Poles and Poland are the most persecuted ethnicity ever.

 

The whole world hates Poland and Poles. Poles never felt welcome anywhere. Poles were kicked out of United Kingdom, Americans attempted to kick Poles out, by telling violent Polish jokes, Rush's crew, fandom and members, especially the singer, keyboardist and bassist, seem not to acknowledge Polish people as Rush fans, Poland will be forever known as the backwards country that basically is Catholic, antisemitic and even not so accommodating to women. Polish politicians oddly enough treat other minorities more preferentially than native Polish people. They are doing anything so that Poles feel exhausted, terrified, and as if Putin and Russia are gonna attack them sooner or later. If war doesn't work, they will grill Covid and other diseases that we're once forgotten.

Poles have no rights to have proper education, proper entertainment, proper morale, Poles are supposed to feel guilt for obscure anti-Judaistic pogroms, even if excavations haven't been made. Poles are supposed to feel guilty for mistreating Ukrainians, even though UPA killed Poles in Volyn. Poles are supposed to give a lot of money to other nations, while Poles themselves can't afford their own houses, Poles are supposed to take it, when Germans say that Poles "killed Germans", doesn't matter, if in retaliation for World War II, context doesn't matter. Likewise, it doesn't matter, why Poles felt hostile towards all the nations that collaborated with Russian Soviets. Poles are supposed to feel guilty for not their own crimes, eternally, essentially scrutinized, denied rights to feel happy, entertained and not guilty. Politics, blood sports like Fame MMA, bad music like gangsta rap and violent disco-polo are supposed to be the national music of the Polish people. Tracksuit is supposed to be national clothing of Poles. Slavic squat is supposed to be a national way of sitting for Poles, as there aren't many park benches, as politicians claim they can't afford them. Children-friendly places are supposed to be non-existent. First they banned circuses with animals, then they will move to ban the zoos, as petting zoos in Poland, unlike e.g. in Slovakia, aren't permitted. Polish musicians gradually lose spaces for performing concerts. Many concert places demand expensive fees from Polish musicians, for being able to perform there.

If war is there, as globalist scum say so, how are Poles supposed to defend themselves, if bearing their arms is practically illegal for most Poles? How would anybody who doesn't bear their arms be supposed to protect their sisters, mothers, aunts, grandmothers etc. from being sexually assaulted by violent Russkies (or I don't know if Ukrainians wouldn't be involved there as well)?

I have no sense of hope for the future. Westerners don't care about Polish people. They think we were behind the German Nazi-made Holocaust, so they won't help us. Many of them are impressionable and believe whatever Netanyahu and Putin say about Poland, which is terrible disinformation.

Conclusion of my long speech:

I ONLY WANT TO SEE RUSH IN POLAND TO THIS DAY!

I STILL THINK GEDDY LEE WITH RUSH SHOULD PLAY IN POLAND ONLY ONCE!

I'm a feminist and Polish patriot at the same time. But why is it paradoxically hard to intersect both (or maybe not?).

 I'm gonna quote the gender-critical feminist from Tumblr, named fehax0, who coherently explained, why is it extremely hard to intersect feminism with Polish patriotism. 

But first, let me tell you, why it isn't hard to intersect both according to me:

- Polish women terribly suffered from occupiers, like Germans, Russians, Ukrainians etc - they were killed, raped and many older Polish women still carry that trauma.

- Existed Polish women who intersected suffragism with Polish patriotism, e.g. Maria Rodziewiczówna, Maria Konopnicka, Maria Skłodowska-Curie, Narcyza Żmichowska etc.

- Detractors of Poland like Israel, Russia, don't even agree with feminism and some males there act like "there is nothing wrong with raping women"

- If there were no Polish nationalism, the liberal parties would allow the very often misogynistic, male muslim migrants into Poland and most Poles including women, don't want that

- Most women still protect their own homes (doesn't mean a woman shouldn't have ability to work or to leave their house), so for many women, I've noticed, Polish patriotism is naturally even if many elements are male-made constructs, sadly (but women led the hunter-gatherer lifestyle, before)

- There is nothing a woman can do about being born in certain country like Poland and most women meekly accept this state, at least some women can br proud of their own country.

OK, that's all.

Now, I'm gonna quote, why is it paradoxically hard to intersect both (trust me, I speak Esperanto, I'm an Esperantist, so I know what is it all about).

