@RealPostFolder I don't understand his take. Why does he want to criminalize makeup? Does he think she looks better without it? Usually that's compliment though.
English
Tyler
5.2K posts
@andterry @jessesingal What are you talking about? Context isn't relevant because the critiques here have to do with his behavior, not the claims he's making. The only thing you're proving is that you're just parroting his excuses.
English
@jessesingal He really isn't any of those things. More proof that none of these critics actually engage with what he actually says and just listen to sound bites clipped out of context
English
I just think he's like... a bad guy? It doesn't surprise me that he's popular but he comes across as cruel, vindictive, himbo idiot who would have trouble carrying on a remotely complex conversation. So he's basically a perfect c2026 "political" "commentator."
Centrism Fan Acct 🔹@Wilson__Valdez
Since we're being forced to do more Hasan Piker discourse, I just need you to watch the greatest Hasan video ever published. Featuring: "Fuck you old lady. Shut the fuck up you stupid fucking idiotic old lady." "Suck my dick old lady." "God damn. Yo, fuck this refugee!"
English
@dave_alive @davepl1968 @FFRF Positive assertions only require proof if you are in a debate or if you are trying to convince someone else of your position. Belief positions in and of themselves require no proof, you wouldn't be able to operate in life if that were the case.
English
@davepl1968 @FFRF Atheism just asserts that a positive assertion requires the proof. The default hypothesis is : nothing exists unless there is evidence that it does. Deviating from that requires proof.
English
No. Atheism isn’t a belief system—it’s the absence of one.
It doesn’t come with doctrines, rituals, or a required worldview. It simply means you’re not convinced that gods exist.
What you believe beyond that is up to you.
Bob Golen@BobGolen
Is atheism a belief system?
English
@GamersNexus The worry for me isn't how good or bad it looks, it's that every single game using DLSS5 is going to look the same, which sounds boring and dystopian AF.
English
The problem, and I know this is hard to follow, is that it...
looks like shit
If you smeared dog shit on a camera lens, lit someone's face up with about $8,000 of studio-grade 5500K lighting, and then added some lipstick, you get DLSS5.
It looks like shit. It's that simple.
Jay Dook@JayDook
If DLSS 5 is ‘AI slop,’ but current in-market DLSS, FSR, frame gen, PSSR, etc. are fine, then your problem clearly isn’t AI. So what is it? Defend your position without virtue signaling. Replies are open.
English
@ManyATrueNerd "Don't worry you can turn it off"
Are the people that are going to complain when you turn it off for games you play on your channel.
English
'Well actually Jon, you can just turn off and ignore DLSS5'
Ok, sure, can I also turn off the massively inflated prices of PC parts caused by Nvidia fucking up the market as part of its huge AI push that's closely tied to DLSS5's AI models?
Oh, so I can't just ignore it then.
English
@Vuthakral @eterevsky @KingVelesI Most of the fields are producing food specifically to feed the livestock though. It's actually incredibly inefficient agricultural which is why we constantly have to subsidize farmers. So no it wouldn't hurt the economy to have an alternative to rural farming it would only help.
English
@eterevsky @KingVelesI Rural farms provide more than meat, and rely on livestock for a natural cycle of the land & fields.
You have a central nervous system with no pain center. It would not be able to respond to cells reporting cancerous growths, nor would it's immune system be likely to function.
English
Transhumanists would rather fill the world with these nightmarish abominations than accept the fact that their morality is fundamentally flawed.
There is NOTHING morally wrong with slaughtering animals. Livestock can be raised and slaughtered 100% humanely. They can live happy, healthy lives, and have painless, stress-free deaths. I know this for a fact, as that's how we do it on our farm.
In nature, prey animals depend on predators to keep their numbers in check, and prevent them from destroying their own environment and, thus, themselves through overpopulation. In ethical animal husbandry, humans have simply taken on the role of a supremely benevolent apex predator that grants their "prey" lives and deaths that are far, FAR better than those their wild counterparts get to experience.
Thus, converting wilderness to farms already results in a HUGE decrease of animal suffering, and on truly ethical farms, animals don't suffer at all.
Hence, I believe pushing for cruelty-free farming is a much better and healthier strategy than trying to spawn horrific, brainless flesh robots in an effort to solve a non-existent moral problem.
