BIGDUBYA END THE FED ☮️

🚨 FLOCK JUST GOT CAUGHT BY A REPORTER — THEIR CAMERAS ARE SECRETLY TRACKING PEOPLE IN REAL TIME "You're saying Flock does not track people, correct?" A Flock representative tried to deny it. But then they showed the Condor camera — the one designed to literally follow your movements in real time. No matter which way you move, the camera moves with you. And that's not all. These cameras can zoom in on your phone screen to see what you're looking at, recognize faces, and pull up personal details in minutes using commercial facial recognition. One example: They tracked a couple arguing at a street market and within two minutes knew one just finished medical school and the other has chronic IBS. Cops are openly bragging that "you can't get a breath of fresh air in or out without us knowing." They said it was just for license plates. This is full-blown surveillance, and it's already everywhere. Should Flock's Condor cameras be allowed to track people in real time?

Step 1: vote down SAVE Act Step 2: add sect 219 to NDAA Step 3: add SAVE Act to NDAA Step 4: Trump claims China stole 2020 and demands to pass NDAA Step 5: Israel gets what it wanted I honestly think this is all about 219.

@Kevin_Beane @LizzyStarrrdust @Outremer_Author Such a big man

@letskeepit100yo @LizzyStarrrdust @Outremer_Author 1) Coyness and "accidental" and "slip" - these are your words, not mine - are two very, very different things. 2) I for one am not hardwired to be attracted to coyness. I love sluts, trashy outfits and the like. My ego doesn't depend on a girl saving that stuff for me only.

Right wing men be like: "Women need to stop being such whores out here sexualizing themselves! They're destroying Western civilization!" Also right wing men: "How DARE these leftists ban the sexualization of women!" Which way Western man?

@Kevin_Beane @LizzyStarrrdust @Outremer_Author Ok, you're taking this in a weird direction, but I'll engage. I'm not talking about jerking off to anyone. I'm saying that it's likely a hard wired preference for men to be more attracted to coyness then overt sexuality. Shaming men for that is unproductive.

@letskeepit100yo @LizzyStarrrdust @Outremer_Author The way you described it? Actually, yeah, it is wrong. If you want to jerk off over scantily clad track girls who know what they are wearing, that's fine. But "accidental" "nip slips" clearly implies they didn't want the thing you're spanking it to to happen/be seen.

Well, I think you're conflating 2 different moments in courting. I'm talking about being single in public (irl or online) and a woman presenting herself to men. A woman wearing next to nothing isn't "being direct." Everyone can see her, and she (probably) isn't signaling that she wants to have sex with them all. If, however, you're on a date and a woman says, "wanna fuck?" That is being direct. I would, personally, still be repulsed by it, but if that's your preference, more power to you. I understand the sentiment, some people have unrealistic expectations in dating. Most people, however, consciously or unconsciously are attracted to the opposite sex based upon biological imperatives that are hard wired into us via evolution. The better you understand that you don't have to LIKE what the opposite sex is attracted to, you just have to accept it, the better experience you will have dating. I used to bemoan that women liked the assholes instead of nice guys like me. All that did was make me less attractive. When I learned to swim with the current, my dating life changed drastically. Finally, you can find some direct women, but you're likely making your prospective dating pool much much smaller with that preference. The dynamics of courting are very complicated, but let's take an over simplified look at it, because framing it this way will be much more effective then complaining. Women, by nature, are attracted to direct confident men and are wired to test them to make sure they are fit enough to reproduce with. If he presents himself as direct and confident but then melts down at the first test (ie. playing games), then they weed out a man that is actually insecure. Also, women are aware of men's preferences in general and will present themselves accordingly. Women know, subconsciously or not, that men prefer women that aren't overly promiscuous, so even if they want to fuck, they will act coy (playing the game) because they know they're less likely to get the guy if he thinks she's easy because he will assume that she'll do the same for most guys. Why? Because in our evolutionary past, knowing a kid is yours and not another guy's mattered. So, you might not like this dance, but you might as well accept it because we can't control how we're wired.

@letskeepit100yo @LizzyStarrrdust @Outremer_Author I thought men favored directness. Half the dating market complaints I see are about women (and men) playing games only they know the rules to. Then impugning the decency of the opposite sex for not picking up on signals and subtlety. Gimme women who don't play games.

Yeah, I'm with you on this, but there's an element of gamesmanship required in reality, so not all examples of this tactic will be received equally. The woman who is best able to ride the line of accidentally sexy and attract men wins this kind of game. Similarly, women are attracted to men with confidence, but "get the ick" from a guy that's either overtly egotistical or that is clearly actually insecure and is transparently trying to ACT confident. The guy that best rides the line of confidence without being a prick or seeming insincere wins the game.

@letskeepit100yo @Outremer_Author Fine but then you don't get to complain about "oops I didn't realize my gigantic tits were in the way of the puppy I'm trying to show you."

@LizzyStarrrdust @Outremer_Author But... and just keep an open mind for a second, what if men in average are attracted to accidental sexuality in women. Like, yeah, I like tits and ass, but I'm turned off by a woman who is overtly sexual. More nip slips less WAP. Is it wrong for them to have that preference?