If you're not reading allat, scroll to the end for the tldr

A coherent intersection between gender-critical feminism (or really, any feminism) and nationalism—Polish nationalism included—is impossible. Feminism is a political movement aimed at dismantling patriarchy and freeing women from male-dominated structures. Nationalism, on the other hand, is one of those very structures: it is built on patriarchal assumptions about lineage, reproduction, inheritance, and women’s roles within the nation.

Feminism necessarily questions the social constructs that restrict women’s freedom. Meanwhile, nationalism treats constructs such as “nation,” “borders,” and “ethnicity” as natural, timeless truths—even though they were created by male-dominated institutions and have traditionally served male interests (state power, military strength, control of women’s bodies and labor).

This creates several contradictions:

1. Nationalism depends on controlling women’s reproductive and social roles

Nationalist projects frequently hinge on increasing the birth rate, preserving ethnic purity, or maintaining cultural “continuity.” These ideas almost always translate into pressure on women to produce more babies, behave in “proper” roles, and sacrifice their personal freedom for abstract national (MALE) goals. Historically, “national interest” has rarely aligned with women’s autonomy.

2. Feminism requires solidarity across borders; nationalism emphasizes hierarchy and separation

Feminism looks at the global condition of women as a sex class. Patriarchy is not confined to one country; it is a worldwide system, and feminist analysis relies on cross-border solidarity, mutual support, and recognition of shared oppression. Nationalism, by contrast, prioritizes one nation above others, often implying that some women matter more, deserve more protection, or should be more “loyal.” This contradicts feminist principles of universal female liberation.

3. National identity is a male-made construct, not a biological reality

There is no “nationality gene.” Nations, borders, and ethnic categories were created by states (institutions historically governed by men) to organize labor, control populations, and wage war. To treat these constructs as more fundamental than womanhood undermines feminist analysis, which centers material realities (like sex) over ideological ones (like national identity).

4. “National interests” tend to reflect male interests

What is typically presented as the “interest of Poland” (or any other nation) is often a set of priorities that preserve male dominance: economic productivity, military readiness, the nuclear family model, and the expectation of women’s unpaid domestic and emotional labor. These goals rarely align with women’s liberation, bodily autonomy, or freedom from gendered expectations.

5. Feminism challenges hierarchical thinking; nationalism reinforces it

A feminist worldview rejects the idea that one group has inherent superiority over another. Nationalism, however, depends on ranking and distinguishing populations—asserting that “our nation” deserves more, should be protected first, or has a special destiny. This mindset is directly at odds with feminist attempts to dismantle hierarchies rather than create new ones.

In simpler words/ TLDR: Huh?! Of course. You can't really be a feminist with nationalistic views. Feminism is the political movement with the aim to free women from the patriarchy. To do so, it also implements social views (community with women, care for each other) and somewhat globalistic views (the global condition of the female sex. So you can not believe that one nation is better than others, and should be granted more, shouldn't mix, or that we need more white polish babies while the world is overpopulated). If you are feminist, you do not believe the MALE-made stupid constructs like countries/ borders/nations. There is no nationality name in your dna. These constructs are here to keep you trapped, a worker for a company (country), to believe you are Polish before you're a woman. "Polish interests" are just Polish male interests (keeping women subordinate, making babies, giving free household and emotional labor) and they don't intersect with female interests.

Let me know where you agree with me or agree with Tumblr anon.

Time to have some empathy and understand Geddy Lee's trauma.

 I had to spit it out, finally. Yes, it's true some Polish people weren't good to Geddy Lee's family, possibly because of Soviet trauma or malice, antisemitism, whatever.
Someone wants to take my statements out of context and say that I'm an antisemite, because I said "Geddy Lee is a Jew, possibly has religious bias and I feel uncomfortable about Israeli-Palestinian war)".
First of all, I wish religions were more tolerant for each other, as an Esperantist, second, I just said that Poles acted in a subhuman way in front of Geddy's family, BUT IT DOESN'T ERASE THE FACT NON-JEWISH POLES WERE TARGETED BY NAZI GERMANS AS WELL!

But, I have to tell the truth, I should have known as a longtime Rush fan.

There is no proof Geddy Lee doesn't hate Poland, he is of Jewish religious background, possibly some Polish subhumans indeed targeted his family. Geddy Lee, because of his religious background decided to hate the whole Polish population, who might be atheist, agnostic, pagan, buddhist etc.

