taking an elevator with a man qualifies as consent

when an ugly girl tells me she had an ugly cry

the majority of suicide jumpers regret it 1 sec after they jump. this is a known fact thanks to these bird videos

Honestly strange how little talk there is about coach Mitch benching Dylan Harper in favour of Fox. Spurs would have guaranteed won these Finals had he simply given Harper an extra 5-10 min a game.

To all of you New Yorkers, the New York Knicks are worth $10 billion dollars. If we dissolved the franchise we could use that money to end world hunger. Stop celebrating greed.

BlueSky doing great as expected.

It does look like it 😂

when u tell her to shave her pu$$y & u wake up bald

white people are even better at being jamaican

This is what men resort to when they're not allowed to vigorously shake hysteric women.

I really love the phrase “with all due respect” because it doesn’t specify how much respect is due. It could be none. Bitch.

Elon should do the typical boomer dad thing and dress up like his son to embarrass him in front of his friends.

Most men insulting her looks would absolutely sleep with her if given the chance. Everyone online also has a tendency to claim they are higher status, whether it’s financial, intellectual, aesthetically… it’s losers larping as cruel winners.

One or two of these guys needs to get divorced, so we can add some WOMEN to this list! Amirite, ladies? #male_ally

Been brushing up on the discourse and I’ve decided that every single person is richer than me is a greedy bastard and every single person poorer than me is a loser. I and only I have the exact right amount of money.

The pressure was unreal 😂

This dude's shtick is unfortunately common, even among some seemingly well-read people. There's this tendency throughout academia and even more so amongst academics trying to get their name out there selling their "revolutionary" ideas to the interested laymen. And a revolutionary idea must upend an established idea. The Selfish Gene view has fallen under attack a few times, and it's always this same play. Misunderstand, simplify, strawman and act like something old and accepted under a new name is a fresh insight incompatible with the old established theory. They did this with epigenetics, when epigenetics are perfectly compatible with selfish gene theory. Evolutionary adaptations (through genes and yes, even other selective mechanisms, like the contents of cytoplasms) that allow for precise and targeted developmental and environmental cued gene expression... oh you mean there's a cascade of influences leading to genes turning off and on at precise times and contexts? NO! No one's ever considered puberty! The same has been done with autopoiesis. A naive myopic version of this old idea from the 70s which has even older precursors had already caught on in philosophy and evolutionary theory when I was in academia over 15 years ago. It seemed to grow in popularity during the 2000s. And I encountered smart people who misunderstood its implications. It's a perfectly fine idea and a reality like epigenetics, but it mostly gained momentum via opposition to established ideas (which it didn't actually contradict). One is simply talking about the organism and the other the genes. Gene selection has to do with what genes get selected which contribute to the system which allows more gene replication and the other is talking about the development and maintenance of the individual body/organism/vehicle which is coordinated by the selected genes and their interactions with each other and the environment. They are both perfectly compatible. Genes self-replicate and sometimes the niche ends up being within complex multicellular bodies with larger functional structures which genes have been selected to cooperatively develop in order to all make it through that funnel called reproduction and self-replication. Different issues. Different time frames. Different perspectives. All perfectly compatible. If you're actually invested in understanding, you have to be very wary of how much misunderstanding is deliberate and baked into the selling of an idea. Every theoretical field of science is suffering from this MO, and it's done in both directions, from established theory purveyors gatekeeping fresh ideas claiming there's a contradiction ("it's so bold it must be woo!") to those pushing "revolutionary" ideas claiming they're contradicting the established overall framework ("look at me, I'm fucking Einstein exposing Newton!"). I guess academic squabbles are no different than any other squabbles. It's a lot funner "winning" and "defeating" and looking for "gotchas". Understanding is slow and arduous. Why stand on the shoulders of giants when you can climb up by stepping on others? Elite Overproduction naturally leads to the Tall Poppy Syndrome. Be careful out there.

If you pay for YouTube Premium, you get access to 3X playback scene, in case you want to listen to people with speech impediments.

Finally someone who understands the rule.