Specifically when it comes to children, we need to show more restraint in giving them the liberty to partake in potentially addictive substances.
It's one thing if an adult smokes and gambles, it's another thing if a child does. It seems to me that stuff you do in youth tends to stick around for life.
Even if they are abused, their abuse doesn't have any downsides. These people are not growing beards.
Also, I don't even think they are necessarily abused. A lot of men are very sensitive to shaving, with degrees of sensitivity. I think there's probably plenty of guys who have perpetual razor burn and ingrown hairs and nobody cares.
Trump is a very far-right politician, so if you go a little bit left of him then you're still on the right. It's just relativity. The NYT is obviously very left of Trump, and that leaves them still being overly uncritical of Trump. And it's not just them, it's virtually all "left-wing" media.
They do this in a few ways:
1. Sane-washing, as talked about. They will take legitimately incoherent ramblings that sound straight out of an insane aslyum and rewrite them to be understandable. This gives the impression that Trump is reasonable, when he is not.
2. Attributing reason to action. Trump often does erratic things without providing reasoning. The NYT and other media like MSNBC will then fabricate potential reasoning behind it. Often this reasoning is as good as it can be, even though that usually means it's still bad.
3. Benefit of the doubt. Trump is at a point where he lies more than he tells the truth, however, all his statements are still taken as truthful, or at least as being something he believes to be true. Nobody believes Trump is malicious on anything, even if he has shown he is malicious.
Pop culture is a fickle beast. What is pop culture is community made, not corporate made, and it can't be bought and sold like traditional markets. It's one of the few areas of life where nobodies can become somebody, and corporations hate this.
Media like YouTube isn't consolidating because that's what people want, it's because that's what YouTube and IP holders want. They want death to people like Boxxy, and they want you to watch VEVO instead.
> At least from what I have seen it is a massive productivity boost for coding and general research
Are companies release more software with less developers? If the answer is no, then the productivity has not improved. It might SEEM like it improves because you're able to produce more code and you spend less time programming, but that might not be the case in actuality.
From what I've seen, AI is very good and very popular but it hasn't improved programming productivity in a meaningful way. The bottlenecks are unchanged so writing more code faster doesn't help anything. A lot of companies let a lot of employees go due to AI, and their product velocity has noticably gone down and their quality is noticably worse.
If you watch any interviews with anyone who has power in tech, they're exclusively asked the most soft ball questions imaginable to make them look better.
The media DOES occasionally say negative things about tech. But of what they say, they scratch, like, 1% of the bad stuff. And they make excuses and let people off easy.
It's very similar to how the media is overly sympathetic to Trump. Yes, Trump is critiqued - but everything he says is interpreted in the least crazy way possible, even though he is a lunatic. MSNBC and co will even go as far as fabricating reasoning for Trump's actions when he doesn't provide any - and it's good reasoning!
Competition is good, the EGS is bad and anti-consumer.
Two anti-consumer products is probably better than one, but I also hate Epic as a company, so I would just prefer for Steam to win. At least I like half-life.
If you're incompetent maybe you don't know you're incompetent? I think probably a lot of people told him, but he's also very stubborn, so. He's been rocking that god fucking awful spray tan for decades now.
I mean, Christ, we have good spray tans, I know we do.
I would largely consider being critical of sex workers (who do it in a safe manner) is largely just intolerance.
In American society, sex is in it's own corner. It's icky, immoral, unpure, and stands alone in it's perception. Violence, blood and guts, exploitation, injustice - these are all much easier for Americans to swallow than sex. A company laying off 500 people and potentially ruining their lives is business as usual, but a woman showing a part of her body to people who consent is unthinkable.
The reality is, I think, we all sell our bodies, and minds. And, out of all of us, OnlyFans models sell their bodies some of the least. After all, they are not at higher risk of heart attack. After all, they do not get carpal tunnel or arthritis. After all, they are much closer to self-employed than me. After all, they write their schedules, they define their work, and they set the expectations for performance.
That's not to say it should be celebrated. But I think we should view it honestly, for what it really is. A way to make money. People want to see other naked people, and they're gonna do that, so why not? And, is the human body really so repulsive that we have to degrade people for showing it off? I don't believe so.
If my daughter said she was choosing between two jobs - plumber and OnlyFans - I'd suggest she buy a wrench.
There are a lot of people who will say that all jobs are exploitative. Besides that who's to say the woman on OnlyFans aren't the ones doing the exploitation of the guys who are forking over money. And as you say should anyone be degraded for showing their body? Or even wanting to see someone else's?
It's all true.
And yet for some reason I'm still going to say buy a wrench. I'm not sure why but I think it has to do with the fact that it confuses the personal and the social. Things that you do for personal non monetary reasons should be separate and apart from things you do for social monetary reasons. It's probably why I wouldn't ever loan money to friends - I'd rather just give them money. Or my job gives me a paycheck and not a thumbs up every 2 weeks - even though that's pretty much all my wife gives me when I take out the garbage.
I don't think saying people holding the opposite view are wrong is intolerant. Making it a crime? That's intolerant. When you go from making an argument to forcing your will is where intolerance starts. The opposite end is approval and that starts with thinking something wrong but not actually saying anything at all.
If you draw the line of intolerance at making laws, I would say you have next to no conviction.
Which is why I think you probably don't actually believe that. That's just the standard you're choosing to apply to this one specific case. As I've said - sex stands alone. The standards are completely unique.
In general I'd say, if the intolerant think I'm intolerant, then I must be doing something right. Ultimately I don't really care how women choose to make their money, and I don't see anything wrong at all with lust. Purity is stupid, who cares, have all the sex you want and jerk yourself off silly.
Also, monogamy is stupid. Or, at least, how most people view it is. There's nothing wrong with being monogamous because you want to. But most people aren't doing it for that. They're doing it because they fear how they will be perceived if they are not monogamous.
And so we see rampant divorces, failed marriages, and cheating out the wazoo! The stupid point to this and say "see, this is what happens to the impure!" But that's not true. That happens because of a notion of purity fueled by shame and perception.
Nobody asks themselves if they love someone. They ask if other people view what they are doing as love. And so, sex is wicked, marriage is good, and that's that.
Why would I care about my words meaning anything to anyone? I am just a meat sack with a wallet, and my only relationships with the other meat sacks are economic. There's no such thing as a culture or a community, and anyone alleging harms to it is "largely just intolerant". I can tolerate anything but someone with a standard of right and wrong.
Personally, I have no notion of what it's like to have standards, which is why I never bothered to learn the difference between "it's" and "its", or to think about anything on a deeper level than Econ 101.
It's one thing if an adult smokes and gambles, it's another thing if a child does. It seems to me that stuff you do in youth tends to stick around for life.
reply