There is definitely no proof.

But Polonophobia is his problem, he paints us as Catholics, even though I'm trying to prove not all Poles are Catholics.

Religions (Judaism, Islam, Christianity) are the reasons why there is no peace in the world and I will keep repeating it.

Today it's Independence Day for Poland.

 This post will be short, but effective.
I have to ask this question, without the fear of censorship and punishment.

As a Polish person, I might sound biased, but I've been periodically worrying about how Poland is depicted worldwide, so I'm gonna ask this polarizing question:

Why does Germany feel like a victim of Poland, even though Germany invaded Poland and killed 3 million of ethnic Polish population? (Along those there were 6 million Poles and among them Polish Jews killed). Why does Russia feel like a victim of Poland, even though Russia enslaved Poland during partitions and beyond, since Communist times? Why do Ukrainians feel like victims of Poland, even though they did Volhynia against Poles and the Cossack rebellion murdered Poles and Jews? Heck, why do even our common victims of Germany, Jews feel like victims, even though some Jews used to kill Poles e.g. Salomon Morel and Jews used to snitch Jews and even Poles to Germany (IK, they were victims, but that was dishonest)? Why do Lithuanians feel like victims of Poland, even though they murdered Poles in Ponary?

Why does even UK and America feel like a victim of Poland?

Why does Belarus feel like a victim of Poland, despite the fact that Belarus is now a totalitarian state ruled by Lukashenko?

Why does everybody have to feel like victims of Poland and why was Polish nation not being thus promoted in Hollywood and music industry as much as e.g. Germany is or Israel?

Mind you, my views are bordering on radical feminist and gender-critical stance, like JK Rowling.

Useful info for certain parties that want to use my post. Politically homeless as well (used to be heavily on the left side).

To conclude, as a Rush fan, I felt awful about the fact that Geddy Lee doesn't recognize the suffering of  Polish people and I wish he changed his mind on Poland and with the reactivated band Rush, he toured Poland. That's all I can say.

So, I got to know that Rush fandom in my case is stigmatized - (Why women are more targeted than famous male celebrities)

 I'm gonna tell you, unlike Poland, where admiration for a musician isn't really stigmatized, somewhere in America, this phenomenon is associated either misogynistically (with an unhinged fangirl trope) or with entitled, delusional male fans of John Lennon (the schmuck I won't name).
I recently had a dream about Geddy Lee and he was my teacher or mentor figure there and I felt cozy, that's very simple as that. The reason I admire him is because of musical talent and nice vocals (that sound effeminate, but there is nothing wrong with it, unlike what conservatives and TQ+ tell you in a psyopping way).
How many times do I have to tell people to stop laughing at me, because I happen to admire the best progressive rock band ever? That serves me with inspiration and musical growth? Alex, Geddy and Neil made such enormous impact on my music style. Denying me rights to be e.g. influenced by Rush musically, isn't helpful, as 12 tones in music happen to dominate in the Western music industry. It's a coincidence that I sort of look and sound like Geddy Lee (but again, he is effeminate and also there might be a little family connection there), but a happy one, until haters of mine just destroyed my dreams.
I will tell you again, you are already destroying my dreams by telling me I will never be a famous musician, which is perhaps more realistic dream, than meeting Geddy and Alex (which would be cool, if I weren't Polish and Geddy Lee didn't have a grudge against Poland).
As for Poland, again, Rush never played here and I urge them to play in Poland, despite the prejudices Geddy Lee has about my country (remember "Witch Hunt" song's lyrics). I will continue urging Rush to play in Poland, even with that new German drummer (Germany and Poland used to be enemies historically, but I practice IRL geopolitical tolerance, as an Esperantist).
How many times do I have to tell people that there is nothing "delulu" about having a hobby, love and admiration towards musicians that are supposed to inspire you? 

So now, I'm gonna unpack why are women more targeted than male celebrities ever will be 
Women have been always vulnerable group of people, simultaneously erased by the left and right.
Women often weren't and still aren't seriously treated by males and their handmaidens who internalized heavily misogyny.
Due to the fact that femicides, thievery and rapes are prevalent, just nobody cares as much about average womenfolk than male celebrities.
Nobody cares about the anti-female version of Mark David Chapman, because us women (especially those deemed as ugly, but mostly "beautiful women" get overwhelmingly targeted) are not even considered human.
So, think next time, whom do you want to call "unhinged", because for sure I'm not unhinged.