Kai Micah Mills@kaimicahmills
the ultimate solution is through technology we engineer what has been called a bodyoid: brainless animal bodies that provide as much meat as we desire without harming any sentient beings this would transform medicine - the same platform would allow us to grow organs on demand, eliminate transplant waiting lists, and produce perfectly matched tissues for each patient experimental therapies could be tested on full biological systems without involving conscious animals, regenerative medicine would accelerate as entire replacement tissues become manufacturable in the same way that agriculture turned food from a scarce resource into an abundant one, engineered bodyoids would turn biological material into infrastructure - meat without slaughter, organs without donors, and medical research without sentient suffering
English
@Ryan_Arthur_xyz @balast413 @TheOmniLiberal Those points state that this information is being taught specifically to health care professionals. They aren't trying to introduce trans people to the culture, they are teaching the doctors so that they treat trans patients. The document is about reducing the spread of STDs.
English
@balast413 @TheOmniLiberal points 48-54.
if you read it, it would become clear.
English
I’m sorry, but if you believe this garbage, you’re beyond saving.
English
@LookAtMyMeat1 The problem with the game was it was overhyped and they underdelivered. That's it. There was nothing egregiously wrong with it, it just didn't live up to what the marketing campaign had led people to expect.
English
Starfield is incredibly mediocre as a shooter and genuinely terrible as an RPG it would be received terribly regardless of who made it
It actually doesn't get torn into enough BECAUSE Bethesda made it and "bugs are a feature" is hadd coded into their fanbase's mindset
Dexerto@Dexerto
Skyrim's lead designer says Starfield “would be talked about like the second coming” if it was made by a new studio “Bethesda's in the bad position of having expectations being so high they cannot be met”
English
@ShitpostRock Don't undersell the modability of 3 and New Vagas. Sure, modding wasn't quite as well streamlined and accessible as it is in Fallout 4. But it was pretty darn close, especially compared to any other games in that era.
English
@DGSlenderman @ShitpostRock You realize consoles are also made of RAM, SSDs, and GPUs right?
English
@davepl1968 @HorrorGorl The fact that legality is a distinction makes it ultimately arbitrary. You could theoretically be born into a society where things we consider rights in our society CAN legally be taken away from you. Just as, food, money, and housing COULD be rights if the law considers them so.
English
@HorrorGorl Rights aren't thing given to you, they are things you are born with that cannot legally be taken away.
There's no "right" to money, food, housing, or healtcare. Those are things you need and want, but can never be rights.
English
@avidseries Isn't there a selection bias here though? Poor people can't afford to spend money on the lottery, so the ones that do probably have an issue that you can't necessarily generalize to all poor people.
English
@Pirat_Nation Well his character isn't in the games, so I don't see why it matters if he plays them or not.
English
Fallout's Walton Goggins says he's 'not interested' in playing the RPGs his show is based on.
"I haven't sat down to play the games, and I won't."
"I don't believe that I'm an avatar. I believe The Ghoul exists in the world."
English
@tariqnhassan @someaustralian @nicaensj @TheOmniLiberal Norm wasn't just "fed-up", he didn't actually address Destiny's points and explain why they were wrong, he went straight to the ad-hom that Destiny didn't know what he was talking about.
English
@someaustralian @nicaensj @TheOmniLiberal Stephen didn't have many good points, but yes Norman was clearly frustrated with him, given he had zero knowledge on the topic (apart from what was fed to him) yet thought the could engage in the discussion with literal experts.
English
When you get blown the fuck out so hard in your 40 year area of “expertise” that you become schizophrenically obsessed with repeating this lie about me on every single show you go on.
How about this, Norm, I will give $50k to a charity of your choice if you can prove (or reasonably demonstrate) I was paid or trained by the country of Israel. If I win, you have to admit you got SMOKED in our conversation.
Should be easy, yeah?
Abier@abierkhatib
Norman Finkelstein: “ Lex told me to debate that thing called destiny” 😂 😂 😂 Turns out an Israeli lobby group actually paid to get Destiny to debate Norman…
English
@GeorgeFromNY1 @KaioViniciusSi9 @ChristianHeiens Forst of all, certainty is irrelevant. You can believe something with absolute certainty, or based merely on a feeling. Secondly, when people say "I don't believe X" colloquially, that usually means they believe X is false, not just that they merely lack a belief.
