domain:x.com
ThisIsSin
The boob tube emits harmful XXX-rays
4m ago
A boy is a male of an age such that, if a Karen saw them walking into town alone, would call the cops and report it as child abuse.
Ioper
4m ago
My wife broke up with me for a few months when we were 1.5 months into our relationship. The reason for this was she though I wasn't serious about her.
I didn't realise this at all and thought I had gone to great lengths to be with her, I was just very busy, but she thought I didn't want to see her. I didn't make a big deal about the break up, continued to see her for other reasons and eventually she came back and we've been together for the past 20 years, with little to no drama.
I suppose it helped that we had some common friends helping us out but the point is that it isn't necessarily over or a sign of poor potential for the relationship that there is a "break-up" early on.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
4m ago
Right, though I don’t have information for that on the other deaths. So they could also be the % of society who can’t or won’t get to a hospital.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
7m ago
Here is what I actually think a reasonable framing of this question is: "can men with a cross dressing fetish involve non-consenting women in their crossdress-play?"
This is about as reasonable as asking why we tolerate bondage fetishists in the police force. We don’t; the handcuffs have a practical, unobjectionable, non-sexual purpose. Anyone abusing such privileges for sexual gratification can and should be punished.
Has McBride done or said anything to convince you her presentation is sexualized? Because if you’re going off base rates, I think you might have the wrong idea.
Mihow
Lipstick on a guitar
7m ago
I only know Cremieux as a private label fashion brand at Dillards … what is yours?
Bartender_Venator
7m ago
Nitpick: TRT doesn't keep you at a steady level. It peaks right after injection, and then declines fairly rapidly over the couple days until your next shot. You can play around with this tool or similar if you want to see how levels vary weekly over a given cycle. Correct, though, that you don't have the daily fluctuations.
Throwaway05
9m ago
Antibiotic stewardship is something that impacts others, but the bigger problem is that people will ignore their own health as much as possible and then society pays the costs by caring for them after their mistakes. With obesity and some other lifestyle things accept this because you do need to limit how much you impact people's rights, but throttling of medical care is almost universally considered reasonable due the complexity in making informed decisions.
HalloweenSnarry
12m ago
I guess I'm mostly just surprised that people had the "customizable algorithms" idea that far back.
hydroacetylene
12m ago
If the question was changed to "would you rather meet a boy [as in, non-adult male human] or a bear in the woods" the answers change, because boys are by definition not capable of being a physical -> sexual threat.
Depends on where you draw the man/boy line honestly. There’s lots of women who would call most teenaged boys who would not find it a physical challenge to subdue and rape them ‘boys’, and a smaller but still substantial number who would call most college aged men boys.
Celestial-body-NOS
🟦 All human beings are equal, **even when they aren't.**
18m ago
Rotherham
- 80% is not, by any stretch of the definition a 'minority'.
- Per the article you quoted, the gangs preyed on many children of South Asian extraction.
- Many of the people who ignored the problem were white; they did not take measures against it because (3a.): the victims were largely working-class, (3b.): they didn't want it to be seen that there had been a problem (a common failure mode, even when everyone involved is the same ethnicity), and (3c.): they feared that a mostly-white police force arresting mostly-South-Asian criminals would spark a backlash.
The last, I believe, comes from an ideology which seems to approach the notion that the relevant subject of moral enquiry is racially-defined subsets of humanity, that individual human beings are rightfully thought of as cells within the racial super-organism, and that the 'white' super-organism has wronged the other super-organisms and is obligated to atone for its sins; the last point being the largest difference between them and the ideology which killed 6,000,000 people who had done nothing to provoke so much as a sharp glance, thus leading to the necessity of a Jewish State.
The antidote to this ideology is not to say "Ackchyually, the white super-organism has never done anything wrong and is entitled to its demands.", but to reject the entire framing of races being more fundamental than individual human beings. This brings us closer to a world in which the principle of 'states should not be defined by ethnicity' can be applied without exception, and the State of Israel can extend citizenship without regard to ethnicity. Giving more ethnic groups the entitlement to stay the majority in "their" countries moves us further away from that world.
the ethnic cleansing that befalls Christians in so many Muslim-dominated countries
The perpetrators and victims in this case are usually either the same ethnic group, or groups more closely related to each other than to Northwest Europeans.
The persecutions are often motivated on religious grounds; they ask not so much 'is Fulan al-Fulani white or brown' as 'is he a Christian or a Muslim', and if the latter, 'what kind of Muslim'; they often show no less vitriol towards the 'wrong kind' of Muslims than towards Christians.
the unofficial anti-white quotas that are now present at every level in the UK and hold back many talented white men because they have the wrong skin colour
... caused by the same 'races-over-individuals' ideology mentioned above.