In defense of ethical circuses with animals (an essay written by a bot, so don't have troubles)

 Let's face it, I hated AI my whole life, not because for the sake of hatred, but because AI is used unethically. But I must say that people know me as someone who has original political views (basically influenced by radical feminism, libertarianism, utilitarianism, secularism) so much that people who interact with me, end up hating me for some reason. And one of the aspects are, circuses with animals, my favorite entertainment from childhood, legal in Poland up to 2021 and elsewhere up to 2010s.
There are so many misconceptions against circuses with animals, partially because of pro-green activists, who spread the awful stereotypes about what could be potentially an ethical towards animals for of entertainment.
So, with the help of a bot, I wrote this summary of how ethical circuses with animals could look like:

🎪 In Defense of Ethical Circuses with Animals

For centuries, circuses have been a symbol of wonder — bringing together humans and animals in displays of grace, skill, and imagination. Yet, in the modern era, animal circuses have become one of the most stigmatized forms of entertainment. Critics rightly condemn the cruelty that occurred in many traditional circuses: harsh training, cramped cages, and relentless travel that deprived animals of dignity and freedom. But in the rush to ban all animal circuses outright, society risks discarding something that could be transformed — not abolished. A non-abusive, ethical circus with animals can exist, and when done properly, it can enrich both humans and animals while educating audiences about compassion and respect.

---

🐘 The Problem Was Never the Presence of Animals — It Was the Abuse

The moral outrage toward animal circuses was driven by real suffering. For much of history, animals were treated as tools — forced to perform unnatural tricks through pain or fear. But abuse is not inherent to the idea of animals in circuses; it is the result of poor ethics and greed. With modern animal welfare science, strict oversight, and humane training methods, it is possible to ensure that animals in circuses live comfortable, enriched, and socially fulfilling lives.

In ethical circuses, animals are not props. They are participants whose needs are prioritized — receiving proper veterinary care, spacious housing, and opportunities to express natural behaviors. When animals are treated as sentient beings rather than commodities, the circus becomes something closer to a living art form that celebrates interspecies connection.

---

🌱 Education and Empathy Through Performance

An ethical circus has the potential to teach as much as it entertains. For children especially, seeing real animals — not through a screen or in a sterile zoo enclosure, but in motion and interaction — can foster empathy and curiosity. A circus performance centered on the animals’ natural grace and intelligence can show audiences the beauty of cooperation between humans and animals without exploitation. In this way, the circus becomes both a moral and educational space: a live reminder that animals deserve respect and care.

In contrast, children growing up in an era of digital overstimulation are often distanced from nature. Ethical circuses can fill that gap, reminding them that animals are not digital abstractions but living creatures with personalities, emotions, and needs.

---

🚛 Ethical Standards and Modern Solutions

To be truly humane, modern circuses must meet clear standards:

• Positive reinforcement training only — no whips, chains, or coercion.

• Enriched living conditions with ample space and social companions.

• Strict travel protocols that minimize stress and allow rest and play.

• Transparency — open inspections, public accountability, and clear animal welfare records.

• Lifetime care — animals retire to sanctuaries or stay with trusted caregivers, never sold or slaughtered.

Such practices are not hypothetical. Many modern animal trainers and welfare specialists already follow these principles in film, conservation, and therapy programs. If applied to circuses, they would make it possible to combine performance, care, and education.

---

⚖️ A Matter of Balance, Not Ban

Banning all animal circuses may feel like a moral victory, but it risks oversimplifying the issue. When done ethically, circuses can be less harmful — and even more enriching — than many industries society still accepts, such as industrial farming or animal tourism. The goal should not be prohibition but transformation.

Just as zoos evolved into conservation and education centers, circuses can evolve into mobile sanctuaries of art and empathy, showing that human creativity can coexist with compassion.

---

🎭 Conclusion: Compassion Through Connection

A world that has outlawed cruelty is better than one that tolerates it — but a world that replaces cruelty with connection is better still. Ethical circuses with animals, built on welfare, transparency, and respect, could become ambassadors for humane coexistence rather than relics of exploitation. Instead of banning all circuses with animals, we should encourage those who seek to do it right.

