JayDee

Also Freetube has these features.

Musta been a cold day in North America.

I'd argue Hanlon's razor is not a very good heuristic. It ultimately presupposes the user of it is the mental superior in the situation, and does not take into account polarized and ambiguous controversies. It also encourages energy wasting by presupposing the issue lies with mental capacity or education, suggesting that you could educate your opponent out of their stance.

I'd recommend moving towards more energy-conserving practices. Rather than arguing your points directly, it's better to first understand why the opposition would be taking their current stance and adjust your argument based on what common ground you both share.

Possibly the greatest skill is to just learn when it's no longer worth your time to argue with them.

Reminder about Henry Lee Lucas, who would just confess to any murder because he kept being provided amenities in prison for doing so.

Do we have any significant evidence that Sam Little definitely committed these murders? To be clear, Little is definitely a serial killer. I just have my doubts that he isn't just being used as a scapegoat since HLL.

From Oxygen

The FBI confirms Samuel Little is “the most prolific serial killer in U.S. history,” and says he has been “matched to 50 cases” of the 93 murders he claims he has committed. The FBI also releases a timeline of Little’s life and crimes in hopes of identifying more of his victims.

So half are still unconfirmed, and the other 50 are 'Matched' to him by some unknown criteria, which involves sketches

Was gonna say, it's almost definitely a cost-savings measure.

What's a smog?

Answer provided by chatGPT /s

It not a massive gap like that, but it's tall enough and far enough away that 99.9% of people who try, fall.

I'll trust that's true, but even still, logic has never stood in the way of any legislation passing in the US or corporate decision.

I mean, I think alittle? Not because of the reasons you think, though, and it's not really 'your fault'. More of a pitfall that most people fall into.

TLDR: ditch the apps and try to get out into more social situations through clubs and sports. The 'right one' will come along when you are more socially able an mm you'll likely make friends along the way (genuine friends are WAY more important for staying sane).

So, tinder specifically objectifies and compresses you into a blurb and some photos - it basically cans you for mass consumption. When you finally get 'bought', you only get a chat box to communicate unless you actually exchange contacts, and the whole thing's kind of terrible in general because of that. I've tried bumble and it's pretty much a similar thing.

There's this thing sometimes called the 'predator/prey relationship model' by feminists, and dating apps explicitly reinforce this model, with the only minor change being that bumble required the woman to open the interaction. The predator/prey relationship makes it so that in our society, dudes are expected to go out, find a random woman they fancy, and 'pounce' them, essentially. Originally, this was quite literal if you have heard some stories of relationships starting in the 40s and 50s where a couple got together because the guy was just constantly unrelenting. This has shifted to being more egalitarian and consensual but still requires the guy to basically peacock to gain the woman's approval. Once it officially becomes a relationship, the woman is expected to be submissive while the man is expected to be dominant. It's a pretty old-fashioned relationship style that still affects modern dating today. Some folks even still subscribe to it.

The better model that I think is more natural is to just go out and find new friends and groups I can participate in. This way, anyone you might date sees you in more context. You get more practice being social, which can be helpful in actually getting someone to become attracted to you, at which point they might actually start putting in effort.

I don't see much problem with this. It's one thing to advocate for everyone having greater freedoms to form non-heteronormative-style relationships, and an entire other thing to necessarily want that for yourself. That's what Feminism is about after all, a broadening of accepted lifestyles and freedoms - not necessarily a complete shift to a paradigm that prohibits the previous one. In this kind of case, it just sounds like you are discovering up front that you two are not seeking the same type of relationship, which is good to find out early.

It's kind of like advocating for a bike lane in your city despite you not biking and having no interest in biking. I don't think you're a hypocrite for not using freedoms you advocate for.

My understanding is that infant labiaplasty and other female genital cosmetic surgeries are pretty common as well in western countries. Luckily there is a growing protest to these practices on ethical grounds, since they're all medically unnecessary surgeries performed on babies that can't consent to it.

This journal publication seems to put it into perspective decently. It also points out some of the racist hypocrasy surrounding it, like how we classify these actions being done by non-western cultures as 'mutilation' which is unlawful, while classifying ones aligned with our own culture as 'cosmetic' and still allow them.