ici

Think about the job opportunities if you don’t wanna rot in poverty. To me it sort of sounds like a ChatGPT degree. A couple prompts away from graduation.

Larry Fink

Take this libtards

Post-nut clarity might help you avoid problems down the road if you've put someone you find sexually attractive on a pedestal.

One more thing came to mind. Social media companies might start opening physical offices and have you come in to verify your real identity (or they might delegate this to a third party,)

This is a really good post. - Fake interactions I think the best way is to not trust any information out of your verified method of communication. For ex. if I receive a call from a number that’s not my mother’s and I hear her voice, I would be suspicious. - Fake News Overload We would need a reputable source of news. One that is unbiased and factually correct. The fake sources would just lose their reputation. - Social Media Deception Social media apps would probably require a method of identification just as banking apps do (provide an ID and video/selfie of yourself.) This could also be faked, though, and becomes an issue of privacy, which begs the question if people would continue using these apps. They might become extremely moderated and invite-only in order to build a chain of trust. - Breakdown of trust Read my last sentence of the previous paragraph. But yeah for platforms which have no mechanism of verifying real people, it’d be extremely difficult to trust if a profile is real. - Digital clones of you Might be prohibited by law as this is a form of impersonation. You might not even be allowed to impersonate yourself as a digital clone because it might be deemed unethical to society. Grey area. It would probably be regulated and chaotic nonetheless. - AI living your life Recruiters would probably filter out all the junk. They might use a third party service and system whose primary goal is to verify real humans and their identity. Probably a good start-up idea which would then be acquired by the government for utmost control. - AI enhanced reality People would be divided. Some would indulge in fantasies, some would prefer not to. - Political manipulation Once again, we need a reputable source of information. All else would be dismissed and regarded as untrustworthy and unverified. - Need for vigilance The best way is to go out, touch grass and talk to people in real life, give them a hug. But yeah, people would find ways to solve that problem in the digital realm as well. It would just take a bit of time.

This post makes me wanna goon

Information is useful to those who find it useful and useless to those who find it useless. Reddit is not the entirety of the web. I’m certain you could find useful information regarding this medical condition elsewhere. Reddit reserves the right to delete any information on their servers as they please. You could start your own website if this dissatisfies you.

Morale growth my ass. You could define morale however you like. What seems moral to some might seem immoral to others. Also, everyone is selfish by nature. Even those who act selflessly do it because there’s something selfish to gain. Keep your holistic mouth shut since you’re obviously not in favour of free speech.

Hahahahahah, just stream it from space Dare i say based 😄

He’s called Donald Trump

I understand the left. I could give you an example. Let’s take the concept of family for instance. Conservatives have a strong opinion and a rigid definition of what a family is — mom dad son daughter — they care about it, find it important and valuable. Liberals on the other hand, do not have a strong opinion on family. To them building a family is optional, sometimes unnecessary. Their definition of family is also loose. So loose actually that you end up not knowing who the mother and father is. Which is more valuable to a person would depend on their background, culture, upbringing etc. The thing is, this translates to every facet of reality. Liberals have loose definitions for everything because to them the world is such that you perceive it as. Who are you to tell me that I am fat if I self identify as skinny you fatphobic bigot?

It is very much open. I could give the same argument that leftists are close-minded and we could go in circles. Seemingly this doesn’t really help.

How do you expect people to change their minds? You don’t want them to. That appears to be the truth.

Leftists drown in relativism. They don’t have an objective grip on reality. They don’t know what a woman is. It’s for everyone to define. They soak up information without giving it much critical thought and a healthy dose of skepticism. They show a lack of respect for themselves by being overly tolerant because they think being tolerant is objectively better for society and would not yield any further problems. They like to suppress your voice, censor you, de-platform you, help you lose your job. Usually this sort of reaction and punishment does not fit the severity of the action which triggered it. They do not understand human emotions. They do not understand that other people are responsible for how and what they feel, not them. People could choose to not be offended if they did not have such a fragile undeveloped ego. They are easy to bully, manipulate, troll, mock, make fun of because their weakness is them not being able to handle that sort of thing if done well. They are usually louder and more extreme than the right despite them claiming the opposite be true. They are short sighted despite claiming to be more enlightened. They believe that problems are better resolved through more control over more freedom and open communication. They don’t want to know why you said or did a certain thing. They just want to control it because they believe it’s bad. They feel like the hero which fights the bully by adopting the persona of a bully. They don’t indulge in conspiracy theories. Facts have the most weight to them even if the authenticity of said facts or sources is hard to verify. They believe in authority and the communities they form are authoritarian by nature. This is something the right is also guilty of but far less prominent. They are more globalists and less nationalists. They belong but feel like they don’t. They feel oppressed by things which endanger their beliefs. They often use and weaponise oppression. They like to play the victim and blame others. They do not understand freedom of speech and what it entails. They cling on words which have lost their meaning because times have changed. They usually have a worse sense of humour because the mental filter prohibits them from making distasteful, bad, dark jokes and are overly concerned with how others would perceive them. They like to label people over minor offences. Say a certain word and you’re automatically a racist, homophobe, transphobe, fascist, neonazi, etc. They jump to conclusions very quickly and are guilty of making assumptions. They don’t like giving people the benefit of the doubt for the most part. They have a hard time drawing the line between what construes as mental illness and what doesn’t because everything is so relativistic in their minds and lacks definition. They make a bad judge. They have way too many biases. This is what I’ve observed as a result of being on the yellow SD tier. This is my personal experience and opinion.

Yeah, Kamala is the most repulsive human I’ve ever seen lol I can’t stand her facial expressions and her laughter

Kek RPReplay_Final1725539660.mp4

Reminded me of this 😂

HAHAHAHAH NO WAY 💀 The UK is cooked

When I look in the mirror, I see god. God is definitely white.

Who cares about Brazil anyway. They have worse problems to deal with. The crime rate is way too high for example.

Good luck explaining that to @Leo Gura

“It is noteworthy that the court saw an ‘extraordinary urgency’ here – as if the use of biologically correct terms represented an immediate danger that could not be postponed. One inevitably wonders whether other, perhaps actually urgent cases had to take a back seat for this.“

Leo owns this site and he can censor you and ban you. Whoever owns the platform has control over the content that’s on it. Same goes for YouTube, Reddit, X, etc. It’s a power dynamic of life. If a platform disallows you from saying what you wanna say, you either create your own or switch to another which does. The government has the greatest control and can shut you down unless the platform is peer-to-peer or private with no insiders. You can say whatever you want in real life but the outreach would be less as people primarily consume information and converse on the web. There can be social consequences - both positive and negative depending on how people interpret what you say. People can understand you and not understand you. Intention, context, language matter. Ultimately exercising your freedom of speech is a way and an attempt to influence people and steer the world towards your values, to enforce your beliefs, your worldview, your biases. Whatever helps your ego.