When children look into the eyes of a well-cared-for elephant or horse under the bright circus lights, they see more than a performance — they see the possibility of kindness, cooperation, and understanding between species. That, in itself, is a lesson worth preserving.

---

W obronie cyrków ze zwierzętami (po części publikacja napisana przez bota)

 Nie jestem zwolenniczką AI, ale czasami używam AI, żeby uporządkować moje myśli i żeby to nie było wyjęte spod prawa.
Jestem znana z posiadania nietypowych poglądów politycznych, za które ludzie mnie generalnie nie znoszą, bo są oryginalne. 
A jedną z takich kwestii są cyrki ze zwierzętami, które były w Polsce legalne do 2021.
Uderzają mnie przede wszystkim stereotypy funkcjonujące o nich, które się utrwaliły, dzięki skrajnym proekologicznym aktywistom, którzy paradoksalnie dopuścili do tego, że dzieci są teraz przez filmy wygenerowane przez sztuczną inteligencję wychowywane.
Nie zaprzeczę, kiedyś bliski kontakt dzieci ze zwierzętami egzotycznymi to była codzienność, o której się zapomina coraz bardziej. A ja chcę ocalić to od zapomnienia.
Dlatego, nowa technologia (którą zazwyczaj gardzę, bo jest używana nieetycznie), wspomogła mnie w napisaniu tego eseju:

🎪 W obronie etycznych cyrków ze zwierzętami

Przez wieki cyrki były symbolem zachwytu — łączyły ludzi i zwierzęta w pokazach gracji, umiejętności i wyobraźni. Jednak w czasach współczesnych cyrki ze zwierzętami stały się jedną z najbardziej stygmatyzowanych form rozrywki. Krytycy słusznie potępiają okrucieństwo, jakie miało miejsce w wielu tradycyjnych cyrkach: brutalny trening, ciasne klatki i nieustanne podróże, które odbierały zwierzętom godność i wolność. Jednak w pośpiechu, by całkowicie zakazać cyrków ze zwierzętami, społeczeństwo ryzykuje odrzucenie czegoś, co mogłoby zostać przekształcone — nie zniszczone. Niewykorzystujący, etyczny cyrk ze zwierzętami może istnieć, a jeśli jest prowadzony właściwie, może wzbogacać zarówno ludzi, jak i zwierzęta, jednocześnie ucząc publiczność współczucia i szacunku.

🐘 Problemem nigdy nie była obecność zwierząt — lecz ich wykorzystywanie

Oburzenie moralne wobec cyrków ze zwierzętami wynikało z rzeczywistego cierpienia. Przez większą część historii zwierzęta traktowano jak narzędzia — zmuszano je do wykonywania nienaturalnych sztuczek poprzez ból lub strach. Jednak przemoc nie jest nieodłączną częścią idei cyrków ze zwierzętami; wynika z braku etyki i chciwości. Dzięki współczesnej nauce o dobrostanie zwierząt, ścisłemu nadzorowi i humanitarnym metodom szkolenia, można zapewnić, by zwierzęta w cyrkach żyły w komfortowych, wzbogacających i społecznie satysfakcjonujących warunkach.

W etycznych cyrkach zwierzęta nie są rekwizytami. Są uczestnikami, których potrzeby stawia się na pierwszym miejscu — otrzymują odpowiednią opiekę weterynaryjną, przestronne pomieszczenia i możliwość wyrażania naturalnych zachowań. Gdy traktuje się je jako istoty czujące, a nie towary, cyrk staje się żywą formą sztuki, celebrującą międzygatunkowe więzi.

🌱 Edukacja i empatia poprzez występ

Etyczny cyrk ma potencjał, by uczyć równie mocno, jak bawić. Zwłaszcza dla dzieci zobaczenie prawdziwych zwierząt — nie przez ekran ani w sterylnym zoo, lecz w ruchu i interakcji — może rozbudzić empatię i ciekawość. Przedstawienie cyrkowe skupione na naturalnej gracji i inteligencji zwierząt może pokazać publiczności piękno współpracy między ludźmi a zwierzętami bez wykorzystywania ich. W ten sposób cyrk staje się przestrzenią moralną i edukacyjną — żywym przypomnieniem, że zwierzęta zasługują na szacunek i troskę.

