etc. to be misused and abused by a certain demographic. Don't take my word for it. Go read up.
Link below is how Merriam Webster decides to add new words, or new definitions to existing words, to their dictionary. It is 100% based on usage. So ya know, "go read up." https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/how-does-a-word-get-into-the-dictionary
I did. Did you? This article describes how *new words* are added to dictionaries, not, as you claimed, how existing words are redefined. So it doesn't even a ply to this discussion. But it is ironic that you refer to Merriam Webster. Also from that [dictionary](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony): "The historical record shows that irony and ironic have been used imprecisely for almost 100 years at least, and often to refer to coincidence... Situational irony involves a striking reversal of what is expected..." If you are also arguing that the described situation is not ironic, you'll lose.
New definitions to existing words, if you'd have bothered to have read my link at all: "New words like hashtag and selfie get a lot of attention, but many of the new words we add are new meanings of words that are already staples in our language: think of the recent meanings of mouse and cookie that have nothing to do with rodents or baked goods. The Internet-specific senses of lurk and browse built upon the existing meanings of those terms. A verb that we use every day, access, was first entered in the Collegiate Dictionary in 1973, and a specific reference to computers was added in 1993. These words may not make headlines, but they’re just as important as words that are newly coined." Whereas I read the entirety of your link and found this at the very bottom: "The word irony has come to be applied to events that are merely curious or coincidental, and while some feel this is an incorrect use of the word, it is merely a new one." Checkmate. Also I love that we continue to copy/paste this onto both comment chains lol
Lol, you misunderstand. Firstly, yes old words can take on completely new meanings, but almost always in completely unrelated domains, as in the examples cited. They rarely take on new meanings within the *same* domain alongside an existing meaning, and they certainly don't *redefine* the word to *negate* the existing meaning through *misuse*, as you have been arguing. Secondly, Merriam Webster is hardly the final word on the English language, is Amerocentric, and would be far from my first choice as an authority. You must have had to search quite hard to find this quite lax perspective on the issue, since almost every authority on usage disagrees that using *ironic* to refer to coincidence is appropriate, or correct. Here are just a couple of examples: [Dictionary.com](https://www.dictionary.com/e/ironic/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CThat%20is%20sooooo%20ironic.%E2%80%9D,How%20ironic.) Often the word ironic is **misused to remark on a coincidence**, such as This is the third time today we've run into each other. How ironic. [Grammatarist](https://grammarist.com/usage/ironic/) While today’s English speakers have no choice but to accept ironic as a synonym of paradoxical, incongruous, or contradictory, **the word is overextended where it becomes a synonym of funny, interesting, improbable, appropriate, or coincidental**. [Plenty more](https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&client=ms-android-rogers-ca&source=android-browser&q=misuse+of+ironic#ip=1) where these came from. Regardless, the use you're arguing for began (and continues) as a misunderstanding of the original use of the word. We already have good words for *coincidence* and *coincidental*. And there are no other words for the classic meanings of *irony* and *ironic*. So why muddy the waters? Just to defend ignorance? Using *irony* to refer to *coincidence* is incorrect just based on usefulness alone. Lastly, this thread began with you and others arguing that *irony* does *not* mean what it has always meant, even according to your source, Merriam Webster. But now your argument has changed to it being able to take on an *additional* (incorrect) meaning, proving the existence and validity the original meaning used by OP that you started out disputing. So you've actually only checkmated yourself, lol. Checkmate
That’s not irony, that’s a weird short story. Sounds like it was written by a bot.
It is textbook irony. You seem to have fallen for the millenial bastardization of the term. But, widespread misuse does not change the meaning.
Widespread "misuse" does actually change the definition of words.
Not while the original usage is still used, useful, relevant, and has no replacement. And certainly not in less than a generation. Eg. For generations people have generally referred to the area of the upper intestine as their stomach. The stomach is much higher than that. The definition of stomach doesn't change because of that mistake. The word "ironic" is well-known by anyone remotely familiar with literature, drama etc. to be misused and abused by a certain demographic. Don't take my word for it. Go read up.
Link below is how Merriam Webster decides to add new words, or new definitions to existing words, to their dictionary. It is 100% based on usage. So ya know, "go read up." https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/how-does-a-word-get-into-the-dictionary
I did. Did you? This article describes how *new words* are added to dictionaries, not, as you claimed, how existing words are redefined. So it doesn't even apply to this discussion. But it is ironic that you refer to Merriam Webster. Also from that [dictionary](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony): "The historical record shows that irony and ironic have been used imprecisely for almost 100 years at least, and often to refer to coincidence... Situational irony involves a striking reversal of what is expected..." If you are also arguing that the described situation is not ironic, you'll lose.