From now on, anyone who wants my support for anything has to earn it. You want my support for a feminist initiative? Great, let’s talk about what you can do to solve the problems I think men have. You want my support for an ethnostate for Jews? Fair, let’s talk about what you’re going to do for the native British. And I’m far from alone in this.
Which is at the root of many of the issues plaguing us today; people asking "What can I get out of this?" rather than "What is the right thing to do?".
However, we can talk about 'what you’re going to do for the native British'. (I'm not sure what you mean by 'native British'; sensu strictissimu, it would only include Welsh, Scottish, and Ulster Irish people; sensu latissimu, it would include anyone born in the United Kingdom to a British citizen or permanent resident. I will assume we are setting the cut-off in 1491, thus including the aforementioned Celtic peoples, plus the Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian, and Norman peoples arriving between the 5th and 12th centuries.)
If Omega-the-super-intelligent-computer-with-a-100.00%-track-record-of-being-right were to predict that, if ethnically British people become a minority in Britain, they will be expelled by the whatever ethnic group becomes the majority, regularly driven from whatever countries they have lived in for 2,000 years, and ultimately targetted for industrialised mass murder, then I would concede that you are justified in wanting to maintain your current majority status. (Note that ethnic British in Britain and Jews in Israel both constitute approximately three-quarters of the population.
Furthermore, if Omega-tsicwa100ptrobr were to predict that there will be a backslash against racism, ethnonationalism, and nativism in the United States, that, from 2040 onward, the United States will not privilege any ethnic group over any other, and will admit anyone who might plausibly be in danger of ethnic/religious violence in their current country of residence, disirregardless of any of the usual reasons for limiting immigration, and that opposition to these policies will not rise above the lizardman constant at any time in the next 10,000 years, then I would be more sympathetic to a secular, ethnically-neutral, union of Israel and Palestine, admitting any of the descendants of the Arabs who fled in 1948 on the condition that they respect the right of their Jewish neighbours to live peaceably as equals.
Otherwise every man who ever bought his child an ice cream instead of buying mosquito nets is racist.
No, there is a difference between favouring one's immediate relatives and favouring one's own ethnic group. If two people can trace each generation their lineage back to a common ancestor, and that ancestor is recent enough that, as I linked to previously, the Ninth century Catholic Church would have considered a marriage between them to be incestuous, then one of them favouring the other over a random stranger becomes more justifiable in your example, and, in cases such as favouring someone for employment, is 'nepotism' rather than 'racism'.
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
21m ago
Do you have any recommendations for finding good hobby discords for, I dunno, underwater basket weaving? I see a decent number of active Facebook groups for such things, but Discord seems to have poor discoverability.
hydroacetylene
21m ago
They’re from a generation where it was more normal.
hydroacetylene
22m ago
Why is this such an issue? Restrooms have stalls. I couldn't tell what gender was in one if I tried.
Because it is an issue. Normie not-very socially conservative women really care about there not being biological men in their or their daughters spaces of partial undress.
I mean I could but most of what I think of as victories I would imagine you would classify as defeats.
Why speculate when you could give it a try and find out for sure?
No amount of anger at the establishment makes the "Trump is a king and he is going to hit the make the economy good button as well as the decrease prices button" worldview any less delusional.
There are degrees of delusion, and "We can trust Elites/The System/The Science/The Acolytes of Codified Procedure to police themselves and secure good outcomes, because they've done such a good job in the past" is considerably more delusional.
Trump is in many ways a buffoon. He is winning a straight popularity contest because his opponents are arguably worse. I am not confident that he can "hit the make the economy good button as well as the decrease prices button", but leadership and good stewardship do in fact exist, "leading economists" predicted his first administration would tank the economy when in fact it was one of the best economic periods of my life, and his opponents were very recently denying the existence of inflation before they pivoted to proposing federal price controls.
cjet79
26m ago
Obviously I only know what you have presented, but I can imagine a scenario where it is still possible to resurrect the relationship. In this scenario she preemptively broke up with you, because she thought you would do it instead of a long distance relationship. Or that you'd cheat on her in the long distance relationship. If she has a past personal experience with it, or close friends it has happened to this is almost certainly on her mind. If you didn't fight her much in the moment on the no-LDR thing, you probably came across as agreeing.
If you think this is the case, then this might be the path to fixing things. You'd need to have a sit down talk with her, and you'd have to put yourself out there:
- Say that being around her and not having a relationship hurts. Ask for a serious sit down talk.
- Say that you love her and want to stay with her even in a long distance relationship.
