It's called "post nut clarity" Sounds great thinking about it, but if you did it as soon as you finished cumming you would regret it.
Is there anything better than pussy from behind? If there is I've never seen it
I don't have "opponents". I think for myself. Sometimes people disagree with me and present facts that prove me wrong. I don't call them names. I say, I see your facts and I was wrong. You have created in your mind a fantasy image of me. I am not pushing any narrative. You seem to think that I am on the "team" opposed to your "team". I'm not on any team. On social media platforms some people on the left have condemned me. Some people on the right have condemned me. I can't think of better evidence that I think for myself and am not aligned with any political party. Previously I had given my opinion on "X" . It's an opinion. Are we at the point of attacking others simply because we disagree with their opinions? In the big picture of life I frankly don't give a fuck about X or any other social media platform. I'm too busy enjoying my life.
Any type of censorship that is CLEARLY a prosecutionable CRIME should be censored. I was under the mistaken impression that everyone knew that death threats, bomb scares and other bullshit like that was not only censorable but that we would all agree that the government should arrest and prosecute assholes that post that stuff.
CSAM
OF COURSE IT SHOULD. Only mental deviates abuse kids. And as I recall those who engage in that disgusting practice and post shit like that on the internet are prosecuted
> In general, I don’t agree with the idea that someone needs to “police” online spaces, removing all the misinformation posts before they contaminate everyone’s fragile minds
Well that's a good sign. In general you disagreed with the nazi and soviet regimes.
My only "hand" is common sense. Not a hard concept to understand wanting to hear both sides. Though I do understand those who find it offensive that those who disagree with them are able to state what they believe and why. The logical approach is not to censor but welcome dissenting views and then with undeniable facts prove them wrong
I never said that. Please reread my response
You misunderstood what I said. Forget what any party or politician says. There is a "policy" being currently discussed - no more federal tax on tips. Think about that policy. Research the pro's and con's and vote for or against those proposing it. For instance with less revenue from taxation of tips we would all pay more in federal taxes to cover the shortfall OR employers says well I don't need to pay you a raise because now you are making more because you are getting tips that aren't being taxed. Anytime you listen to what the media, a political party, or a politician tells you and you believe it without question you are giving up your freedom
I am against governments that do any type of censorship. I don't need to go down the long list of repressive regimes that have done it and those who still do it today. As I mentioned before a government needs only to restate the claim and then let them PROVE that it is wrong.
Your comment shows exactly what we are discussing. You took the time to look further into the issue. Regarding "which sides" are more truthful, I would suggest you consider which news sources told us things over the past few years as definitely true that were subsequently proven false.
I take the effort to examine all sources. And did you notice the recent study showing that "X" is now split 50/50 with liberal and conservative opinions. That's what free speech offers us all. You get to hear both sides. I may not agree with someone's opinion but that doesn't mean I censor them out.
You are combining things said about private individuals vs a public figure or a government policy. There is a big difference. A public figure or a government has the resources to restate your claim and prove it wrong. So, NO I am against all personal attacks of private individuals
Have your parents or grandparents told you that you are a crybaby for complaining about the financial challenges young people face today? They are wrong and here's why.
When I was young it was a completely different time. I worked throughout high school and college. I graduated college with zero debt. Back then college was relatively inexpensive. Just about everyone in administration also carried a course load. Few were full time administrators. This obviously reduced the overall budget of colleges.
There were some who needed to take out a college loan. But back then college loans were your responsibility. If you defaulted the college got screwed. This insured that colleges only admitted people that had a chance to actually graduate, get a real job, and pay off their loan. Today the government foolishly guarantees these loans. There is no incentive for a college to ensure that they actually educate you so an employer will consider you as an asset to hire. And while the college gets off scott free you are left holding the bag for the loan.
I did well with my job, got married, and was in just a few years able to buy a house. Small, but I still owned it. And over the years I was able to use the equity in my house to buy larger ones. And once you start to acquire assets you gain freedom
Today you are lucky if your job pays enough for you to escape your parent's house or living with a roommate that you barely tolerate.
Today, if you go to college, you are behind the 8 ball even if you graduate and get a good job. I know so many young people with degrees working entry level jobs that used to be done by high school kids.
If you ever want to change things, the first thing is to not have any political affiliation. Never vote for any candidate because you like them. Examine policies. Were they tried before? Did they work in the past? Why would they work now?
Vote for people who endorse policies that help your situation.
Don't believe any media sources. They are all selling you a point of view. Not facts.
If you don't put the time in to examine policies on your own but instead believe what a media source, a politician, or a political party tells you ....then don't expect any change in your situation.
Many old people live in a fantasy thinking today is just like it was when they were young. It is not.
This is why we all should be afraid of governments censoring media. If it's not true then restate the claim and PROVE that the claim is wrong. But to tell people to just not pay attention to it is more about government protecting themselves from public scrutiny
I never disregard a source because I don't like what they are saying. I want to hear what all sides are saying and then check it out for myself. When someone tells me "don't read this or don't watch that" media source, the first thing I think of is what are they afraid of.
There is a difference between something that is undeniably false vs something that you don't agree with
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg was spotted at President-elect Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate on Wednesday. Stephen Miller confirmed the news on "The Ingraham Angle".
How many more decades are we going to put up with this worthless waste of time bullshit just to get on a fucking plane?
Agreed. You are really referring to the fact that so many now belong to some kind of hive. They no longer think for themselves. And since being a member of a specific hive gives their life meaning, they defend it against anything or anyone that disagrees with it. I'd bet that I would have points of agreement with 99% of all posters and commenters if everyone just thought for themselves
Got completely hooking on - "JOY - The Birth of IVF"
Based on a true story, this drama follows three pioneering British scientists in the '60s and '70s and their struggle to develop IVF — against all odds.
Can anyone explain how this happens at reddit with banning people?
About a year ago I created my one and only reddit account. Never had one before. I work at a place that is semi virtual. We are required to come into the office 2 days a week. No one has their own dedicated PC. You just pick whatever is available and sign in. Obviously everyone is using the same internet access.
When at the office and I need a break I would visit a few groups of interest on Reddit. Groups that have ZERO to do with politics or anything controversial. I have never made a post or comment about anything political or controversial. I'm in groups like NFL and Dogs.
A week ago I get a message that my account is suspended for 7 days because of a violation of a "linked" account. I have NO linked account. I only use reddit while at work and no where else. I didn't appeal when I saw the message, I just said whatever. But yesterday I log in and now I am permanently banned.
Anyone have an explanation of what is going on and how to actually get unbanned.
Does anyone remember these? This was a time before answering machines, hard line voice mail, beepers, cell phones etc?
At a business, a secretary, almost always a woman, would answer the phone for all calls. There were no direct lines into anyone. If you were in she would transfer the call to your office. If you were out she would use this pad to take messages. When you came back in to the office you would always stop at the front desk and you would be handed your messages.
If you could do it all over again, would you have gone to a trade school?
I enjoyed college and was fortunate enough to enjoy a good white collar career. But if I could do it all over again, I would have learned how to become a licensed electrician, plumber, etc.