Paieška

This is very wise words about democracy 🤣

Ouch

for the people!

Who are these people?

Regarding this academic paper (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0005789405800395): To me the OP study is common sense, but has become perhaps politically incorrect or taboo to acknowledge. Once children hit puberty, their bodies start to become able to reproduce and thus start to become attractive for reproduction. Presumably then the study is conflating postpubescent adolescents with prepubescent children and calling all of these “children” which it is “wrong” for adults to feel attracted to, except that basically our biology hasn’t changed while societal norms have shifted to tell people to wait to older ages to reproduce. Regarding attraction of prepubescent children in “normal” men, either this could be because the children are made to look like adults or thought to be like adults. This one I can’t wrap my head around as much and would need more information to be able to respond to the study. At least in my experience, I felt pretty “adult” at a young age once I hit puberty and was attracted to those my age and older who were in probably in their 20s and 30s of the opposite gender. Mostly the issue here is about having teens wait a bit to be able to become mature enough to sustain a family. I suspect “age of consent” discussions are a bit of a distraction, or a necessity for legal considerations, but I felt able to “consent” to certain actions at a young age but wouldn’t have been mature enough to take care of a family. Thus there is a gap between base biology and the skill of the intellect. Also society is literally degenerate and unable to bring up young people to be skilled and productive at young ages which complicates the discussion. There are some exceptional students graduating college as teens or preteens for example, which to me attests to the actual capabilities of teens or preteens. But society sometimes “infantilizes” adolescents in to adulthood, perhaps underestimating their capabilities, and this is spilling over in to thinking of teens up to age 18 as “innocent children”. At least when I was a teenager, I was pretty aware of a lot of bad things I could do. But lots of people mature at different rates, so we try to take averages to accommodate some people maturing at younger and older rates. Anyway, the OP study is a bit ambiguous on what they consider “children” to be and what they did to establish that “normal” people were attracted to “children”.

https://reason.com/2023/01/14/a-modern-history-of-groomer-politics/ Histories like this remind me of a self-coined aphorism. "Youth liberation" of the 1970s liberated "youth" as a symbolic totem and not actual young people. The retrenchments of the 1980s onward - higher drinking ages, smoking ages, higher ages of consent, curfew laws, etc. were all reminders that society was not willing to take young people seriously as people or to provide the material and sociocultural necessities of realizing anything approaching the sustainable realization of social equality. Little wonder that the likes of Reddit and Tumblr are preoccupied with the sexual "consent" of fictional adolescents in manga as some sort of exercise in progressive politics. The agency of young people - even their theoretical agency not respected as previously demonized groups gained theirs - has been so dismantled that it cannot even be imagined, let alone realized.

World's 26 richest people own as much as poorest 50% Why do they need as much when so many people suffer!

Strawberry Leaves Are Edible and I've heard a bunch of other things that people discard from things people routinely eat are edible too https://strawberryplants.org/ways-to-use-strawberry-tops/

YouTube's plan backfires, people are installing better ad blockers People are scrambling to find a better ad blocking alternative. >https://www.androidauthority.com/youtube-ad-block-installs-3382289/

Why people follow orders? Why policemen in free countries check papers of people who go out and punish them? Do they really believe in what they're doing? If I am such a policemen I would simply not check any papers or just issue a slight warning with a wink. Unlawful orders should not be followed or at least you have an option to being really inefficient in that.

Clown world is a place so ridiculous it must be run by clowns. It's a place where being pro-choice means denying someone the right to ever have a choice. Where anti-racism means actively treating one race differently from another. Where diversity is valued and celebrated, yet acknowledging any tangible differences between groups of people is called bigotry. Where if you do your own research and form your own conclusions, you're anti-science. Where if you only want fair elections and accountability for people who taper with them, you're attacking democracy. Luckily Clownworld isn't real, it's just a right-wing conspiracy theory.

Explicitly Declaring Tone Online I've noticed in some comments and posts, they really can be taken a lot of ways Sometimes people for instance indicate sarcasm with a "/s" "tone indicator" for example I've noticed things posted sometimes can take a wide variety of tones besides sarcasm, so I've thought of explicitly declaring tones at times Sometimes the ambiguity of tone is the point of a post - for trolling, or artistic expression, and so on But otherwise what do you think about tones with online communications, do you try to clarify them or let people pick up on them (usually I might try I guess to speak in a way where tone is less ambiguous, if possible? Unless I'm being intentionally vague

very cultured people

People vibing

People are angry

people have spoken

for vaccinated people only

Gods people

asian people

People's power

People embarrassing themselves

Stupid people