flipht

joined 2 years ago
[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 years ago

If you're going this route, use the same logic they do: nature preserves that sell rights to hunt big game, to find the preservation.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago

It was for a nonprofit and the said it was to support summer camps for kids.

They used high pressure tactics on the phone and I was young and not yet good with telling people to fuck off.

Like I said, I did more research, did not donate, and now use the experience to fuel my willingness to tell people to fuck off when they try to manipulate me.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 years ago

I find the phrasing throughout this highly annoying. It implies that the Biden admin is somehow at fault for 1) people misunderstanding the initial instructions, 2) using that and strawman to undermine that public confidence, and 3) then doubled down on the stupidity seemingly out of spite.

Simultaneously, these assholes sued and said that the admin over stepped by asking, strongly, for social media to stop overt lies from being spread on their platforms.

We always blame those trying for not succeeding and give a pass to the idiots operating in bad faith.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

My concern is that if you can drop tens of billions of dollars on a single acquisition, what's to stop you from spending "just" one billion to manipulate the situation to put your target in a vulnerable situation?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I agreed to donate to some cop shit a few years back. Then I googled the charity before making the donation, saw all the horror stories, and noped out.

Dude called me back several times to yell at me.

These people are entitled pricks who use strongarm tactics to get money from gullible people. I almost fell for it.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 years ago

Sorry - I'm not subscribed anymore and it let me read it so I thought it was open.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/02/anne-franks-diary-pornographic-uncomfortable-truth

This is an older article and I don't think it talks about the new pages that were found with the dirty jokes. But it talks and quotes the "explicit" parts.

The wiki discusses the publication history: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diary_of_a_Young_Girl#:~:text=There%20are%20two%20versions%20of,to%20document%20the%20war%20period.

[–] [email protected] 83 points 2 years ago (6 children)

It's been released with several edits over the years. The recently released version added back several passages that were scrubbed from the ones most of us read growing up.

Anne Frank wrote a diary. It's a personal diary. It wasn't written to be published.

New pages found writing dirty jokes and about sex: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/05/16/anne-franks-hidden-diary-pages-risque-jokes-and-sex-education/

On one hand, the "sanitized" versions give the historical context without the personal, sometimes very personal, items that Anne Frank intended to be private. On the other hand, including all of her real thoughts makes it clear that she was a normal, young, very human girl.

I think the full version should be available to anyone and everyone, but I also understand if the school curriculum needs to focus on the historical aspects and thus uses one of the older releases editions. But to be honest, it seems like the people who would have a problem with this have a problem with all sexuality, and they hate anything that destroys the narrative that people can shut off that part of themselves.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

I agree. It seems like a lack of creativity trying to solve the problem of a "general purpose" robot.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago

He put in some, financed more, and got backers for the rest.

Some of his backers were involved with competing projects.

In addition, he and they will eventually be able to take a loss, which they can carry forward to reduce their future tax liability.

And while all that plays out, he gets to use it to empower fascism, which also will probably be used to make him more money via government contracts.

If ever the government tries to stop him, he can now claim free speech violations.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 years ago

This exactly. But that's the deal - regressives want the secondary sex characteristics to hit kids before they have a chance to do something about it. That way they'll be able to tell who they should attack.

They're terrified of a world of Kim Petras where a trans person can feel like they're the most beautiful version of themselves, and doesn't hate themselves when they look in the mirror. Dysphoria is a key component of control for these people.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 2 years ago

No one is giving hormones to children.

But plenty of people will verbally and emotionally abuse children of they wear the wrong color or play with the wrong toy.

Straight cis people are quite literally the worst about shoving their lifestyle onto others.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

Yep. When allied troops freed concentration camps victims, they didn't free the LGBT+ people. Those who survived were still considered criminals by the allies so they remained imprisoned.

Berlin was the height of queer culture in the 20s and before. It took us almost a hundred years to rebuild a modicum of tolerance, let alone acceptance. That's why these regressive pieces of shit are frothing at the mouth to commit their genocides again.

view more: ‹ prev next ›