[-] [email protected] 17 points 3 hours ago

Step on my throat harder, Daddy! 🥾😋😊😚

[-] [email protected] 15 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

pooping photo

just keep pushing through. (No pun intended)

Classy all around. Hope she's on a Teams call with her camera and microphone on and making all of her employees incredibly uncomfortable.

[-] [email protected] 32 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

Sure but there are a ton of things, genetic, environmental, dietary, neurochemical, etc. that can contribute to the development of cancer. You can do literally everything right and end up in the exact same place as someone who did all the wrong things because the causes are innumerable and many are literally unavoidable.

Would I regret my choices if I got cancer after I did all the things the studies say would increase my odds? Of course I would. Would I regret my choices if did everything "right" and still got cancer? Of course I would. But that's because being in that position inherently biased you against your past. If I did all the wrong things I would regret that I indulged too much, and if I did all the right things I would regret that I never really indulged at all and enjoyed life fully. Either way you got shafted. You're damned if you do, damned if you don't.

But to me it's better to just live intentionally but without having this constant concern about every single thing I eat, drink, or breath maybe, possibly, eventually contributing to developing cancer. Like I'm not about to start smoking, I rarely drink, I try to eat enough veggies, etc. because those things have much more tangible direct consequences that I'm mindful of, and I'm not about to eat a hotdog every day mostly because I'm a really good cook and that sounds sad as fuck. But the next time I do eat a hotdog, a salami, or a Reuben sandwich, I promise you that no part of my mind is going to be worrying that it will give me cancer. Constant dread is its own form of cancer and life's too short and uncertain to live with that shit 24/7.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

*woe-min. FTFY

[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

No no no, you're all wrong. It goes Agles, Beagles, Seagulls, Deegles, Eagles, etc. We've proven the existence of 3 of these species already, but the search continues for these other mysterious creatures the certainly must exist. In this TED Talk, I will...

[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

Captain Planet Gull: "Give me those chips and I'll poop on you!"

You: "... don't you mean 'or' you will poop on me, not 'and'?"

Captain Planet Gull: ...

You: ...

[-] [email protected] 23 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

+3 to AC, passive, one attunement slot, no armor proficiency necessary, no need for a free hand, can be slept in? My wizard will look fabulous.

[-] [email protected] 200 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Just to be clear, feminism isn't about not being attracted to beautiful women. It's perfectly human to admire someone's beautiful features, regardless of anyone's gender. Feminism is about respect, equality, rejecting prescribed roles and limitations placed on gender, and acknowledging and addressing privilege and patriarchal systems of society.

Notice none of those things means you can't still like the sight of boobs, butts, legs, abs, biceps, or whatever gets you excited. It does mean that you shouldn't reduce someone's value to those things, nor should your excitement about seeing someone's beautiful physical attributes become a problem for them, like if you harass them or catcall them over it, or worse.

But Emma is well respected, not only as an actress but as an advocate, and she's there to represent a great cause to the UN. They can respect her and her work and message and still think she's a knockout at the same time. They're not mutually exclusive, and that's a pretty relevant part of feminism, divorcing worth as a person from sexuality and attractiveness.

[-] [email protected] 19 points 5 days ago

[Karen] is pejorative.

No shit, Sherlock. It's an insult. Insults are pejorative. That's literally the point. It doesn't make it a slur, though. Slurs are about insulting someone for their genetic attributes, like their race or sex, or their sexuality, their nationality, or their religious or cultural identity, i.e. things that are inherent and largely unchosen about their identity. Slurs are not critiques for behaviors. "Asshole", "Fascist", "Bigot", and "Karen" are insults that are about behaviors, specifically about treating others without respect, equality, or basic human decency.

"Karen" is an insult for someone who acts entitled and who treats service workers poorly or sticks their nose into others' business and tries to police their behavior. The fact of the matter is that the majority of people that are that entitled and behave that way (in the US at least) are middle aged or elderly white women, which is where the name came from. But the term is not about insulting someone for being a middle aged or elderly white woman, is it? It's about their behavior. Older white women aren't the only ones that can be Karens, and most older white women do not behave like Karens.

If you cannot see the difference between insulting things you do vs things you are, you are probably very familiar with actual slurs.

[-] [email protected] 53 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Gonna be as isolated at North Korea by the end of this administration. As trusted too.

[-] [email protected] 41 points 5 days ago

The point of the establishment clause is that it shouldn't matter what the majority says about religion. It should mean exactly nothing. Tyranny of the majority shouldn't be allowed to make non-Christians into second class citizens.

58
submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

This is from the last election in 2020. How fun that it's still relevant!

130
submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
view more: next ›

kryptonianCodeMonkey

0 post score
0 comment score
joined 2 years ago