bebotalk

Do black people care about if some whites don't like them? maybe,or maybe not. DO lgbt people care if homophobes dislike them? maybe, or maybe not. It's immaterial. Maybe accept some hold dark thoughts. Though it's often spiritualist people like you who let certain bigotries slide. you never think "well, that's technically a bigotry, so i can't let it go". its funny to behold. who are you to determine who is condemned fro such or not? you move like pretty women - always assuming we have to go along with your opinions and insights. lol.

I haven't been conditioned to think this. It's just something that has arisen over years of engaging with other humans. It's only really in the past couple of years that this clicked in me. If others have thought it prior, most likely. Various people can arrive at similar conclusions though. Thus even "good thoughts" aren't original, by this logic. Social dynamics are not just part of my imagination - they influence many things. From peer pressure, to religious/familial indoctrination, through to persuasion. Even the most individualistic of people are influenced by what others think or feel individually. I stand by my views. If we're not supposed to see anyody as "better" by social or life standards, then pretty women violate that contract.

loool. i'm not trolling. i merely said she still went overthe top imho.

Then he should come out openly and say it.

Working hours restrictions are modern. They didn't exist in the 19th century, when capitalism was arguably in its purest form.

No, I don't see. She still went over the top.

No, it's just basic medicine. And yes, a person can be fat by eating "healthy food". Beef isn't even that healthy. Weight gain is an excess of calories in and out and not just only bad foods. Seems your medical knowledge is stuck in the past, or you distrust anything new as sinister. It's often American southerners, Africans, southern Asians, ec. who tend to think that way.

what do you base this on? Friendliness has little to do with one's weight.

people who are overweight don't necessarily eat too much. Self-control can be said for smokers or heavy drinkers.

Having a niche is important and perfectly valid. People want to see unique channels, and not just those apeing others. But you might need to increase exposure. Post vids on forums, facebook groups, start an X account, or post on instagram. Post vids in related Discords, and in as many places as possible. Make friends with a bigger content creator in a similar niche. This isn't about leeching or using them, but then if they can share or talk about your vids, then it gets more traction. The golden ticket is obviously to get viral. But then to get viral, there needs to be the highest amount of exposure possible.

Studies often can be biased or created to support given ideological mindsets or worldviews.

People have choices. If the culture of a given environment is too tough, they're free not to engage in it. Making a channel critiquing him, or just reporting him to Youtube, were better and healthier options than going to his house to "talk".

Sometimes, the best option is to fight fire with fire. And in the context of content creation, it's acceptable.

This depends on whether pigs have similar consciousness to humans. I suspect many mammals at least do, at least in terms of basic emotions or cognition. That said, it's humans' fault. We recklessly let pigs loose into environments that cannot support them.

No. I use "meta" as akin to "meta" ethics, as in an overarching view of a concept or reality. Most "pro" sides take a reductive and singular view. And most people who are "pro" on either side tend to view one side as right or wrong. I do not. I believe what's done has been done. So it's best to just accept each other's claims and try one's best to live together. Either via one-state, two-state, or three-state solutions. Neither side will go anywhere, and shouldn't. I already said I can see that both sides do bad shit. This doesn't mean that the overarching point of the conflict has diminished. Most individual acts are just tit-for-tat attacks. Hamas does what it does because it sees Israel as inherently illegitimate. Israel would say it has a right to be there, and that Jews should hold the right to a state. You're not seeing the forest for the trees IMHO, and I refuse to see any side as "wrong" or "more culpable".

I don't get why people reduce it to these angles. It's reductive and childish. And doesn't account for the complexity of the situation. IMHO at least, Israel and Palestine both have legitimate gripes on the situation. So who then is more right or wrong? This is why being "pro" on one side over the other is mega-cringe. I don't see how a one-state solution can work. I can't see either side wanting to share power. And a scenario like South Africa post-Apartheid - that is one person, one vote - won't work. There is too much bad blood and acrimony, and the ANC and other black South African parties aren't out to kill Afrikaners.