English
1. "I don't believe there are raccoons in my attic."
2. "I am absolutely certain there are no raccoons in my attic."
1 and 2 are not the same thing. Same with Atheism.
The fight you want to pick is with Ontological Naturalism, the adherents of which usually do claim there is no supernatural anything, at all.
I think this is arrogant and foolish, because how could they possibly know?
English
"atheism, taken seriously, is right-wing"
The exact opposite is true, and the fact that the overwhelming majority of Atheists are Left-wing actually demonstrates why.
Atheism is the wrecking ball that demolishes vertical hierarchies and exchanges them for the horizontal mediocrity of egalitarian Wokeism. You don't get Progressivism without first bulldozing traditional conceptions of things like sacredness and transcendence.
To be Right-wing is to accept a higher moral order, not to rebel against it, much less deny that it exists in the first place. This is just a nihilistic will to power dressed up as being Right-wing, which is really no different than the nihilistic hedonism of the Left.
Hunter Ash@ArtemisConsort
The reason atheists could never cohere into a subculture is because atheism, taken seriously, is right-wing, but almost all the prominent atheists are left-wing. Thus, the movement is schizophrenic. If you don’t believe in supernatural creation, then you believe that evolution by mutation and selection is the *only process* known, or even imaginable, that can construct value from non-value. We are not exempt from this: memetic and cultural evolution drive progress far more than reason. Indeed, reason is just a particularly fit metameme that evolved because it granted power to its hosts. It is not categorically special, nor is it capable of producing progress on its own. Reason can criticize but it cannot create. Evolution, taken seriously, is colder and more brutal than the most vicious human tyrant. It is alien, hideous, captivating. Cleave the emptiness in two, smash the halves into each other, then cleave the winner in two, on and on forever. I must emphasize: this is not just the only process that *has* produced progress. It is the only process that *can* produce progress in the absence of the supernatural. It follows that every transfer from the fit to the unfit which hinders the power of the giver or artificially boosts that of the receiver undoes the work of creation. The egalitarian tribe of lions where every male gets to mate and food is redistributed will be pathetically weak in a few generations compared to the tribe where the strongest male kills his rivals and has a harem. To be right-wing is to accept this process as the only real engine of truth, beauty, and power. To be left-wing is to believe in miraculous exemptions to its iron logic. PS: yes there are forms of religion and mysticism that accept this one and only Law, including some rare clear-eyed Christians. I’m not talking about those.
English
Because you and every other woman on the planet, think you can find Mr. perfect. Some of you have good men that pass you on the street every day. But most of you want the bad boy or the one with the massive dick. But not the guy that will care for you for 50 years until the day he dies.
English
@allagmatic @WhickTv Okay, but in that case, isn't everyone obfuscating the term? Because unless I missed it, there's no evidence that the "dark money" described in the chorus article was being used to influence an election.
English
He's right about "Dark money" btw.
If you have superchats enabled as a youtube streamer?
You are receiving DARK MONEY.
You dont know who pays the people who superchat you. You dont know where the funding ultimately is coming from.
"Who superchats the superchatters?"
@TheOmniLiberal is simply correct in this
The Gnomes@DestinysGnomes
"Hey Taylor, go make your own party!" | @TheOmniLiberal & @counterconor discuss the Chorus article by @TaylorLorenz
English
@PcPhilanthropy Well you're never going to run into a situation in life where you having decided not to keep them would be anything more than a trivial issue, if at all. But still... it's the principal of the matter, right?
English
After all… why not???
Why shouldn’t I keep them???
English
@Valore_OFC @creepydotorg But you have no evidence that this was purposeful, you're making a conclusion base soley on something that can be explained entirely by coincidence.
English
People talking about coincidence and expiration dates are too funny. Yall realize yes this is related to the date of issuing of the passport right? And that the writers could’ve chosen ANY date as the date he would’ve gotten it issued right? But they purposefully did it so it falls in line with 9/11/01 - yall do see that right?? The Matrix being a movie to help ‘peek beyond the veil’……
Also, there have been many cultural references to 9/11 in different pieces of media in years prior to it as well, so it clearly isn’t simply a ‘coincidence’ 😅
English
Neo's passport in ‘The Matrix’ shows an expiration date of 09/11/2001 despite the movie being released in 1999.
English