If you're the digital representation, then whatever you do is playing out according to a deterministic process and your free will is an illusion, so you might as well do whatever you want anyway.
And what does it mean to drip with slavery?
West Coast Alliance will have a significant domestic terrorism problem that increases the closer it gets to the Rockies, though.
If it makes you feel any better, it can only ever torture a digital representation of you because your essential self is made of ordinary matter caught up in the ineluctable grip of entropy.
Oh geez they might actually do that one.
Mycologists are fine, it's the fan club that gets weird.
Remember when Rand Paul got beat up and it turned out it was because his neighbor was fed up with him throwing brush into his yard?
Christians blathering on about the importance and sanctity of the family doing their favorite thing: lying nonstop to their children about literally everything, including the most significant and defining moment of their childhoods. Anyone who thought this kid was better off now that pops is out of the picture hasn't met the mom.
Yes but don't you wish you were living in the reality where in a few years we get a biopic where an actress gets an Oscar for pretending to feel very badly about the whole thing?
The rhetoric would've been nicer and that's about it.
Redpilling the youths is backfiring because the men buy it and the women don't.
Posted in slop because of the over-the-top writing style.
Imagine this: no electricity on Taiwan’s western coast. Government ministries offline. Internet gone. Airport systems shut. No explosion heard. But order collapses just the same.
When presented with conservative-biased chatbots, Democratic voters supported substantially reducing government expenditures on education, while Republicans did the opposite when presented with a liberal-biased chatbot.
This is one of those trainwreck personal essays that I can't let go of, despite it being a 35-minute podcast episode about a middle-aged women describing how she's bad at dating. Part of it is the fascination of it being honest enough to tell on its author while still omitting key details, part of it is wondering about the craft of writing in the year of our lord 20 and 25 when folks are out writing 14,000 word thinkpieces instead of taking the less embarrassing option of seeing a therapist (there is a therapist quoted in the article but it's her friend and she talks about "justify[ing] the phallus," so maybe it's not a given that it'll help).
The tl;dr:
I haven’t been dating long (just the other day my ex-husband and I received our Judgment of Divorce as an email attachment), but long enough to discover that I have a type. He is gentle, goofy, self-deprecating, rather deferential, a passionate humanist, a sweet guy, a “good guy.” He tends to signal, in various ways, his exemption from the tainted category of “men,” and it is perfectly understandable that he would wish to do so. It must be mildly embarrassing to be a straight man, and it is incumbent upon each of them to mitigate this embarrassment in a way that feels authentic to him.
This isn't to say there isn't a lot of deserved frustration directed at heterosexual men in particular (hi, cishet dude here currently signaling my exemption from the tainted category of "men", please let me know if I'm doing a good job in the comments 
) and the dating scene in general, but resorting to "heterofatalism" seems like a rejection of having to do the work to create and sustain a relationship.
I like how they say "flour shell" like they (correctly) fear that the concept of bread itself would send a cease and desist if they dared use the word.