It was Muslims who fought for Palestine ever since the Nakba
It was Muslims who fought Israel for decades
It was Muslims who pleaded with you to pay attention to what was happening every time there was a massacre. It took a genocide for you to finally care
It's not a genocide, and the Palestinian issue has always been a muslim one. If Israel was a muslim country, muslims would support Israel and reject all the claims of it being genocidal
There are far more muslims (and Arabs) and much fewer jews (secualr or religious), so not surprising at the other quote having more. And I've not even mentioned islamophiles who support Palestine for whatever reason
The braisbfocis definitely is still a lack of acceptance of "inherently untidy" natural hair, but I don't care for forcing any black women to even abandon relaxer, talk less of braids
Since yall already mad: my most radical natural hair belief is you can’t make fun of skin bleachers if you don’t wear your natural hair out because its essentially just another, though safer, way to hide and be ashamed of your blackness.
I don't support wanting women to not have relationships with men. It's extreme nonsense that doesn't really improve women's societal conditions. And male allies have and will always be necessary for feminism
I do like having the radfem consciousness, but religious problems make me prioritise it less. After all, I will choose a non-muslim man over a muslim woman, all things being equal. So I guess, I prioritise atheism, and opposal to religion, especially that terrorist one
I wouldn't really care about trans people if it was only a belief they expect to be held among their fellow ideologues. But, most of them want everyone to go along with it, and I hate that
I dislike having to supposedly have strong solidarity with all women that is expected from radical feminism typically. I strongly dislike terrorist women, and there was a lot of pandering to them in these spaces.
This 24 year old guy figured out how to beat a casino and won $800,000
The casino refused to pay him and gave him back just $50,000 and when he complained to gambling regulators, they sided with the casino.
His name is Thomas McPeek, he’s from Chicago who still lives with his parents.
Early 2024
- spends months reading sports betting books
- studies football parlays
- discovers Caesars is offering odds he believes are mathematically mispriced
He realizes he might have found a way to beat the house.
August 2024
McPeek walks into Horseshoe Casino in Indiana with around $30,000.
Instead of placing a few enormous bets, he spends an entire week making hundreds of small wagers through self-service kiosks.
(He doesn’t want the casino noticing his strategy)
By the end of the week, he’s won $350,000.
September 2024
He travels to another Caesars casino in Iowa.
Same strategy.
Another $450,000.
October 2024
McPeek returns to Horseshoe to collect his money.
But Caesars has other plans.
The casino voids his winning tickets, accusing him of coordinating bets across state lines and splitting his wagers into smaller amounts to circumvent its rules.
Instead of paying his winnings, Caesars returns his original $50,000.
And that’s it.
Another casino, Blue Chip, had already paid him $127,000 using his betting strategy.
They simply banned him from coming back.
McPeek complains to gambling regulators in Indiana and Iowa.
Both side with Caesars.
2025
McPeek takes Caesars to federal court, demanding the winnings he believes he’s owed.
Caesars argues that he violated the rules he agreed to when placing the bets and asks the court to dismiss his lawsuit.
McPeek responds:
“It’s not like I can snap my fingers and make the bets win. They still have to win.”
And he’s still fighting for his money.
Imagine spending months learning how to beat the house, actually beating it, and then being told your winning tickets don’t count.
But if those same bets had lost, would the casino have returned his $50,000?
Tbh I don’t think so.