It's en masse, not "on mass".

Let's go even further back: What even is "live streamed child abuse"? Because a 10 year old being raped and a 17 year old signing up on onlyfans with a fake ID to occasionally flash a nipple are pretty different things, but I bet they expect you to assume it's the former, not the latter.

I generally have a lot of skepticism about NGOs producing statistics which justify the existence and funding of the NGO producing the statistics. Statements like "Grew by <very large number> percent" are also extremely suspect, when you have a value like we do here of "Grew by 26,000%", that's basically a guarantee that either the initial number is minuscule or, more likely, the method of measuring changed.

The argument that "We need to eliminate your privacy on the internet so that we can maybe but not really reduce the consumption, but maybe not the supply, of what may just be onlyfans content produced in a completely different country because an NGO made some slides on twitter" does not impress me.

You're retarded. Someone saying "If you don't do X, you'll have Y, and they aren't doing X" is, in fact, exactly saying that Y is happening. Juno isn't being dishonest, you are.

You could have just gone for "cricket".

So when white males get rejected from the college they deserved to go to in favor of a blacks, and denied scholarships because they're not women, I should say "That's okay, my real enemy is the fed"?

When white males get passed over for hiring, then passed over for promotion, then passed over for recognition, because the employer is "seeking increased diversity", I should say, "That's okay, white men may be receiving a fraction of what they deserve, but it's really the fed that makes them poor, not all the career advancement denied to them"?

When infinite browns get imported and half the white male paycheck goes to paying for them, while simultaneously policies are put in place making sure the children of those browns will be advantaged over the children of the Whites paying their welfare, and their White daughter got raped and their White son got stabbed by illegal immigrants who are apparently "too divisive" to deport, am I supposed to say, "No, the people who voted for this are my allies, it's the Fed that's my real enemy"?

The blue haired freak in the box wants you dead, and your kids trooned out, and your money transferred to the nearest black woman who will use it to raise her 6 kids with 6 different fathers to hate yours and demand even more money next generation. Just because one problem exists doesn't mean all other problems are merely distractions from it.

Logistics, and a willingness to accept collateral damage, and the knowledge that negative popular sentiment blowback will be weak and ineffective. To take your Venezuela example, if the US was Israel, they probably would have just blown up his car or hit him with a drone strike.

I know this is not what's happening, but seriously, the single policy that would have the most positive impact on the future which you could ever possibly convince people to go along with would be putting everyone on welfare on mandatory birth control.

Absolutely feminists. Their reasoning is basically "Female sexuality is good, male sexuality is rape." So if something appeals to female sexuality it's empowering, if something appeals to male sexuality it's basically rape and should be banned. They only grey area is things like prostitution where it appeals to male sexuality, which they hate, but also extracts wealth from men and gives it to women, which they love, so you'll get feminists on both sides of the issue depending on whether they hate male sexuality or male wealth more.

If the picture above was an attractive man, it would not be controversial. Chris Hemsworth was topless in every Thor film and stripped naked against his character's will in the last one while female characters looked on in amusement, but the feminists only complained about the "male gaze" every time Scarlett Johansson was on screen.

I checked it, and it's after a string of "Welcome back Kotter" character name references, which also had a character named "Epstein". I don't really think it's supposed to be funny beyond being a callback to Crow becoming Horshak a minute earlier. The "underoos" thing is only a few seconds later, but isn't really presented as a related joke. I think it's a coincidence. Anyway, the episode is here if anyone else wants to check.

Ctrl-f "jew" in the "Welcome back Kotter" wiki entry for a laugh at jews being jews.

DSLRs operate in that way, and it makes sense for a professional photographer to be using one. There's a mirror that directs the light coming from the lens to the viewfinder, and then when you take a picture, the mirror flips down and the light goes to the sensor instead. So whatever is on the screen is the last picture taken, not current, because the sensor doesn't even get any light unless you're in the process of taking a picture. Unless it's taking video or in "live view" mode, then the mirror is down, the viewfinder gets no light, and the screen is the live view.

This article seems like it was written with a foregone conclusion in mind, and the journalist only called a few women who would provide quotes to fit that pre-defined narrative.

Yeah, that's every article. Journalists don't pick a topic, research it with an open mind, then report what they found. They already have the article half written by the time they start calling people, and they pick the people they call based on the quotes they want.