- Offer to travel to help the long distance relationship. Or think about taking a vacation there in the middle of her away time.
You will come across as desperate, and that is fine. It is ok to be desperate around a woman who knows and loves you, especially if that desperation is for her. You need to create the reassurance in her mind that you won't hurt her, and that the only one doing the hurting is her to you and herself.
If she does take you back, know that the relationship will start to feel different. This is not a bad thing. You were in a honeymoon phase of love. Its a time mother nature gives people to make sure they are fucking a bunch and having a kid to tie them together. But the next phase to make it work together is partnership. You need to be a team together. People do this by moving in together, getting a pet together, working on a project together. My wife and I sort of started at this phase because we met at work and already know how to work as a team together. But you two already have a project ahead of you that you can work on: keeping the love and affection alive during a long distance relationship.
I will again repeat that I don't know everything about your situation and my read on it may be totally off. I do think that your assumption that she found another guy is almost certainly wrong. If she is the cold-hearted bitch that would have strung you along like that and seemed so loving, then she wouldn't have broken up with you. She would have just proceeded to cheat on you and not have a bit of guilt about it. My experience and the experience's I've seen other people have with psycho types is that they tend to not try for true breakups with people. Because relationships are one-way streets with them. They are not held back by the terms of the relationship, only their non-psycho partners are held back. I do remember a case somewhat similar to yours where the psycho boyfriend moved away for a three month gig, and did not inform his girlfriend till the day he was leaving. And then immediately went on to cheat in the other city while claiming to do a faithful LDR.
Dig up your old feelings of love for this woman. There is a decent to good chance that she made a decision in fear and uncertainty and with a desire to avoid being hurt. It might be a decision that she regrets. If you still want to have a relationship with her there is probably a path to that working out. If you want things to be over and done with, commit to that path and fully block her.
hydroacetylene
27m ago
Is 98% of the same outcome not a solution? It’s a solution that comes down hard on one side, but a solution nonetheless.
MartianNight
28m ago
Why is this such an issue? Restrooms have stalls. I couldn't tell what gender was in one if I tried.
This is a fully-general argument against having women's bathrooms at all. Which is fine if you want to argue for unisex bathrooms, but it's not an argument for keeping bathrooms nominally segregated while letting males into the women's bathroom.
MotteInTheEye
30m ago
It does require a separate app install on mobile though, right?
SubstackNecron
36m ago
I mean I could but most of what I think of as victories I would imagine you would classify as defeats. The truth is it doesn't matter as more that one person can be wrong at once and as a great man once said "facts don't care about your feelings". No amount of anger at the establishment makes the "Trump is a king and he is going to hit the make the economy good button as well as the decrease prices button" worldview any less delusional.
hydroacetylene
39m ago
Uh, normie Twitter is very much a thing. Sports and pop culture and local news that isn’t about politics is pretty easy to come by.
SophisticatedHillbilly
44m ago
I think the answer there hinges on whether you’d vote for a pro-abortion anti-Griggs candidate or an anti-abortion pro-Griggs candidate if they were head-to-head.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
53m ago
That’s still unworkable because you can’t separate outside knowledge.
If you’re sentencing someone to women’s prison, do you really rely on passing? If I’ve got a vendetta against a trans coworker, can’t I out her no matter how well she passes? If my buddy Big McLargeHuge, manliest of teenagers, wants to get into the women’s locker room, what’s stopping me from playing wingman by accusing him of insufficient T?
Rov_Scam
54m ago
The advantage of Facebook messenger is that it allows you to send private messages to people you either don't know or don't know well enough to have their phone number, enhanced by the fact that the large user base makes it pretty easy to find people. This was at least the case ten years ago when practically everyone of a certain age was on Facebook and used it regularly, and when you'd get a friend request from practically everyone you met. Now it seems like most people, especially younger people, either don't have profiles or don't look at them. I seldom look at mine, and it seems like most of my friends who used to post frequently have slowed down over the past several years. So these days it doesn't work as well as it used to because there's less likelihood that you'll even be able to find someone on Facebook, and even if you can there's a decent chance they won't see the message.
SMS is horrible for group messaging. You can't take yourself out of a group, and you can't edit the recipients without starting a whole new message. You also can't type longer messages efficiently since you don't have a real keyboard. It's fine for certain things but ongoing group texts about nothing in particular should really be on another app. I was able to switch a couple of mine over to Discord and it's been a 100% improvement. I'd like to get my ski group on there but that's going to be a tough sell.
To add onto other replies, I think it's simply "you stop giving a fuck about decorum and propriety as you get older."
More options
Context Copy link