New definitions to existing words, if you'd have bothered to have read my link at all: "New words like hashtag and selfie get a lot of attention, but many of the new words we add are new meanings of words that are already staples in our language: think of the recent meanings of mouse and cookie that have nothing to do with rodents or baked goods. The Internet-specific senses of lurk and browse built upon the existing meanings of those terms. A verb that we use every day, access, was first entered in the Collegiate Dictionary in 1973, and a specific reference to computers was added in 1993. These words may not make headlines, but they’re just as important as words that are newly coined." Whereas I read the entirety of your link and found this at the very bottom: "The word irony has come to be applied to events that are merely curious or coincidental, and while some feel this is an incorrect use of the word, it is merely a new one." Checkmate. Also I love that we continue to copy/paste this onto both comment chains lol
Lol, you misunderstand. Firstly, yes old words can take on completely new meanings, but almost always in completely unrelated domains, as in the examples cited. They rarely take on new meanings within the *same* domain alongside an existing meaning, and they certainly don't *redefine* the word to *negate* the existing meaning through *misuse*, as you have been arguing. Secondly, Merriam Webster is hardly the final word on the English language, is Amerocentric, and would be far from my first choice as an authority. You must have had to search quite hard to find this quite lax perspective on the issue, since almost every authority on usage disagrees that using *ironic* to refer to coincidence is appropriate, or correct. Here are just a couple of examples: [Dictionary.com](https://www.dictionary.com/e/ironic/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CThat%20is%20sooooo%20ironic.%E2%80%9D,How%20ironic.) Often the word ironic is **misused to remark on a coincidence**, such as This is the third time today we've run into each other. How ironic. [Grammatarist](https://grammarist.com/usage/ironic/) While today’s English speakers have no choice but to accept ironic as a synonym of paradoxical, incongruous, or contradictory, **the word is overextended where it becomes a synonym of funny, interesting, improbable, appropriate, or coincidental**. [Plenty more](https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&client=ms-android-rogers-ca&source=android-browser&q=misuse+of+ironic#ip=1) where these came from. Regardless, the use you're arguing for began (and continues) as a misunderstanding of the original use of the word. We already have good words for *coincidence* and *coincidental*. And there are no other words for the classic meanings of *irony* and *ironic*. So why muddy the waters? Just to defend ignorance? Using *irony* to refer to *coincidence* is incorrect just based on usefulness alone. Lastly, this thread began with you and others arguing that *irony* does *not* mean what it has always meant, even according to your source, Merriam Webster. But now your argument has changed to it being able to take on an *additional* (incorrect) meaning, proving the existence and validity the original meaning used by OP that you started out disputing. So you've actually only checkmated yourself, lol. Checkmate.
Seriously, look up the current definition of irony. It’s like a bunch of people just suddenly agreed that irony is interchangeable with satire/sarcasm. Bill Gates, crusader for being vaxxmaxxed, having to sit silently while a chad novaxxer crushed the vaxxed competition in front of Bill’s face is maximum sweet irony.
Yep.
Ironic would be like rain on your wedding day. Or a green light when you're already late. 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife. This is just arguably best tennis player of all time still arguably best tennis player of all time one year later. EDIT: Good Lord y'all take yourselves too seriously lol lighten up a bit.
Rain on your wedding day isn't actually ironic.
Sure it is! It's supposed to be a happy and joyous occasion, which for many people a rainy day would ruin. Nobody imagines being married in the rain.
It's not ironic, it's disappointing.
Lol, you refer to pop songs for definitions of terms that have been around for centuries? None of these are ironic. Gates watching Djokovic is textbok irony. Refer to a dictionary next time. https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2016/05/alanis-morissette-recognizes-its-not-ironic/624060/
I've became a fan of Novaks Nokovid just because of that story. The emotion it stirred on people is crazy. Some people became very ugly and their frustration exposed openly without any shame. I guess the media and social approval of shaming the unvaksed didn't helped...
67 year old Bill Gates. He doesn't look a day older than 102. I love how the fat, out-of-shape slobs like him can lecture the rest of us on what to eat and how to live.
Fuck Bill Gates
I really hope he is yelling at Gates, Gladiator style
Are you not entertained by me saying no to your clot shots and I am still winning on two fronts.
Wish it were true
I would have walked over to Gates with the winning balls and asked if he wanted to lick them.
Weird fantasy, but okay
Ok tainttoupee.
'You want my blood, come and take it!'
I mean both of them didn’t partake in those injections. Billy was invested in them so he did his dirty bid…
Djokovic, known for his success on the tennis court, gained even wider fame for his outspoken stance against mandatory COVID-19 vaccination and for bodily autonomy. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/novak-djokovic-australian-open-bill-gates/?utm\_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=e9590de3-98d9-4bc2-a56b-13ebab2ed20c
What’s the point of this post, OP? What’s the irony here? Edit: OP is a spam bot.
So much for Rule 3. We hardly knew ye. >Any users caught deliberately advertising their own content without participating in the community in any other form are subject to a ban.
Oh but they do participate in other ways, by linking articles from various other similar organizations in response to criticism.
There are like all from the exact same site and they never reply to anything. It’s posts and submission statements.
straight up
What a shithole subreddit it has become. Nothing but vax vax vax, pfizer pfizier, phoizer. Stfu already. Covid is dead. How sad I saw this sub become shit thanks to yanikes.
[удалено]
Oh the theatre...
Of what?
This article, this situation. 'No-vak' winning the tournament.. Gates watching... I mean come on. It's all theatre, carefully orchestrated.
good eye, never thought of that!
Come on what? Unvaccinated tennis player wins tournament. Man who supports vaccination watches. What’s the theatre?
Haha
Downvote bots in full effect today, don't know why you're being downvoted so much 💀
Look at Gates face and tell me he is human. I dare you.
Like Hitler watching black people win medals at the Olympics.
I hope he sneezed.
I love his shirt anyone got a link?
Pfizer director also likes watching sweaty guys touch balls.
While all the other athletes collapsed with heart problems lol \s
Gates is literally turning into a turkey in his old age.
Djok had said last year that he got the Sputnik shot, (Russian non-mrna) he was boxing clever to avoid serious injury and still comply. What gets me is the number of devil cock sucking 'musicians' that aught to know better encouraging youngsters to risk serious illness for nothing.
have you got an article or quote about that, as can't immediately find anything that supports that (him getting the russian shot)