Isn't this the same with any group that has appealed and achieved rights? It seems you're advocating for a return to patriarchy and white supremacy. Also, China isn't Western. It may be secular but not in the liberal sense. Marxism is inherently secular. China implemented the one-child policy as population control and even during its growth since Deng hasn't been influenced by Western values. Most countries, whether Western or not, are experiencing falls in birth rates. Birth rates have fallen in Iran, which is hardly embracing of feminism and never has been since the Revolution. It clearly is a phenomenon that isn't limited to Western countries or those that have contemporary Western liberal values. You also mention neoliberalism. Capitalism today is way more regulatory than it was 50 or a 100 years ago. Many of the staples of contemporary economies such as healthcare, education,, state benefits, etc. didn't exist 100 years ago, yet many countries were still capitalist. You're confliating your own ideology with actual historical and current realities.

Wht's wrong with that? I don't believe anybody should be a second class citizen.

No real surprise. It's certainly an illiberal democracy, and he loves to brainwash his people. I believe he should just have the balls to say Russia is an autocracy. His buddy Xi and his predecessors never flinched at saying that.

I never said I didn't like people questioning my points. That's the point of this space, to share ideas. And yes, generally speaking, pretty women tend to be dark. Looks aren't that subjective. It's often the very PC who say this, or those who think looks are not a factor in life. They're either very enlightened or deluded and warped. Pretty women have no incentive to be nice, since social dynamics will make others warm to them based on their looks. I don't see how noting a fact and a trend is exposing others' for my own faults. This spiritual thinking assumes that there is never any base negavitity. That's naive imho. Most spiritualist people who say this often have hypocritical vibes anyhow. They may preach it, but seldom live it and then bemoan others for not living it. Pretty women set the tone of darkness, due to genetics and socialisation. So they cannot complain if others respond to them. People aren't socially or interpersonally "above" others.

Because the default state of pretty women is to assume a "dominant" position, due to genetics and socialisation. I refuse to hand to them, or acquiesce. If they are "free" to be that way, then I can be free to respond in kind. Self-defence is a natural right. I'm not sure why this should be questioned.

Marketing is inherent to any business. All firms, even charities and not-for-profit organizations, need to figure out who they are serving, what they will serve, and all other facets to get their product to market and compete effectively in the marketplace. Figuring out who the target market is, the competitors in one's space, the sie of the market, and what products people want, are essential and vital for any business, from a small local grocery store to a big global/multinational firm.

If a newspaper, magazine, TV/radio show, can censor items, then the exact legal process applies to social media. Many complain but don't address this basic legal fact, nor cite solutions. Or they never got what freedom of expression actually means. https://www.freedomforum.org/free-speech-on-social-media/#:~:text=But what about free speech,those users' First Amendment rights. Maybe the issue is that we're treating social media as a traditional media form, in terms of the legality of the content it can permit. But then what do the American conservatives - who often aren't bright as it stands - going to do to counter this or change this? years of moaning and whining hasn't solved their issues. Even Trump set up his own network. So even big Daddy Orange has found a solution, somewhat. It's a shame many of his followers don't act similarly and just moan and whine over rudimentary legal realities, that form the basis of their constitution no less.

Well, Hamas would say that Israel merely being there is problematic. Israel would retort by saying that it occupied Gaza due to security concerns, and that it has a right to a Jewish state given the near perpetual oppression Jews have faced for millennia in various cultures. The Romans, medieval European Christians, Islamic Caliphates, early modern/industrial Europeans, and then the Nazis, all oppressed them in some form. I can fully see that individual acts are wrong and should be condemned. And focusing on them misses the forest for the trees. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what being "pro-Israel" and "pro-Palestine" means. If so, then so be it. But I do take the "meta" position since that's the position that IMHO makes the most sense. Both sides hold a claim to the land - hence they have to find some way to share it. You yourself say as such via a two-state solution. I agree that this is the best viable option. A one-state solution like what Bibi advocates won't work, not without major sharing of power at all levels of government. Two enemies at an impasse for decades won't agree to this as a matter of course.

The point was the UK's actions since WW2, and not colonialism. The British Empire ended after the Second World War concluded, as many of the colonies gained independence.