Lurker > Tmaster148

Rharyx211 posted...

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

I'm pretty sure I saw the kissing thing on reddit but it might not have been tate who said it. Oddly there's a trend of guys calling heterosexual activities as gay.

boomgetchopped3 posted...

This is fake but also on brand for him at the same time

https://twitter.com/Cobratate/status/1783049915800736108

It's real

R_Jackal posted...

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.

It's a bit more complicated then that. Squatter laws exist so that land not being used doesn't just sit around unused. Someone who owned land stops using it and it never gets sold for someone else to use or ownership document has been lost to time.

LightningThief posted...

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

To note, streaming services like Max can allow you to restrict access to r rated content. Plus they are paid services. Not a good comparsion to youtube.

kirbymuncher posted...

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

It's often used for topics like suicide rather than nudity. Plus a video age restricted doesn't appear in search and doesn't earn ad revenue so there's a while meta of talking about topics like suicide without triggering age restriction.

Ultimately youtube does a terrible job at separating this kind of content

With how much you are avoiding saying what the gift is, I can't help but think the gift was too much for someone you were barely dating.

A big problem with job listings is that many job offerings list the person who left credentials and not ones actually needed for the job. If you don't have a degree, you should be fine if you can show you have experience elsewhere with what is required for the job.

The only issue you might encounter is being filtered by an ai or job postings never intended to be filled.

Kazuma_Yagami posted...

its not too personalized its just relevant to conversations weve had.

You'll need to be a bit more specific, because if it's just something where she said she liked some show and you purchased a gift related to that show, there's no way you couldn't gift it to someone else.

MaxEffingBemis posted...

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

Any D&D campaign could technically be ran in a different system. The main difference systems provides are often flavor (d&d tends to be medieval theme) and mechanics (5e favors combat over rp).

If you aren't sure how to start a campaign, look at pre-built modules for the system you want to use.

What gift did you get that is personalized to this person that you can't regift to someone else?

ellis123 posted...

^

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.

I don't believe PF2 is based on D&D 4e. 4e was never released in srd for others to use.

Pathfinder was built off of D&D 3.5 ruleset. It's a more complex system compared to D&D 5e which is what BG3 was built off of.

Crimsoness posted...

It not being banned on YT means YT is a sight designed for that content

If you told someone you visited an adult video site, no one's first thought it's youtube.

pnut027 posted...

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.

I don't see why you can't just go to the sites designed for this content instead of forcing it onto others.

Based on your own arguments it would be perfectly fine to set up an adult store right next to a children's playground otherwise it would be censorship or anti consumer choice.

pnut027 posted...

Im pro consumer choice and anti censorship. Im not sure why the woke crowd wants to scrub the internet of content.

Consumers already have a choice of sites for adult content. Youtube does not need to be a site for it

I'm not sure why you need to push adult content everywhere to be anti-censorship.

pnut027 posted...

You consented when you logged into the site. Log out to revoke your consent.

For someone who claims to not care whether the content is on YouTube or not, you seem to get really upset when people don't want the content on the platform.

I'm not sure why adult content is such an important thing you must have on YouTube.

Nemu posted...

It's weird seeing people equate sex-positivity with condoning shitty, low effort spam videos hiding under the radar of a site's TOS.

You would also think sex positivity would be about consent but these people seem to not realize that not everyone wants that type of content in every site they visit.

pnut027 posted...

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.

It's very telling that you just want to force adult content into everything.

pnut027 posted...

And its not now, even if adult-oriented content is hosted on it.

And there's no reason for youtube to be a place to host adult content. You have dedicated sites for it, use those.

People keep acting like this is an issue with right or left leaving views but it's more that adult content comes with risk of high levels of chargebacks.

pnut027 posted...

And you want a kid-friendly site, you have kid friendly sites you can visit.

You do know youtube wasn't an adult site first.

pnut027 posted...

And a kid that is that resourceful wont be stopped by YouTube if theyre actively looking for porn.

So why does it need to be on YouTube?

If you want adult content, you have adult sites you can visit. YouTube is not an adult focused site nor should it try to be.

YouTube Premium is $14/month.

Listed Features:
No Ads, Download Videos, Play in background or lock screen on mobile app, stream music ad free.

2 of those features are kind of redundant. YouTube mobile apps allows you to play videos while not focus on app as long as it's not music without premium.

Plus there are means to download videos and block ads without playing $14/month.

It's certainly a service many would deemed over priced for what it provides.

LightningThief posted...

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.

Channels that are set as kids channels, don't make ad revenue. So many of these channels mark themselves as not for kids while making kid focus content and throw in adult jokes and themes into their content so youtube doesn't set them as a kids channel.

People are blatantly abusing youtube's system to make money off of kids.

