SnotFlickerman

Re-reading my original comment, I can see how you got that implication. I guess the point is that these men aren't actually compensating for anything, that's potentially a misreading of why they do what they do. Also only men seem to be concerned with the size of their member, in relation to equating it to partners pleasure. It also seems to be mostly other men who want to ascribe the idea that these men are compensating for something, which returns to the idea that mostly only men seem concerned with this issue because men equate "bigger dick" to "women like this." There's a lot of assumptions being played around among the varied groups of men that are all tied to this perception of the size of their penis impacting the pleasure of their lover, and it basically has fuck-all to do with women's opinions on the matter. The men who are seen as "compensating for something" may actually be the men least impacted by these perceptions, ironically enough, because they simply don't care.

to multitask with.

Rule 2 of adulting: Stop trying to multitask. Multitasking is a myth and impossible for humans to actually successfully do. The more things you try to do at once, the less effective and capable you are at each individual task. Literally not a single human alive is actually good at multitasking. I understand you have issues, but whether you like it or not, you're reducing your effective capacity to "get shit done" by choosing to try to do this impossible thing called multitasking.

https://hbr.org/2010/12/you-cant-multi-task-so-stop-tr
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7075496/
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/science-clear-multitasking-doesnt-work
https://www.npr.org/2008/10/02/95256794/think-youre-multitasking-think-again
https://radius.mit.edu/programs/multitasking-why-your-brain-cant-do-it-and-what-you-should-do-about-it/
https://neuroleadership.com/your-brain-at-work/the-myth-of-multitasking

Have you set up certificates with LetsEncrypt or something similar?

Since you're running it on your own hardware and obviously have admin privileges, you could try out Certbot:

https://certbot.eff.org/

HTTPS requires signed certificates to be able to connect, that's part of the trust provided in the security. Also, HTTPS is port 443 while HTTP is port 80.

Actually it doesn't. The point is that their partners pleasure is irrelevant to them. The comment literally says nothing about whether their partner enjoys a big or a small dick, rather that the men's dick size has nothing to do with how the men feel about themsleves and their penis size, because they are self-assured either way.

To my knowledge, most women don't actually love large dicks at all because they hurt.

Like someone buying expensive cars to compensate for their smaller dick.

Just so you know, there's some evidence this isn't actually a thing and that the people who do that kind of thing are actually very self-assured in their penis size. Now, that doesn't mean they have a large penis, it just means they are happy with it and unconcerned with how others feel about it. Which, if you think about it, tracks. Because the guys who drive wanker sports cars or giant fucking trucks usually don't give a shit if their partner feels good, only if they do. So the size of their dick is kind of irrelevant to the whole equation. They could have a tiny dick, they could have a giant dick, either way, they're perfectly fine with it because it's not about how anyone else feels, it's about them getting off and being in control.

Might take me a while but I'll try to dig up the old /r/science reddit thread about it.

Reddit, where the sources are made up and the points only matter as a hit of dopamine for the person making shit up.

I don't think I'm taking away his agency. I'll even quote myself.

I used to think that being a true believer was his worst quality and why things went so badly and it made me think being a true believer was the most dangerous quality you could have in a leader.

His agency is defined by his religion, his religion is why he was so sure he was doing the right thing without any self-reflection on the human consequences of the millions of lives lost in Iraq. He was justifying it as a means to an end to win a Holy War. That's pretty horrific.

I do think he actually wanted to do good in the world, but yes, true believers of religion are often blinded to the suffering they're making happen because they're so sure that the suffering needs to happen for God to love them. That's why I thought being a true believer was a dangerous quality in a leader, because they don't have the capacity to self reflect on how horrific their decisions are due to the fact that in their mind the ends justify the means in the name of God. That's still his own agency choosing to ignore the horrors he wrought because he believed it needed to happen in God's name. Religion didn't force that viewpoint upon him, there are plenty of pacifist religious people, it was a choice he made in the name of his religion.

I'm a tall burly cisman so people are always surprised that I know how to sew. I mostly hand-mend my clothes but I made my own pants in high school when I had access to a sewing machine.

Nah, they let him do some:

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2023/02/28/1159415936/george-w-bushs-anti-hiv-program-is-hailed-as-amazing-and-still-crucial-at-20

His program for helping manage HIV/AIDs in Africa is still viewed very positively.

Dubya was a mixed bag and I often felt like he got the rawest deal out of the war on terror. He was a true believer, he famously told Jacques Chirac that he thought the biblical demons Gog and Magog were at work in the middle east. He truly thought he needed to save the world. I think he was naive and was basically used by the neoconservatives around him. That doesn't excuse any of it, being a true believer led him to signing off on true atrocities. However, it makes me view him as more of a mixed bag of a person who may not have signed off on so many atrocities and might have done more genuinely good things if he had a less evil team managing him from behind the scenes. People didn't call Dick Cheney Darth Vader for nothing, the people around Bush were far more legitimately purposefully evil than him, in my eyes. Bush still signed off on war crimes though, so it's hard to have that much sympathy. I used to think that being a true believer was his worst quality and why things went so badly and it made me think being a true believer was the most dangerous quality you could have in a leader. Well, Trump taught me that believing in nothing at all is far, far worse.

For context, two years after 9/11 upwards of 70% of Americans believed Saddam Hussein was directly connected to the attacks and wanted to invade Iraq.

Americans are not smart, and they are very racist.

Those of us who lived through the Dubya Bush years can attest to this. Even Dubya Bush wanted to give illegal immigrants amnesty and a path to citizenship but it was deeply unpopular so it never happened.

The police are violent thugs everywhere, not just Republican cities and states.

It's because they have almost complete immunity from being prosecuted for wrongdoing and also, well, they are incredibly well armed and often use their monopoly on violence to threaten blue politicians.

I grew up in a city where cops didn't like their own chief of police because he wanted to drug test the force regularly after several got caught doing drugs on the job. The chiefs own force stalked him, harassed him, made violent threats against him and his family, until he was ran out of town. The police union sued him and said drug testing them violated their rights. The police union won in court. Those drug tests never happened.

Damn that's slick