You don’t see anything wrong with your language, but shockingly, the world doesn’t revolve around you. Just because you think something is fine doesn’t make it true.
You don’t see anything wrong with your language, but shockingly, the world doesn’t revolve around you. Just because you think something is fine doesn’t make it true.
Resources like gold would be more accessible, y’know because it already been mined and made into things. If society collapses what few survivors there are could recycle shit like metals. The actual issue is fossil fuels. Getting to a point where you can use renewable power would be difficult with using fossil fuels for power first.
In what context where both are available are emoticons objectively better?
They’re objectively not.
Yes, and? I don’t believe these are replacing any existing infrastructure, but are for places that have no infrastructure for the internet. They could drastically improve things in those areas, and if those place became a warzone sometime in the future they’d probably be pretty fucked with or without proper land based infrastructure.
They literally said it pushes those things when not logged in. So when YouTube doesn’t know your tastes it pushes things like that.
I don’t know. I don’t think that’s something to be left for an email.
Screenshot? What are you, a goldfish?
That’s a fair reaction to the state tbh
Jokes are supposed to be funny?
New Zealand isn’t a part of Australia?
I think that’s nothing compared to all the, y’know, irreparable destruction and pollution we do to the to the planet tbh.
What the fuck
*Gestures vaguely around*
Everything?
That’s a fair assesment. But what’s the ratio games that you actually go back to compared to the amount of games you own in total? Unless you only play very few games, the amount of games a person owns vastly outnumbers the games they actually go back and play multiple times. Just looking at my steam library, I own hundreds of games I’ve completed once and have never touched again along with about 2 dozen I actually go back and play occasionally.
Guilty enough to deserve death?
What you’re describing is still toxic masculinity and has absolutely nothing to do with toxic femininity. Men that have been hurt by their previous partners or ridiculed for being emotional, is toxic masculinity. This is because men are discouraged from expressing their emotions or seeking support, reinforcing the harmful stereotype that vulnerability is a sign of weakness. Men get hurt by women doing this because of the toxic view many men and women carry about masculinity and male gender roles.
Toxic femininity on the other hand, is a societal expectation placed on women to conform to traditional gender roles and stereotypes, like being passive, nurturing, and submissive.
Yes. And the reason for that is toxic masculinity. That’s the point they were making. They were explaining the why, not the what.
Childcare educator, a large amount of people suddenly wouldn’t be able to work because they have no one to watch their children.
It’s text.