Without getting too specific, I have a friend who is vaguely notable, who sometimes gets calls from journalists writing articles about his field. 100% of the calls are from journalists writing articles agreeing with what his public position is, and they'll often simply feed him their thesis: "Would you agree that this law is bad and will cause damage to <whatever> because of <something>"?, sometimes followed by, when he inevitably agrees because they knew he would before they called him, "OK, now would you say that?", thereby allowing the journalists to write their own quotes.

Reporting isn't about reporting what's happening. It's about convincing the audience to agree with the reporter, while pretending it's merely reporting what's happening.

The difference in STD rates between gays and normals is tremendous. Gay men really have a lot to answer for in terms of spreading disease. Organizations that worry about STD awareness should just add "THIS MEANS YOU, GAY MEN" and only buy ads in San Francisco and they'd be more effective. But acknowledging that reality is homophobic. Probably racist too.

Don't forget all the "emotional labor" she does when the man who pays for her life talks about something other than her.

You're fucking retarded to think my post supports mass surveillance. I literally say opposition to it, in the part you actually quoted, is a nice-sounding concept, because it is. The "but", if you read the words, doesn't say it's actually a bad concept, just that the left don't really support it. They're just using it as cover argument to get what they really want, which is less immigration enforcement. Just like with bodily autonomy, the left should be called out when they're hypocrites, except it seems you really hate that idea. So please go on mocking arguments that I never actually made.

Try reading the rest of the post, because you badly missed the point of it.

I assume when they say "mass surveillance of American citizens" what they mean is immigration enforcement. No one mainstream, whether politician or tech company, really cares about mass surveillance in general, the left only started pretending they do when it started targeting their pet browns and might be a minor speedbump in their mission to turn the United States into Somalia.

Opposition to mass surveillance is kind of like bodily autonomy- it's a nice-sounding concept, but 90% of the people who claim to care about it arrived at the position by working backwards from a conclusion they wanted to reach, and will abandon the principal the moment it supports a conclusion they don't like, as we saw during covid.

100% of the politicians endorsed by Oprah are black. I looked into it after getting an invitation to a thing with one of them and it made a big deal of him getting her endorsement. I know it won't come as news to people here, but the level of racism openly exercised by blacks against whites makes even the imaginary racism democrats think exists against blacks look like a joke.

They were too busy spending those 500 years stealing that land from each other over and over using pointy sticks. But it only really counts as 'theft' when it's a White person doing it to a brown, that's when ownership gets locked in permanently.

And if any contact occurs, then ten years later when the same woman no longer works for those men and everyone has been telling her she's amazing- because to do otherwise is a fire-able offense- she considers those men to be beneath her, therefore she wouldn't have sex with them now, therefore the sex must have been rape then, and another #metoo accusation is born.

They're also incentivized to claim it's being done to them, since it's essentially making the assertion "We're so much better than our competition, and they know it, so they're trying to copy from us"

The question is, which is the worse personality indicator: Someone with a New York Times subscription, or someone with an Onlyfans subscription.

Horatio Nelson started serving on a navy ship that could have seen action when he was 12. He did see combat at 16, was appointed lieutenant at 17, and had command of his own ship, thousands of miles from home, at 19. He had far more responsibility as a teenager than most adults today have at any point in their life. People were treated like full adults at a far younger age not too far into the past.

How will AI effect medical bureaucracy?

The same way bureaucracies switched from paper to digital decades after the rest of the world, I expect the same for AI. Efficiency isn't really relevant; following outdated or poorly constructed rules, no matter how pointless, is practically the defining feature of bureaucracies everywhere. Bureaucrats, especially government ones, probably have excellent job security.

United Nations special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, Reem Alsalem, also spoke out against the situation, defending Carini. [Khelif's opponent]

“Angela Carini rightly followed her instincts and prioritized her physical safety, but she and other female athletes should not have been exposed to this physical and psychological violence based on their sex,” Alsalem said.

This is why I say let women's sports burn. Exposed to physical and psychological violence? In a boxing match? Yes, having men compete against women is unfair, but why would I white knight for people who would call me a bigot for doing so if it didn't affect them personally? Maybe if a few more women and girls personally experience the reality that men and women are physically different in their ninth grade soccer game, a few of them might realize they're mentally different as well, and stop demanding 50%+ of STEM jobs go to women who would be better off staying at home with their cats.

The names are real sci-fi authors and they predate AI.