This whole "parents need to be watching their what their kids watch" sounds good in theory, but often parents have their own stuff they need to do and can't spend every waking moment making sure the videos a kid is watching is friendly when people are going through such lengths to skirt around systems in place to protect children in the first place.

Plus sites do exist for the kind of content people clearly want, youtube does not have to be a space for it as well.

Why do you want child abuse to be cool?

People bringing up YouTube kids already forgetting about the whole ElsaGate.

FinalBraveNUT posted...

Finally a glimmer of hope for our children to go outside again!

Banning tiktok won't get children outside again.

Society has made outside hostile for people. 3rd places are largely gone as well. Not to mention children are barely allowed anywhere without an adult

Engage's story was pretty bland and forgettable. Fates may not have good writting, but it at least had some memorable moments.

Also Engage had a problem where it just kind of dragged on the story near the end and I know I lost a lot of drive to finish the game at one point.

From another news source:
https://abc7ny.com/man-apparently-sets-himself-on-fire-outside-nyc-courthouse-where-trump-is-trial/14695794/

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."

Smashingpmkns posted...

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.

Speaking of ethics in true crime. There was a youtuber true crime channel that paid for discovery documents with included autopsy photos of an 11 year old child and released them to her patron supporters.

A party of 7 lvl 13 characters can easily take on a Demlich in their own lair. Most ancient dragons wouldn't even be a real threat to them.

I don't think this homebrew boss is that overtuned for the strength level the party could output.

DEX is stronger than STR in DnD 5e due to affecting Initiative, AC, Hit/Damage with Ranged & Finesse weapons, and boosting stealth/acrobatics (since acrobatics is used to contest grapples).

STR affects carry weight, but that almost never comes up due to items like the Bag of Holding, Jump distance which also doesn't come up very often and with spells like Fly you don't really need to jump either, performing grapples which have confusing rules around them, and hit/damage with Melee Weapons.

Plus in 5e, Dex Saves are far more common than Str Saves.

nekrodev posted...

well liked and good aren't the same. popular music is usually pretty shit.

Not personally liking popular music is fine, but popular music is popular for a reason. There's plenty of bad examples you could pick from modern papa roach, so it's just weird to pick Scars. It's also weird to be hung up over a band that's not really that relevant anymore.

nekrodev posted...

they've only gotten worse since, that's part of the issue.

You've could of picked a more recent song, because Scars itself is a pretty liked song as well.

Scars was released in 2004. You're a bit late.

Nemu posted...

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?

If you intentionally put yourself in harms way just so you can kill people, that's not self defense.

DrizztLink posted...

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.

It's lore is that it forms a harem of it's pre-evolution with pheromones.

What I gathered is it's fine for someone to kill others over thought crime.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-has-urged-ukraine-halt-strikes-russian-energy-infrastructure-ft-reports-2024-03-22/

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.

Really a take that it's more important for oil prices to not increase during a US election year than it is to stop an invading army.

BucketCat posted...

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.

Considering his way to fame was killing 2 people with a gun as a minor, he was never someone who was "tough"

runewalshPSiv posted...

The Gun Control Act does prohibit illegal immigrants from owning a firearm.

The 2A supersedes that according to the ruling this topic is about.

Otherwise, NY's handgun law would still be in effect.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


You wanted to bring up a discussion about non-citizens owning firearms.

I think part of this discussions is about non-citizens own firearms within the US

I then told you that there is nothing that prevents non-citizens from owning firearms.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Owning a firearm isn't something that only US citizens are allowed to do and a non US citizen with a firearm in the US borders is protected from the government taking away their guns as per the 2A.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


You said

I'm not sure how or why we would even need to regulate an illegal immigrate possessing a firearm?

I'm just clarifying what the constitution and 2A represent for this ruling. This isn't about regulating illegal immigrants owning guns, this is about preventing the government from bypassing the protections granted in the constitution.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


The constitution isn't a document that only applies to citizens. It's a documents whose purpose to tell what the US government can and cannot do. If the Constitution states that via the 2A that the government cannot take away a person's guns then it applies to everyone.

This means that anyone is protected from the US government taking away their guns. Though realistically this only matters if you are within the borders of the US and its territories.

ROBANN_88 posted...

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

The arguments against Gun Control have always resolved around it not being part of the constitution.

Bass posted...

Not sure why you care so much about my interpretation, dude. Chill out.

You are the one calling the country wild for upholding the values stated in the constitution. Do you not support upholding the 2A?

Bass posted...

I don't see the government using well regulated militias anymore.

I know this is a widely debated legal question, though.

That's not what the current interpretation of the 2A is. Do you not agree with upholding the values of the constitution?

Bass posted...

Lmao. This country is wild.

Do you not approve of upholding the 2A as it states in the constitution?