Lurker > GEKGanon

mercurydude posted...

This.

No one is ever more outraged, more quick to throw a melty, than those who consider the existence of LGBT people to be problematic... such as suggesting WW3 is preferable to this.

Just watch that video.. the republican doucheface that demanded these be removed had no reason for it other than getting his way. It wasn't causing him a problem, breaking his leg, interfering with his routine in any way, shape, or form. He wanted to inconvenience other people out of spite. Either he or one of his buddies vandalized that dispenser and instead of getting locked up as they should have been, they got rewarded by having their way.

Alright man, cool story.

Were the Beatles even good at music? I mean, sure. Every single song they made is pretty memorable.

thronedfire2 posted...

half the country refused masks because the president told them to

never forget that the 2020 Trump administration is directly responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans

They didn't do it because the president told them to. They did it because they were selfish pricks that just didn't want to do it, and were looking for any excuse not to, which shithead provided.

"If the Christian God was real, wouldn't he certainly intervene if something like nuclear war was about to happen?"

The Christian God? The same one that supposedly drowned everyone indiscriminately with the foreknowledge that it wasn't an actual solution to the "sin problem" he claimed he was fixing? The same one that supposedly had the power to create the whole of existence, but somehow didn't have the power to outright forgive sin without making an eons long show of it, that ended with Jesus claiming you can just lump your misdeeds on someone else and punish them instead of bearing responsibility for your misdeeds yourself?

Tyranthraxus posted...

don't you think this is a little bit of an overreaction?

Not really. I'm just tired of people. Fucking trifling nonsense all the time; we have too much time to make up problems.

FLOUR posted...

https://nypost.com/2023/10/14/clemson-students-protest-removal-of-tampons-from-mens-room/

https://thefederalist.com/2023/10/16/lgbt-clemson-students-demand-tampons-put-back-in-the-mens-restroom/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rNc5f3q1OU

Your thoughts?

WW3 can't come soon enough.

You know, the Japanese were wearing masks in public before COVID, because they have manners, and figured it was better to try to not get each other sick, or at least appear to care about not getting each other sick. Americans couldn't be bothered to agree to wear them even when a new virus was spreading around the planet, because half the population are selfish pricks that thought it would be easier for the elderly to just die off than for them to have develop manners and respect for others.

Because Christianity is as equally as untrue as every other religion it claims to be so.

Sausage can be good, but it often seems like it has a really off texture.

s0nicfan posted...

To be clear, in 2022 Google made nearly 225 BILLION in ad revenue. So unless Google is aiming to make a trillion dollars on ads, I don't know what argument can really be made for "we're legally not liable for serving you malware, and we make hundreds of billions a year already just on serving ads, but we're still going to go after the segment blocking ads by making it unbelievably hostile for the majority of the market not blocking ads because fuck you that's why."

They used to run like 5 second skippable ads. A minority of people couldn't cope with that, now this is the shit everyone has to deal with. I hope they just take this shit to a streaming type subscription only model, then the only people that have to worry about Youtube making money are the ones signing up for it.

Paragon21XX posted...

Sites have no one to blame but themselves. They fucked around and found out, especially with ads on mobile pages with ads that cover half the page, autoplay ad videos with audio, and malicious redirects.

Speaking specifically about Youtube, the advertisements used to be far less intrusive, and people still used ad block to avoid them. The more intrusive experience that exists now is the result of less intrusive means being bypassed, which just shows there is no level of advertisement, even a far lesser one, that people aren't going to subvert. It is a snake eating its own tail.

Eventually, you'll just wake up one day and realizing you're building yourself toward nothing, because no matter how much you've paid down your house, or how nice it looks, or how fit you are, or how much money you have, it exists only for people in the future who are also building themselves toward nothing.

GrandConjuraton posted...

"Soneone think of the poor rich people!" tho

Literally nobody is saying "think of the poor rich people!". What is being said is that the internet requires funding, and cannot exist at zero cost. If the internet doesn't generate revenue, including revenue for content creators, then nobody is going to put the effort into maintaining it.

I like how the food pyramid still suggests eating a shit ton of bread, as if they aren't carbs that break down into sugar. Bravo, food pyramid.

ChainsawFerret posted...

I dunno, why are you simping for a bunch of greedy pricks? They come up with a better way to advertise, without all the malware, spyware, and other crap our PCs don't need, and we can talk.

Until then, they can bugger off, and so can you. The adblocker stays ON.

I'm not "simping for greedy pricks". I'm presenting the pragmatic reality of the internet, which is that servers cost money, employees are only employees if they get paid for their work, and websites need to be funded to operate. Your position is that we should all drain what we can from websites we claim to like, and leave the shuttered in our wake.

Its weird how many times I've used the self-checkout, but they've never sent me a W-2 for doing their employee's jobs for them. If I'm a cashier, why am I not being paid?

PesticideDream posted...

Yes. Pretty much every single diet out there is just fancy, commercialized way of saying "eat less calories". It's literally one of the simplest things ever, and people will vehemently deny that it works for some strange reasons no one can comprehend.

Everyone that I've known that's actually followed a diet has lost weight, and most of the ones that claim they don't work sneak in fast food and calorie dense stuff and claim in their minds "that doesn't count lol!"

I'm amazed by how many people think if you eat a bunch of horrible shit, you can just eat a salad and drink a diet soda afterwards and it fixes it. Like... no... throwing more calories in the form of a salad on top of what you already ate doesn't negate having already eaten it...

Sariana21 posted...

Ask anyone who has ever had to take prescription steroids (Prednisone, for example).

Its the laws of physiology, not physics.

And yes, someone who eats literally nothing will obviously lose weight. And then die. So thats not really a solution. Bodies retain mass differently.

A physical structure cannot move without using energy, and material object cannot increase in size without supplying energy to accomplish it. That IS physics, it is thermodynamics. Nobody is talking about eating literally nothing, but it is flat out against the laws of physics for an increase in mass to occur when an object is given less energy than it utilizes.

Takuya_Lee posted...

No it's not. There could be other medical issues at play.

I'm really hard pressed to think of a medical condition that could create fat without fuel to do so, or prevent your body from burning fuel. If any of that were possible, we'd be creating free energy and breaking the laws of physics.

MrCokeacola posted...

I accept your concession.

I accept your concussion. You clearly have one.

CompatibleGreet posted...

Nah YouTube can go fuck themselves. Their websites back then didn't have ads and was happy with that. Now you get like 2 vids of an ad and take forever to skip.

I'll continue to keep using adblockers

Referring back to my original post, so do you want access to Youtube, or do you not want access to Youtube? Because you're saying you want to use Youtube, but you also want it not to exist.

MrCokeacola posted...

Sounds unsustainable. I hope they all fail.

Amazing how in two posts, you go from some whimsical fantasy about an internet with no revenue, to immediately noting that it crumbles without it.

I'm watching ancient aliens, and I just noticed something...

How the fuck did aliens manage to create interstellar travel when they are reliant on human beings creating crude stone structures in order to help them navigate Earth?

MrCokeacola posted...

The world wide web was made as a passion project to share ideas and information with others and has no need for "revenue".

That's an absurd answer that completely falls apart under the reality that humans typically don't work for free, typically expect compensation for their work, and servers cost money. How many Youtube creators would remain on Youtube if they weren't making any money, and how long would Youtube persist as a site if it couldn't pay for its own server space?

So I haven't bothered reading every post, but has anyone explained how the websites you want to experience without ads are going to continue being available to you if the ad revenue is how the website itself is supported?

Crimsoness posted...

Don't wish me well wishes

To hell with you.