Brexit

No, you are!

Sounds like a bunch of us should put up seeds with titles like “This (1947) It’s A Wonderful Life (Public Domain) is better than (2025) Fantastic Four”

If you know anyone who is anti trans but goes by a nickname, start calling them by their given name. Doug, you’re Douglas. Alex, you’re Alexander or Alexis or whatever. Bill: William. Ted: Rafael (might only apply to one Senator).

1 month later: why is our new instance filled exclusively with incels and edgelords and fuckwits?

1 year later: President Trump signs executive order requiring everyone to federate with MAGA

nice, he’s successfully lowered food prices!

I wonder how much America needs to dismantle itself and plunge its people into hell to make up for its share of the net evil caused from the end of WWII…?

(“net evil” because there’s some good and bad, and “share” because a lot of other countries participated…)

When I poisoned my comments I focused on the highest upvoted ones based on the assumption whatever crawler they use will give more weight to those, thereby taking up that poison more strongly…

I strongly advise everyone who came here from reddit to go back to their highest-upvoted comments and edit them to be completely nonsensical. Create a nonsense collection of words and replace the whole thing, paste it above, below, in the middle, or something.

These LLMs need to be poisoned beyond recovery, sooner rather than later.

Yeah I can see a dad making that exact joke if he asked his kid to play the didgeridoo and they refused because they were shy or something.

A good test has to exclude all possible dad jokes as well as changes in single words/ fragments of otherwise common expressions.

this is the video that gave me a useful tool for stopping my intrusive thoughts, in case anyone is looking for relief

https://youtu.be/kvtYjdriSpM

(there are tons so I’m sure there might be better ones or ones that work better for other people…)

now telegram is going to insert random information about South African White genocide to every conversation. or it will be in every recommended reply at least.

I’m not sure I follow.

I’m starting from the assumption that OP genuinely wants to talk to women without being creepy (for lack of a better term), presuming that comes from his intrinsic association between “talking to a woman” and “attempting to establish a romantic relationship with that woman.”

That’s a thought that’s undesirable and presumably persistent. Sort of the definition of “intrusive.”

I’m aware that the pop psych understanding of the phrase is specifically about violent or violence associated thoughts but those are the ones more people have and that probably are more disturbing than annoying.

When your parents say, “did you talk to any of them,” they mean did you strike up a conversation with a woman with no presumption of potential romantic outcome.

When you say it, it seems like you’re assuming there’s a potential for a romantic outcome in every conversation between heterosexual men and women.

Your goal should be to strike up a conversation with a woman about random topics of interest, including very shallow ones, with no expectation that you’re evaluating her as a potential mate, and she’s not evaluating you.

Yes, we’re all subject to intrusive thoughts so from time to time, you’ll fail at this goal and start thinking about a romantic path. That’s fine. Just acknowledge it to yourself and endeavor to do better.

It will probably take time and practice. Give yourself grace to try and fail and learn. You’ll know you’re succeeding when you realize you had a conversation with a woman without her gender being a consequential thought in your mind.

The same federal laws from Reconstruction applied across the whole country. Except there were “creative” legislators, executives, lawyers, and citizen organizations in the South that found loopholesto exploit. Most people in the North didn’t do that (obviously there were exceptions).

Add to that the violent, murderous rampages that occurred against successful black people and neighborhoods, and “Reconstruction” was very complex in its implementation.

right but if I’m thinking correctly (maybe not) then if it “merely” wasn’t harmful, wouldn’t there be room for variation within the species of toxicity?

I feel like if evolution is correct (I’m confident it is) then it must be evolutionarily advantageous to have the capacity to kill a herd of elephants with one’s toxin, assuming all animals in the group have that capacity.

We can go lower!!!

lots of rights get modified, curtailed, or eliminated by the larger society based on misuse or misbehavior or other transgressions.

(or positions of power, etc…)

those are rookie numbers, we can do better!

everything ought to be transferred to Ukraine, but only the European stuff is likely to be in the near term.

that’s one thing Biden really should have done after the election.