ObjectivityIncarnate

If your concerns are ethical, then you should be consuming only indie music from unsigned artists

…who could be using AI, lol.

The doctor would likely mention that it would apply to masturbation also, lol

To me the even more obvious response to the quoted bit is ‘you know it affects your ability to orgasm from masturbation too, right?’

Combine that with some rape cases that get swept under the rug with phrases like, “boys will be boys,” “she was asking for it,” or even something as outright cruel as “it’s the only way she’d get laid anyways,” and yeah, where OP is coming from isn’t too hard to understand.

And yet, cases of male victims of female rapists get “swept under the rug” basically 100% of the time, but the outrage toward that is non-existent, even though the also-swept-under-the-rug fact is that women rape men just as often as men rape women:

And now the real surprise: when asked about experiences in the last 12 months, men reported being “made to penetrate”—either by physical force or due to intoxication—at virtually the same rates as women reported rape (both 1.1 percent in 2010, and 1.7 and 1.6 respectively in 2011).

In other words, if being made to penetrate someone was counted as rape—and why shouldn’t it be?—then the headlines could have focused on a truly sensational CDC finding: that women rape men as often as men rape women.

The whole reason a woman raping a man isn’t simply called “rape” in these statistics is because of successful explicitly anti-male lobbying by feminists like Mary Koss, and NOW, who don’t think it “counts” as rape when the man is the victim of a woman.

As one of these male victims of a female rapist, it’s always extremely frustrating to see women complaining to men about things like under-reporting, or men who get away with it, when it’s so much worse for men and boys, that the average person believes that a female raping a male is something that is literally impossible.

A boy got molested by his female teacher, and she won child support from him! Could you in a million years imagine a male rapist achieving such a legal judgment from a girl he molested?

You are definitely not beating the “deliberately obtuse” allegations.

In no way did Musk insist that the entire plan be tweeted in plain text as tweets, and no reasonable person would consider putting a link to X (pardon the pun) in a Twitter thread as not counting as ‘putting X in a Twitter thread’.

“not linked document” is literally a lie, why would you think it wouldn’t be identified as such, when his exact words are so readily available?

deleted by creator

This article is about Brazil.

According to the same article, 42% of drug dealers did not complete elementary school. Not quite the same situation as what it’s like in the US.

Do you think this is some new idea that hasn’t been tried yet, or something?

The people still starving are starving due to abuse, neglect, political instability, and war. None of those things can be fixed with money, or improved production. What good is improved production going to do the masses when the local warlord takes control of it (and therefore the food supply)? Arguably, creating those tools in areas where that unrest/instability still exists is likely to make things worse, not better, because it literally makes the oppressors more efficient.

The bottom line is that you can’t end world hunger until/unless there is world peace.

Did you read anything but the title?

So you’re essentially admitting to the headline being misleading. We can agree on that.

Moving production around and creating new transporrt routes are not ongoing costs.

It’s also not the reason world hunger still exists.

A URL linking to a fully fleshed-out plan can be linked in much less than 140 characters, you’re being deliberately obtuse, and also evading the main issue I pointed out, that their response was a colossal backpedal from their initial sensational claim.

They aid by creating and developing agricultural infrastructure, not just buying people food.

I include all of that when I say “food” above. Those things also don’t have a cost that goes away after a handful of years.

The headline talks about “ending hunger by 2030”, not ending hunger until 2030. The notion that any fixed dollar amount of X spent now will/could “end” hunger in 4 years time is ridiculous, full stop.

NOT EXACTLY.

Bottom line: to solve world hunger, first you need to achieve world peace.

And you can’t buy peace.

You’re misremembering, or lying.

Musk replied to a claim by the UN that 2% of his wealth ($6 billion, at the time) could “solve world hunger”, calling their bluff by saying that if they showed him how that was possible with a detailed, transparent plan, he’d give them the money immediately.

The response Musk got was a massive backpedal, a plan that described helping world hunger, not ending/“solving” it, and only for one year.

Bluff was successfully called.

The bottom line is that you can’t solve world hunger until you solve world peace.

And peace can’t be bought.

Food continues to be a need more than 4 years from now. That’s not an “end”.

No, I just know it’s ridiculous to think food is something that magically stops costing money after a time, especially a time as short as 4 years.

Why is an annual figure being directly compared to an “over the past decade” figure?

Did you miss the words “a year”?

What do you make of this?

Ok I agree it is very suspicious that Congress suddenly got their shit together for this one thing. But people keep doomposting this bill without actually reading it. And it deserves to be read in all the beautiful airtight glory that it is.

Massie and Khanna anticipated every single excuse DOJ normally uses to bury sensitive records, and they wrote the law to shut all of them down. To be clear, the DOJ will still try to hide, but it’s going to fail.

Here’s what the bill actually does:

They can’t hide anything for “embarrassment,” “reputational harm,” or “political sensitivity.”

That’s an explicit statutory ban. No shielding Trump, Clinton, Gates, etc. The law literally forbids it.

The argument of “Everything will suddenly be classified!” doesn’t work either.

The bill forces DOJ to declassify to the maximum extent possible and if anything stays classified, they must publish a public unclassified summary for each redaction.

That’s not optional.

“New investigations” don’t block release.

The “active investigation” exception is temporary, narrow, document-specific, and requires a written public justification in the Federal Register.

You can’t just open a random investigation and hide whole categories of documents under this bill.

The best part? Congress still gets the full list of names.

No matter what gets redacted publicly, DOJ must give Congress an unredacted list of every government official and politically exposed person named in the files. No exceptions. Not for classification. Not for investigations. Not for national security.

And enforcement is real. This is a mandatory “shall release” statute. If DOJ drags its feet, it goes straight to D.C. District Court, which has zero patience for agencies abusing secrecy laws.

This isn’t a symbolic transparency bill. It’s one of the tightest, most loophole-proof disclosure laws Congress has ever passed — which is exactly why all of their objections on the GOP side were never successful or just weak attempts to attack a statute that defines CSAM.

People can be cynical all day, but the text is the text.

And the text is a brick wall against the usual bullshit.