some people dont like it when boys are just boys.

my boys are the best boys.

my boys boy better than any other boys who would otherwise be boys.

Relax: Calm down, chill bro.

you’ll be pleased to know yours is a very reasonable opinion to have and you’re right for having it, too.

Silica Gel Pilled

“I mean, that must be terrible. Can you imagine what it would feel like to be sucked off through a hole?”

you were misinformed.

Spoiler worked perfectly 🤮

“Dave Limp, the chief executive of one of my companies, Blue Origin, met with former president Donald Trump on the day of our announcement,” Bezos wrote. “I sighed when I found out, because I knew it would provide ammunition to those who would like to frame this as anything other than a principled decision. But the fact is, I didn’t know about the meeting beforehand. Even Limp didn’t know about it in advance; the meeting was scheduled quickly that morning. There is no connection between it and our decision on presidential endorsements, and any suggestion otherwise is false.”

“Presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election. No undecided voters in Pennsylvania are going to say, ‘I’m going with Newspaper A’s endorsement.’ None. What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it’s the right one,” Bezos wrote

“Who are you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?”

The fact that you only equate sex/nudity to porn reveals the problem.

I took the trouble to delineate tasteful nudity, or sex that actually serves a purpose in the plot (your fine examples of drama or fear are great suggestions, though I worry about the encroachment of porn with a “fun sex scene”) from common smut.

As for public life: the theater is a public place, my thought goes no further than that.

Thinking back now, I can even empathize with some of your feelings here. In the abu dhabi branch of the louvre, there is an ancient marble statue of a man that stands twice my height if my memory serves. Its genitals have been roughly gouged out with chisels in stark contrast to the smooth curve of skin and cloth for the entire rest of the statue. It’s nauseating and disrespectful not just to the creator’s work and vision but to human dignity. I think me seeing that statue and feeling what I felt is something comparable to how you now feel. I’m not afraid of or ashamed of the human form or human sexuality, but these things have a time and a place and a respect due that is often not granted or even considered.

So maybe im just watching the wrong movies. what not-porn movie are you watching that treats sex with the dignity and respect it deserves?

NPR

Side note. I do not want to engage on the discussion of capitalism/socialism/communism here, as it falls outside the scope of this community. However:

• im gonna
• you cant stop me i already did it

The point of John Wick is the gratuitous violence. The plot of John Wick is in service to delivering gratuitous violence. The name for a movie whose plot is in service to delivering gratuitous sex is “pornography.” Tasteful, artistic nudity is one thing. Even sex, in service to the plot or purpose of the movie, is another thing. But sex just to sell the movie or check a box is not a thing: we’re now talking smut. Cheap, common, vulgar smut.

“Everyone is ugly and everyone is fucking” is just real life. If you want “Everyone is beautiful and everyone is fucking,” good news- that’s called porn already, and there’s so much of it. I like smut, and porn. Which is why I can recognize softcore in movies when I see it. Stop me if you’ve heard this one before, but if I wanted to watch porn I’d go home and masturbate.

I congratulate you on your personal sexual liberation. Please keep your jollies to yourself- in private- while we pitiful repressed twilight zone voyeurs awkwardly exclude sex from our public lives.

vincentvega.gif

do you actually think the potential misapplication of the word carpet is the thing that makes it a genocide or not? let me help you with that

‘carpet’ is very obviously used in a figurative sense to describe “a lot, like in world war two” above, not the technical sense your strictly literal pedantic argument would require to have any pretense of validity.

the person obviously does not know that “carpet” bombing means anything other than “a lot, like in world war 2”. this pedantic bullshit you’re trying to pull does not fly, nor does it argue against the fact of genocide if true. i have already answered literally all of this before. it is a red herring, you are not arguing in good faith, and i am now blocking you, you disingenuous troll.

I refer to two comments ago in which I explained how neither I nor the person who originally used the word ‘carpet’ were claiming that israel was “carpet” bombing civilians, try actually reading the 2nd half of the 2nd paragraph of that comment. This subject is a red herring and a very very stupid waste of my time. Further attempts to engage on the subject will be taken as evidence of bad faith on your part.

I refer to the entirety of my previous comment, and especially my comment before that which mocked you for this.

do you actually think the potential misapplication of the word carpet is the thing that makes it a genocide or not? let me help you with that

the proof is in the genocidal language and intent, the mass starvation, the indiscriminate targeting of civilians and infrastructure, the manipulation of journalism, the unhesitating violation of human rights and international law. its a genocide because of the systematic erasure of a people, a culture. ‘carpet’ is very obviously used in a figurative sense to describe “a lot, like in world war two” above, not the technical sense your strictly literal pedantic argument would require to have any pretense of validity. “lie about carpet bombing”

then dont engage with them. let someone else do it: do you know how many people are on the internet?

no. you might agree with someone saying, “this” but its lazy. “just google it” isnt helpful though you might agree with the sentiment. and someone might be making an argument you agree with, but being toxic and vitriolic. you should downvote those even if you may agree with them. it was called upvote and downvote because the feature would cause the comment to move up or down the chain to the top of the post or to be buried. disagreement downvotes are a fundamental misunderstanding and/or abuse of the system, thank you for coming to my ted talk.