W przeciwieństwie do tego, dzieci dorastające w erze cyfrowego przebodźcowania często są oderwane od natury. Etyczne cyrki mogą wypełnić tę lukę, przypominając, że zwierzęta nie są cyfrowymi abstrakcjami, lecz żywymi istotami z osobowością, emocjami i potrzebami.

🚛 Standardy etyczne i nowoczesne rozwiązania

Aby cyrk mógł być naprawdę humanitarny, musi spełniać jasne kryteria:

• Szkolenie wyłącznie poprzez pozytywne wzmocnienie — bez batów, łańcuchów ani przymusu.

• Wzbogacone warunki życia z dużą przestrzenią i towarzystwem innych zwierząt.

• Ścisłe zasady podróży, minimalizujące stres oraz zapewniające odpoczynek i zabawę.

• Przejrzystość — otwarte inspekcje, publiczna odpowiedzialność i udokumentowany dobrostan zwierząt.

• Dożywotnia opieka — zwierzęta przechodzą na emeryturę do sanktuariów lub pozostają pod opieką zaufanych opiekunów, nigdy nie są sprzedawane ani zabijane.

Takie praktyki nie są hipotetyczne. Wielu współczesnych trenerów i specjalistów ds. dobrostanu zwierząt już dziś stosuje te zasady w filmach, programach terapeutycznych i działaniach ochronnych. Zastosowane w cyrkach mogłyby umożliwić połączenie występu, troski i edukacji.

⚖️ Kwestia równowagi, nie zakazu

Całkowity zakaz cyrków ze zwierzętami może wydawać się moralnym zwycięstwem, lecz grozi nadmiernym uproszczeniem problemu. Prowadzone w sposób etyczny cyrki mogą być mniej szkodliwe — a nawet bardziej wartościowe — niż wiele branż, które społeczeństwo wciąż akceptuje, jak przemysł hodowlany czy turystyka ze zwierzętami. Celem nie powinien być zakaz, lecz transformacja.

Tak jak ogrody zoologiczne przekształciły się w ośrodki edukacji i ochrony przyrody, tak i cyrki mogą ewoluować w mobilne sanktuaria sztuki i empatii, pokazując, że kreatywność człowieka może współistnieć ze współczuciem.

🎭 Zakończenie: Współczucie poprzez więź

Świat, który zakazał okrucieństwa, jest lepszy od tego, który je toleruje — ale świat, który zastąpił okrucieństwo więzią i zrozumieniem, jest lepszy jeszcze bardziej. Etyczne cyrki ze zwierzętami, oparte na dobrostanie, przejrzystości i szacunku, mogą stać się ambasadorami humanitarnego współistnienia, a nie reliktami wykorzystywania. Zamiast zakazywać wszystkich cyrków ze zwierzętami, powinniśmy wspierać tych, którzy chcą robić to właściwie.

Kiedy dzieci patrzą w oczy dobrze traktowanego słonia czy konia pod jasnymi światłami areny, widzą coś więcej niż przedstawienie — widzą możliwość życzliwości, współpracy i zrozumienia między gatunkami. A to jest lekcja, którą warto zachować.

Why is anybody afraid to criticize and even hate Islam?

 This blogpost will be short, although I will try unpacking much patterns as possible.
You know, why I really speak out against anti-Palestinian genocide only superficially?
Because I happen to dislike Muslim suicide-bombing and kaffir-hating shenanigans more than Jewish antipolonism and murderous against Palestinians hypocrisy (although both religions hate non-believers, but it manifests very differently, Jews don't proselytize, although try making the whole world Noahide and Muslims engage in violent proselytization and promotion of Shariah laws). I percive Islam as more dangerous religion than Christianity and Judaism, even though I happen to dislike all of the big three abrahamic religions.
Nobody in Poland wants to be flooded with muslim migrants, despite the fact that apparently liberal zionists are constantly being active in this case, having not properly dealt with Palestinians by e.g. two state solution.
Trust me, I was myself cyberbullied by a certain radical muslim on imageboard I won't talk about for a while, unless someone asks me about it. Forgive me, Covid lockdowns and intense censorship pushed me into this and now I can't recover from this, to be honest.
I see Islam as a particular threat against religious pluralism and as a realest Pole, I have a right to speak about it.
You are free to ask me questions, but don't expect me to coddle you.
Islam is my no. 1 disliked religion and you can try convincing me otherwise, but I wouldn't be able to change my mind, as I secretly wish none of the abrahamic religions existed.