It’s a race between junk food vs. an actual meal. Junk food is easy and self indulgent, real food requires time and effort. It doesn’t matter that junk food is a terrible value and lacks any nutrition. The Trump people choose junk, conservatives choose Trump people because the Trump people are mathematically mandatory to maintain their caste.

Ok, so carried to it’s logical conclusion, he’s suggesting that sucking dick is unmanly.

So there’s definitely nothing manly about this chap then: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Radcliffe

Valve cover off, small rock in valve cover, valve cover back on.

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.

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

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.

This is such an unforced error. It just makes Nathan’s seem petty and defensive. I argue that having someone who is sponsored by a meat alternative brand, eat 60 of your hot dogs, is a slam dunk. “Even this guy, who is paid to eat other hot dogs, chooses to eat a shit load of ours. Our shit must be the bomb.”

Voice over: “The only thing impossible about our dogs, is to put them down” set over a slow mo video of Chestnut vacuuming up hot dogs.

I am so powerfully intrigued.

This link was a morning ruining rabbit hole.

Ever?

I left Reddit to call their bluff. I stay away from Reddit because I want to help grow the fediverse. It’s already better than when I joined. And I believe, perhaps naively, that it will continue to get better. I’d rather be the part of the beginning of something great than lingure around as a great thing rots.

You don’t need a CDL to drive these. Doug Demuro has even reviewed one.

Does it?

Not OP, but I just want videos. I don’t need or want their music service. That’s the premium I’m waiting for.

I’ve considered when a word is no longer “made up”.

There’s always some enlightened centrist claptrap about “all words being made up”, which I think even they know is pedantic and not really a solution.

Then you have the Websters who intentionally annoint words prematurely, I’m certain for marketings sake. Every year they get some free press about adding surprising words. I don’t really know who buys dictionaries on a regular basis, but someone must, so they must want to appear modern and get some free advertising while they’re at it. In Short, you have early adopters who want to appear hip, and that seems wrong, too.

Finally you have the hard-ass who doesn’t want anything new added. In my experience these people just get off on gatekeeping and pearl clutching. They don’t think that slang is worthy and they want to be part of the ingroup who decides which words are “real”. In these peoples opinion, if they’re being consistent, words like “legit” shouldn’t be a word, it’s just slang for legitimate. So that seems wrong.

I think the only answer is perhaps time. I feel like a word needs to live as long as the average person before becoming “official” (whatever that means). Like, who knows if in 79 years “bussin” will still be a usable word. But then again, useable by whom? If the issue with slang is that it’s too new and therefor only understood by a narrow group of people, can’t the same complaint can be applied to highbrow difficult words that are only understood by the overeducated? Or technical words in niche areas of understanding? Can you really say that more people can define metempsychosis, or kentledge, than can define edgelord, or doggo?

But even my time argument fails. Because what’s the harm in adding words? We aren’t bound by any space limitations or something. We don’t run out of “word slots” and once they’re all used we’re stuck forever.

Long story short, I don’t know what the answer is. But I do know that horsefeatherses isn’t a word.

Personally I wouldn’t mind paying for YouTube premium. As a matter of fact I did in the past. But it’s priced at least twice as high as I’m willing to pay. Perhaps if they had full premium with YouTube music at the current too high price, and then a “premium lite” that was simply no ads and but no YouTube music either at half or less the full price. Personally I just don’t want ads, I don’t want to over pay for a music service I dont want, just because I don’t want ads in the unrelated video portion of youtube.

Currently I feel like they are bullying me into buying a service I don’t want, by interfering with a service that I do want. Which is honestly what I suspect is at the root of this current push against ad blockers in the first place. It’s not about the video service in any meaningful way, I suspect they are trying to leverage their video dominance to bolster their music subscribership. This seems antisocial enough for me to have no ethical concerns about attempting to circumvent their ads.

I always never don’t not agree with you.

Exactly. Premium is basically twice what I’m willing to pay. I’ve considered going premium multiple times, and have multiple times suffered sticker shock and backed away.

Again, the porn is not the problem. There is nothing inherently wrong with making or watching porn. The predators are the problem.

Two things to consider:

One, I guarantee you have watched and will watch again, a major Hollywood movie featuring victims of abuse by directors, producers, other actors. Even child victims. Hollywood is widely recognized for being a dark and evil place with imbalances of power and open secrets about exploitation. But watching movies is not inherently evil. The best you can do is be deliberate in your choices and try your best to not support the bad guys.

Two, where does the moral imperative end? Ok, so you’ve decided that entertainment in the form a sexual performance is fundamentally different than movies/tv/theater/music. You abstain from participating because you believe it is unethical. Do you then believe in censorship? Surely if it is categorically wrong it should be made illegal? Better safe than sorry. But who gets to control the terms of censorship? What about the woman of color who is making enough doing porn to empower themselves in a society that is essentially constructed to deprive them of power? Is it right to take away that power due, ironically, to the actions of the same type of bad guy that limits their power in the first place?

Prohibition does not work. Not for drugs, not for alcohol, not for porn, and of the three I listed it is arguably the healthiest pastime. The solution is openness and oversight. Stop forcing porn talent to exist in some walled off dim corner of the internet. Eliminate the stigma. Give me that new Netflix Original porn with credits and funding. But it still wont be perfect. But that still doesn’t make it fundamentally wrong.

“Fine with” is probably too far. I think they’re pointing out that, for example, your phone contains cobalt which was likely mined unethically, perhaps by a child, perhaps resulting in their death. Is therefore buying a phone inherently wrong? Not essentially. Nor is porn inherently wrong. The abusers in these scenarios are in the wrong, not necessarily the end consumer.

It could even be argued that rather than being some sort of monster for being unknowingly subjected to footage of a sexual assault, that the viewer is also now being harmed themselves.

Furthermore, I’m not familiar with the “Girls Do Porn” channel/company/whatever but it sounds to me that the concept was porn created by women. Wether sound or not logically, the intent seemed ideally to be a safer porn environment, like reduced patriarchy flavored porn. So in this case the company responsible actively preyed on people trying to find a more consensual and equitable pornography.

There is definitely a crime here, but it isn’t the horny guy cranking away in the privacy of his home.