Why? Just... why?"Money", I know. Still this... really doesn't need to exist at all.
This one might have been fake, cuz I don't see it searching his Twitter.
But searching his Twitter did reunite me with a post he made last year about how he eats as quickly as possible because he hates eating and that he finds food awful and cooking is for cucks. Dude legitimately has a miserable existence
This is fake but also on brand for him at the same time
Always wondered about the squatter problem, assumed it was just renting issues, but laws actually protected people who, without permission, just took up shop in someone's property? That's kinda nuts.
As someone who was homeless, I can understand desperately wanting a place to stay.. but that sure as hell isn't the way to go about it. Damn.
Feel free to hijack, I entertained the other conversation way longer than I should have.
Answering your question, yes.
Wasn't aware they didn't have mature content blocked by an age consent wall already. An age consent wall isn't removing the content, it's just an added layer to deter underage users.
If YouTube wants to platform it, put it behind an age consent wall at least
Youtube does have least some level of sensitive content age walling, though it's not applied to that many things. it's a prompt that says it contains suggestive content or whatever and asks if you're okay viewing it, and also requires you to be logged into an account to see it
edit: ok slightly misremembered what it says. but it is, without a doubt, an age gate
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/d/dc056089.png
its not too personalized its just relevant to conversations weve had.
Are Pathfinder campaigns like DnD campaigns? Is it easy to start one like it is with DnD? I just played my first DnD campaign over the weekend so Im curious
^
Then there is Pathfinder 2 which is more akin to 4th edition (or so I've heard... I've never played it) which is more pulpy than 5th.
It not being banned on YT means YT is a sight designed for that content
and YouTube is one of those choices. If you dont like it, dont use the site. YouTube Kids will meet all of your needs for content.
Im pro consumer choice and anti censorship. Im not sure why the woke crowd wants to scrub the internet of content.
You consented when you logged into the site. Log out to revoke your consent.
It's weird seeing people equate sex-positivity with condoning shitty, low effort spam videos hiding under the radar of a site's TOS.
Theres no reason for it to not. If you dont want to watch it, then dont. I get suggestions that dont fit my tastes all the time. I click not interested and I dont see that content anymore. If youre seeing it after telling it you dont want to, its because youve invested a lot of time watching it, which is very telling.
And its not now, even if adult-oriented content is hosted on it.
And you want a kid-friendly site, you have kid friendly sites you can visit.
And a kid that is that resourceful wont be stopped by YouTube if theyre actively looking for porn.
If YouTube is going the OF route, then it needs to lock such content behind an age consent wall. Advertising also needs to be regulated because again, people talk "watching your kids" as if it's the 90s.
Finally a glimmer of hope for our children to go outside again!
The man was carrying pamphlets about lots of different subjects that said things like said things like "NYU is a mob front" and "Abolish our criminal government and replace it with one that serves all."
True crime docs are just slop entertainment for the most part so the people behind them don't really give a shit about ethics. The fact that this took quite a few steps to implement and no one at any point said "hey, maybe this is unethical" says a lot.
well liked and good aren't the same. popular music is usually pretty shit.
they've only gotten worse since, that's part of the issue.
Does that have much impact on self-defense? If a guy says "I really want to kill robbers" and then goes out to shady areas to wait to get mugged, would that change anything? I think it was fairly obvious he was always a narcissistic, deluded piece of shit, but do disgusting thoughts change a legit self-defense scenario?
Of the type combinations you could have sex with, I feel like Fire/Poison has to be one of if not the absolute worst you could pick.
March 22 (Reuters) - The United States has urged Ukraine to halt strikes on Russian energy infrastructure, warning that drone strikes risk provoking retaliation and driving up global oil prices, the Financial Times reported on Friday, citing people familiar with the matter.
The attacks helped boost oil prices that have risen nearly 4% so far since March 12, when Ukraine first started targeting Russia's energy infrastructure. A further rally in gasoline prices in the United States would weaken President Joe Biden ratings and undermine his re-election chances.
Russia and Ukraine have both used drones to strike critical infrastructure, military installations and troop concentrations in their more than two-year war, with Kyiv hitting Russian refineries and energy facilities in recent months.
i like how he's trying to sell himself as a right wing tough guy, but all I've seen him do is cry and throw temper tantrums.
The Gun Control Act does prohibit illegal immigrants from owning a firearm.
I haven't said otherwise and honestly not even sure what you are referencing regarding what I posted.
I think part of this discussions is about non-citizens own firearms within the US
That's fine, but it's really not relevant to what I wrote because I'm not a proponent of 2A. I understand the ruling and it's whatever. I think part of this discussions is about non-citizens own firearms within the US, which is what I'm addressing. Regardless of 2A.
That doesn't really impact what I said, though. I am not arguing whether or not 2A is applicable to non-citizens. I have never been a fan of 2A as a means to own a firearm.
I'm not sure how or why we would even need to regulate an illegal immigrate possessing a firearm?
I don't think I've ever been a fan of 2A as a means to own a firearm. I think people should have the right to defend themselves against others within the law.
That said, I'm not sure how or why we would even need to regulate an illegal immigrate possessing a firearm? First and foremost, they are illegally here. That's the top-level issue and will likely be deported if something tips them off and the firearm will be confiscated.
the constitution is a just 200 year old document
it's not divinely ordained
it can and should be changed when it has stuff that doesn't work anymore
if it still works fine, that's great but having the value of "uphold the constitution" just for the sake of upholding it is folly
Not sure why you care so much about my interpretation, dude. Chill out.