This reminds me of the proliferation of content creators who make content advising content creators. Like if you had the tips for success wouldn’t you just be successful rather than barely scraping by? It feels like there are more of these content coaches than non-coach content creators these days

I have a Pixel. It is literally made by one of the largest advertising companies in the world.

Bigger screens mean bigger and more obtrusive ads.

I’m convinced this is 90% of the reason right here.

Bring back the days when you assumed the internet was dangerous waters unless specified safe instead of the other way around.

I dunno about that “most” man. The America I grew up believing in was the “give me your tired, your poor” America, and I bet a lot of us feel the same.

Borders are stupid.

Yeah the harrowing thing about Idiocracy was that as dumb as Camacho was, he was still legitimately the most qualified candidate.

In the world of Idiocracy, Camacho is a good president who does right by his country, the country has just degraded too far for it to matter.

In our own stupid reality, the least qualified person is in power who has no interest in being good or doing right by his country.

protein, fiber, carbohydrates, and a staple grain - feels like an exceptional and healthy choice to me

They can’t just let all paycheck to paycheck people die.

Real question here - why not? If the powers that be are facing the potential of unrest in the face of their tyranny, why wouldn’t they let the protesters starve? Does this not only preemptively eliminate potential opposition? Do you think they simply care out of some hidden shred of dignity of something?

I think all of you black & white accelerationists are either ignorant or deceitful about the reality of the stakes in play here. I’m not saying revolution shouldn’t happen, won’t happen, can’t happen, or any of that, but I’m tired of listening to people acting like this choice is as casual as picking what sandwich to have and not the very real acceptance of potentially fatal or otherwise devastating consequences. Necessary action or not, that’s not the kind of thing to treat so cavalier.

There is validity to this argument, certainly, but we are not talking about a social moral defined solely by legality, we are discussing a case where legality was defined within the confines of social expectation.

Legality is not inherently morality, but it can be an indicator of social morals.

There will be times when they are at odds, but I have yet to hear a compelling case in this situation.

So I ask, what social harm is being caused by defining adulthood at 18? And let’s be clear, I am looking for actual harm here, not potential for harm; going through a dangerous intersection is not the same thing as experiencing a car accident.

I think you’re making serious assumptions and assuming a binary where none exists.

First off, nobody, here or in mainstream popular culture, is holding Leo’s relationships as model behavior. Leo may perhaps have “role model” status, but all avenues to which that moniker can be affixed apply to his body of work, talent, work ethic, etc; there is just nobody in mainstream culture referring to him as a role model in terms of romantic entanglements, at least not seriously.

So with that in mind, let’s discuss the binary here. Things aren’t either good or bad, they just simply aren’t. A entire gulf of experience in neutrality lays between the enviable and damned. So as I see it, the question here, at least the one posed by my comment, isn’t “are Leo’s relationships enviable role model behavior?,” because I don’t think that was ever in question, but rather “are Leo’s relationships damnedable?”, and to that the answer is a clear and resounding no, for me at least.

There are a million valid reasons to value and date a person, and their looks, even potentially the youthfulness of those looks, is one the same as any other. We don’t live in the world of perfect reason devoid of animalism that you’re pretending; sexual attraction is and is always going to be a part of the equation. While we should continue making strides to ensure women are valued for their contributions to society and have more equitable positions and opportunities, I do not believe that means sterilizing or desexifying society nor artificially pretending the inherently inequitable nature of human attractiveness is somehow something that can be forced into equity through social pressure. Life is just simply more nuanced than that.

No, it doesn’t. I address this with “I personally believe it is a reasonable one, designed conservative enough so that one can safely assume anyone on the other side of the line has had the chance to develop and grow free of unnecessary outside influence to rightly be deemed an adult after,” where I clearly state that I think 18 is a reasonable age. You’re welcome to disagree with and argue with my points but I am not going to allow you to insult my character for the sake of attempting to win your argument.

I will also be blocking you for this, because I have zero interest in engaging in a bad faith argument.

Legality.

For most of humanity “childhood” wasn’t even a concept in the way we think of it today. Our ability to give the people in society this gift of childhood is truly one of the greatest achievements of modernity. But it’s still a somewhat arbitrary line in the sand we drew, yes. I personally believe it is a reasonable one, designed conservative enough so that one can safely assume anyone on the other side of the line has had the chance to develop and grow free of unnecessary outside influence to rightly be deemed an adult after.

If society wants to redefine the terms of where that line is drawn, that is fine, as we as members of society can do so.

But for the time being we drew the line at 18. It seemed fucked as hell to say “this is the line, this is what’s appropriate” and then demonize a man for staying within those lines. It’s fucked to say “here’s the line” when you actually mean “actually the real line is way over there and by being this close you’ve actually broken the rules.”

Dude is staying inside the lines, and interacting with those we have deemed full legal adults imbued with the right and power of autonomy. To the best of my understanding there have been no claims of coercion, abuse, or anything of that nature. So I’m sorry, but trying to convince me that dude is doing something wrong by adhering to the rules as laid for him just isn’t going to vibe with me.

What shit? Allowing adults to make autonomous choices rather than infantilizing and pre-ascribing victim status to them?

Again, y’all can’t pretend we’re talking about children, we are talking about full legal adults with rights to autonomy.

If there is coercion or abuse, absolutely demonize and mobilize against that. But until there is, all you have is suspicion and suggestions that infantilize the real adult women in the scenario.

Adulthood is the difference.

Do you? Because that sounds like an assumption to me.

Hot take, but with so many actual sexual assailants and literal pedophiles in the world, I will just never be able to give two shits about what Leo does or does not do with other legal consenting adults, sorry.

Why is there steak at the steakhouse??

God I can only imagine!

What’s 100x more annoying is when you type a real word but they decide you must have meant something else. That shit makes me bonkers