Good God. That's not the subject I'm speaking to. It's a larger issue than any of this. I'm entirely against shaming men for being sexually attracted to women. I'm entirely against women flaunting themselves and then demonizing men for looking. What I'm discussing are the men who go around decrying the 'whoredom' of modern women, mind you, they're not even correct on who qualifies, while simultaneously celebrating publicly bouncing titties. It's puritanical bullshit that says it's only a problem if she knows she's doing it. "If I can imagine she's not acting sexually ON PURPOSE and I get to sneak a peak, it's ok." Once a woman is seen as purposely acting sexually, she's a whore. This inspires the ridiculous dynamic, which men also complain about and I'm in agreement, wherein women will "oops, look at me and my cute dog" and it's a pic of her gigantic tits. It's ok to showcase oneself sexually on purpose without an entirely manufactured plausible deniability manipulation. And that's essentially the equal inverse of my accusation toward men here. Just admit you like hot chicks and quit justifying it by calling them whores when they're using their own sexuality agenticly. More than one thing is true.

@Zennistrad @Yeenie_Mcbeenie Nothing that you said is an argument against what I said. You have only added additional detail.

@letskeepit100yo @Yeenie_Mcbeenie ...concept that developed in response to violent religious sectarianism in Europe, particularly after the Thirty Years' War.

Today I'm your teacher apparently. 1st. I make a post referring to the Judeo-Christian (ie. the earliest Christians) tradition of debate. 2nd. You incoherently parrot an irrelevant talking point about there being no such thing as Judeo-Christian values. 3rd. I explain for you what you should've understood through context clues, that I was talking about a specific tradition that came from the JEWISH early Christians. 4th. You reveal that you were just making a reactionary post without understanding what I said. 5th. I make fun of you. 6th. You spazz out. You sound as if you're either willfully ignorant or have a very low IQ. Think and read carefully what others are saying before you spout nonsense if you want to be taken seriously. I'm genuinely trying to give you good advice. Take it or leave it.

@letskeepit100yo @Yeenie_Mcbeenie No, fuck you, it's not my fault you misunderstood what I was saying, who tf do you think you are?

@unusual_whales Is this even legal?

BREAKING: Lindsey Graham's sister, Darline, sworn in as a US Senator to finish his term

@SamonteBanks @Yeenie_Mcbeenie You had a low IQ take. Just take the L and move on.

@letskeepit100yo @Yeenie_Mcbeenie I wasn't even talking about zionist, I was talking about how the right constantly bring up "judeo Christian values" as a buzzword

CALL YOUR REP!

@TRHLofficial I just made my call. I've only done so 2-3 times in my life, but this is a critical one.

When President Washington told us to avoid overgrown military establishments, which are inauspicious to liberty, and to steer clear of permanent alliances and foreign entanglements, he did not leave a caveat in there for a special friend. In reality, he was warning against ever having permanent special friends, because they will manipulate you. This week, Congress is set to advance Section 219/224 of the NDAA, a measure that surrenders U.S. sovereignty to a foreign Nationstate by embedding Israeli tech into our weapons systems, AI, cyber, and supply chains, an act of betrayal from within, that opens us up to dual loyalties and espionage, while mandating subordination. This measure forces America to serve another master, on paper, for the first time since 1776. It bypasses the constitutional treaty process, so that the House can force it through with a simple majority, and the Senate with a 60 vote cloture to end debate. And they will end debate. Quickly. Making U.S. defense dependent on a foreign Nationstate is fundamentally Anti-American. To its core. It cannot be argued any other way. Our nation objectively does not become more independent at the behest of another nation. That is some Orwell shit. Do you notice how there aren’t any strategic paid campaigns forced on us regarding section 219/224 because even the propagandists and handlers can’t find a pretty way to defend it? Hell they aren’t even trying to downplay it. Everyone knows what this is. Fox News just paraded out Netanyahu, and sat there with their thumbs up their asses as he boasted about “his idea” to infiltrate American defense, like that is fucking normal thing to do. This measure is wildly unpopular to any American who doesn’t harbor a dual loyalty to this country, which issues thankfully most of us. This is why Congress is working to get the NDAA passed as fast as they can, so that way they can memory-hole it as fast as they can and return to campaigning about how much they love freedom. “you’re just antisemitic!” 🥴 Let me be clear. Qatar: you can go fuck yourself. Saudi Arabia: eat a D***. To all NATO countries: don’t you ever fucking try this. When I say I’m America only, I mean it. Everyone call your reps. Flood their lines so they never know a moment of peace and demand they strip this unconstitutional and anti-American measure immediately.

@KatlegoVeer @DailyIranNews Besides which, it mentions that early in the war neutral countries complained they were attacked wrongfully by the privateers.

grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5… Actually, you're wrong. Read through this. Even this distinction is addressed. The order given by congress during the revolution was that any vessel (even neutral) that does not allow a peaceable search would be subject to attack by the privateers with a letter of marque. Similarly, Iran said this ship didn't coordinate with them thereby violating their blockade. It's very clearly the same tactic being applied in a modern context.

This ship was given clearance to pass the strait of Hormuz by The U.S. without even coordinating with the IRGC. It is now in the bottom of the sea after catching fire. For a safe passage through the strait, only The IRGC can give you clearance.

@KatlegoVeer @DailyIranNews Have you ever studied the Revolutionary War?

@DailyIranNews Blowing up civilian cargo ships because you can't challenge an actual navy isn't 'giving clearance,it's just piracy.

@SamonteBanks @Yeenie_Mcbeenie Yeah yeah yeah... fuck Zionists and all that, but it's literally the religious tradition of debate that the Jewish first Christians brought with them into the religion that I'm referring to. Ie. They even debated if Christianity was for gentiles at all.

@letskeepit100yo @Yeenie_Mcbeenie There's no such thing as judeo Christian values

@allie__voss My girlfriend thought it was conservative coded too. Liberals, funnily enough, are the worst at open mindedness.

Everyone says they want a masculine guy but when his politics reflect that, they lose their minds