I didn't actually see it myself, but I heard a lot of people thought it looked AI at first and that it was genuine (alternate angles and stuff like you said). It's good to check up on it (sounds like you actually put the effort in) so we can try to keep our facts straight, as hard as that is these days.
Epstein has always had close ties to MIT and there was a big scandal about them accepting donations.
It's also been own for several years that Chomsky stayed at Epstein's Paris home at least once, and publicly apologized for his association with Epstein iirc.
I sort of agree with you but if liberals acknowledged and understood class alignment, they wouldn't be liberals. I do think that the "opportunity for education" approach is more effective than outright hostility.
I find that online interactions about complicated topics can be quite frustrating, since snark and "dunking" trend to prevail. This is driven by corporate social media and spills over into other online interactions.
Just FYI to people that you can get remanufactured ink cartridges for a fraction of the price (around half) of OEM. They are sometimes modified to contain more ink in the same body. The company I purchased from included a prepaid bag to send used cartridges back for reuse.
Also while I'm in PSA mode "REDUCE, REUSE, and then recycle". Sometimes we skip over the first two steps since reducing is not marketable and reusing rarely is (although reusing printer cartridges appears to be a sustainable business).
I think that video was confirmed
They're dabbing on us every day
"Yeah the "immigration enforcement" is blatantly my personal militia, it doesn't have to male sense to you, you can't do anything about it anyway. Watch me send them to Italy; see? it doesn't matter!"
Nobody has mentioned mattermost yet. I haven't stress tested it by any means, but I found it too be decent.
Isn't it kind of Trump's way of doing business? That's exactly where things are headed for people who stand up against him.
No you pretty much laid it out in you comment, I think it tracks.
Having a misleading UI and making not-unprobable assumptions about viewers feels less problematic though?
I don't think I particularly matters where the situation lands on the "scale of problematicness", but youre correct it does exist and it isn't at the far end of the spectrum. Nonetheless, it is a symptom of a greater social issue (patriarchy), and it warrants discussion and criticism.
The porn industry is made up of corporations, which will tend to reproduce the same heiarchies that exist in society, since that's what's most profitable. It isn't inherently problematic to objectify people in a sexual context, however it isn't applied equally, and is reproduced in the user controls on most porn sites.
They just assume everyone is a straight male or a gay male, so the choice that gets presented is "gay stuff" or "everything else". This is reflected in user stats, but it is also going to be self fulfilling. It would make more sense to be able to select one or more options of the broad "straight/gay/les/other" if pornhub existed in a relatively equal society. I don't expect them to do this, but I do expect my online community to be able to discuss it and how it both reflects and reproduces harmful social constructs.
Idk if that clarifies anything, but I think you and I are in the same ballpark?
OK and they don't have to cater in a misogynistic way, but they do, and I'm criticizing that decision.
We can leave it at the same volume. Its not "all men are bad" even, no need to make things up, its embedded misogyny, even perpetuated by women at times.
The question why is "lesbian" porn, in the "straight" section?
Why would a straight woman on a porn site expect to see lesbian porn when they select to see straight porn? It's a double standard.
If men (or anyone else) wanted to watch lesbian porn, there's nothing wrong with that, it just seems out of place in the straight section, cause that's not what it is.
view more: next ›
If western countries valued peace, they would recognize that it would be more diplomatically stable to have neutral buffer States between the Russian border and the NATO countries. They also could have done more to economically integrate with post-soviet Russia in the 1990s. the reality is that NATO countries don't actually value peace, but rather their capitalist leadership would rather "contain" capitalist Russia than integrate, so NATO expansion it has been.
Ukraine is not Russian territory, but is extremely strategically important from a military standpoint. Any discussion of NATO membership is going to be perturbed as an existential threat to Russia, this is an obvious analysis from both sides. There is no "defensive" benefit to making Ukraine a member of NATO, unless the purpose is to mantain an existential threat toward Russia.
I can't confidently say that my analysis above justifies a Russian invasion of Ukraine, but Putin obviously doesn't care what I think. I wish it would not have happened, but I understand what brought everything to this point, and now the Ukrainian people must suffer for decades because western imperialist forces are not interested in building a strong global peace.