Hylactor

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

I went to Folsom Street Fair many moons ago, and had the epiphany "I am absolutely not man enough to fuck these dudes." I don't know how the stereo type of manly men only fucking women is supportable. It's like saying "real men drink french vanilla iced coffee slushies", meanwhile the "weak" men are drinking straight up espresso.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

Who are the seated people?

[–] [email protected] 78 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

This doesn't directly relate, but Iggy Pop once said he doesn't mind to be seen cross dressing because he doesn't consider it to be a negative thing to be a woman. They think Tampon Tim is a slam, because they think being compared to/associated with a woman is demeaning. Take note republican women, they don't respect you.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

What the fuck. Source please.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Source please?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Raccoons are much smaller than me. But I would be hesitant to corner one. Never underestimate the destructive capabilities of someone with poor priorities.

[–] [email protected] 55 points 2 weeks ago

This is my first time seeing this. Pretty clever. Childish. Cheap. Petty. Wonderful.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago

If "tough" means "focused", I'm fairly indifferent. Indiscriminately breaking up families and harrassing people because you're bigoted is not "tough", it's just hateful. It serves no real world functional purpose. And that's the policies of the right. They aren't tough, because they aren't results orientated, beyond punishing "them". I have to assume (hope) Harris is motivated more by real world cost benefit calculations and less by knee jerk stereotypes. Tough could mean fair, if she intends to apply the rules more justly, and less punativatively. If tough means more scrutiny with less prejudice, it sounds more like a better return on investment for border infrastructure.

[–] [email protected] 65 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I honestly thought this was about to be another orb post from the thumbnail.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago

Which I've been saying into the void for a while. Ideally in capitalism demand drives supply. If their demand is lack luster (for people upgrading to premium), rather than trying to cajole people through force into buying their product, they should drop the fucking price. Instead, they want to keep it bundled with music, and thus make it prohibitively expensive, while simultaneously competing in two seperate markets simultaneously. Give the people a video only tier, at a truly reasonable price, and begin (read: continue) to rake in cash. It's very frustrating.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

Well, from a purely imperical viewpoint, it kind of is. Pros: a criminal is captured and potentially made to suffer in some way, which somehow balances out the cosmic scales of justice or something; this high ranking criminal can be plumbed for information, which has many assets seizing and additional criminal capturing implications. Cons: there is no reduction in criminal activity; there is actually an increase in violence and volatility; the power vacuum will inevitably be filled and essentially all the clandestine infiltration/investigation work up to this point resets to square one. Could be someone better, could be someone worse, but absolutely will be someone.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 weeks ago

Maybe that should be retirement age. Young people of today will be lucky to retire at all.

view more: next ›