All you have to do is look up an interview with him in the early 2000s. He was still a self absorbed asshole, but at least he could form complete sentences.
This is my grandma. She got tested a few years ago, but refused to tell anyone the results. It’s so sad. Now then though my mom wants to move she’s stuck taking care of her and grandpa.
Watching my parents age, now into their 80s, they’re only just now starting to admit that, maybe, they’re not as smart, agile, and capable as ever. Chronic kidney disease, COPD, metastatic cancers… No blatant signs of dementia, but it’s a struggle to explain new concepts or devices to them. I think it’s just hard for people who’ve been strong, independent people all their lives to accommodate a world in which they can’t carry 25 pounds or deviate from habits engrained over 20 years. It’s got to be even harder for a politician or oligarch surrounded by sycophants. Harder still when the brain loses its capacity for logic.
50’s fine, as long as you haven’t really abused your body or lost the health lottery. Can’t speak from experience, but 60 looks OK for the most part, although you’ll probably learn your doctor’s name around then. 70 is my current schedule.
I assumed it would be a little like New York’s junior senator, Kirsten Gillibrand? She was someone most New Yorkers had never heard of, but when Senator Hillary Clinton vacated the seat, Gillibrand was assigned to it by then-governor and thus has never, and will never, run in a competitive election.
No, Newsom has said two things about the appointment: It's going to be a black woman and it's going to be someone intended to be a placeholder so as not to advantage one of the actual contenders (Schiff, Porter, or Lee) with incumbency.
I think the term of art he choose was "caretaker" come to think of it. But hell, they get to be a Senator for a year, something that they probably never would have gotten the chance to do otherwise. And it's voluntary, of course, if someone doesn't want the job temporarily they're free to turn it down.
Caretaker is way better. “I’ll put a black woman in as a placeholder until a real senator can be elected” sounds horrible.
I mean, it’s a very pro-democracy move to make an explicitly temporary appointment and not distort the election. It’s also a very progressive move to fill the seat with a highly qualified member of an under-represented group. High marks on both counts. It’s just hard to describe the coincidence of those goals in a way that doesn’t sound like tokenism.
Seriously… fuck this place. If I see another 40+yo whinge and whine about dumb shit while bragging about how thick their wack pussy skin is I’m going to put it to the test. And I’ve made many men scared, lol. I almost had a three percenter in tears because of their precious decal.
Call em out and treat em like the scum they are.
You can tell when someone is in the lifestyle out of past misdirection and when one of them is just some soft skinned asshole trying to be hard in a click because they know they aren’t shit alone.
Not really true though. Getting citizenship isn’t easy or cheap for the European countries worth going to. The requirements for them are stiff or not possible coming from the US. and renouncing seems to be an ask and not enforced.
Well, if nobody can access it without immediately taking on a crippling amount of debt then it doesn’t matter how good the quality of that healthcare is. The system is fundamentally broken.
As for the quadrupling of the US’s discount price, Bancel argued that the simple bulk orders for the government were wholly different in nature than the messiness of the commercial market—and that messiness costs extra. During the pandemic, Moderna dealt with one customer (the government) that committed to paying for a set number of doses regardless of whether they made it into arms. And the company delivered those doses to a limited number of federal warehouses. Now, it will have thousands of customers, requiring the company to deal with complex distribution logistics, and to take on the financial risk of manufacturing more doses than are purchased. Moderna will also switch from selling multi-dose vials to single-dose vials, which it sees as more suited for the commercial market. “This is not the same product,” Bancel argued, and the quadrupled price reflects that, he suggested.
In the article linked in that opening paragraph about his testimony, HE MADE THE CASE FOR SINGLE PAYER. Clearly and unequivocally.
Why…would you take this as a comment against YOU?I was piggybacking off what you said to continue pointing to the absurdity? This newly minted billionaire pharma CEO stepped all over his own Bullshit to make the case. He wasn’t purposefully making the case, he was trying to justify the nonsense of what they’re doing and accidentally said “if we had single payer, it’d be cheaper.” While defending their absurd profits. Wasn’t a slight against you, friend.
A posted a comment below about a CO I know and yes correct they dont care about the guards. I don’t want to get to specific and give away where I’m talking about but simply showing that a problem also effects the guards never helps. If it only effected the guards then maybe.
Why do the guards even stay? Just desperation for a job? I’m right by a federal prison and there are employees in my neighborhood and they don’t seem like the type of people who would work somewhere that risky. Maybe because it’s a federal prison?
Some like the power, some have a sense of duty, but more than most COs would be hard pressed to find a job they can reasonably move to and make anywhere close to the same amount of money. Add in the pension plan and the financial incentive is massive. Overtime pay can easily put some COs well into six figure salary range, ive heard one man went all out on work and OT for a whole year grossing well over 200k because he was trying to grind out his daughters college money. You dont find that much money with these benefits elsewhere easily. Where im at is actually expirencing a drastic reduction in the applicants for CO school/training so with the pool of workers shrinking the avliable overtime and compensation in general will likely only rise.
Why are any of them at BYU? Why are you supporting the Mormons if you’re black? Don’t you know their history? I don’t get it. I know it says 1% are black, but it should be 0%.
Manipulation, propaganda, deception, among other things. Mormons have been known to be extremely persuasive and pretty bad at guilt tripping people to join there ranks in there cult.
Also privilege And forced into it. Can’t leave the church when all your family friends who you need to have in order to live will disown you and potentially be without a community or (because of dorms) housing among other things.
Yes, because undergraduate students of color famously have access to the money and resources they need to enroll in out-of-state universities and move long distances across the nation.
If you’re seeking higher education as a person of color, there are universities ready to just throw money at you to get you there. I say this as a former black student myself, the opportunities are available and BYU has got to be the absolute worst possible option for anyone who isn’t white and likely Mormon.
Attending BYU is a major disservice to any person of color because university is about both traditional education and also social education. One would be better off delaying education until better options present than attending that school. It isn’t like being black and going to Yale or something, or being white and attending an HBCU. It’s like attending The Himmler School for the Advocates of Anti-Semitism and as a Jew and being surprised that there are so many bigots on campus.
I think you know there was a lot of fear, from legit cases of violence following the first instances of black people integrating some spaces, pushing a pervasive self-censoring from the end of segregation onwards, this is what I meant though it “ended” in one on paper
Huh, I just checked US News and World Report, and they not only rank BYU higher than U of Utah but also list tuition as being cheaper than the public flagship universities.
There were jews who supported the nazis. Tons of minorities vote for the republican party.
The human motivation to be accepted into a tribe is strong and even when the group you’re trying to join actively works against you, there will always be someone who justifies it and continues on.
I wonder if McD’s “automated” franchises are the preemptive move by the company expecting more of this to happen. The writing was on the wall and they moved to compensate. They make a big deal of it like it’s some cool thing, but IRL they’re just reducing human overhead.
Businesses are always seeking to replace people with not-people in every way they possibly can so I don't think you can really draw a cause and effect here.
That’s always the idle threat, but the reality is that they likely don’t want to invest in the machines anyway.
I think a more likely phenomenon is that some (likely smaller) chains will be like “fuck it” and close up shop in CA.
Or the most likely scenario is that they just pad the prices a little more in CA and keep the chains open.
Long term I think people will just adjust to it and it’ll be normal. Chains that are looking to maintain their “value” positioning will just absorb it out of their profit margins like they do in other localities.
Looking at it from a business perspective, you want to weigh the costs so you automate as much as is economical to reduce to as few unskilled people as possible. A minimum wage person is now about $45k a year in salary and support costs, so if a machine costs $40k a year and removes a worker, you are money ahead.
The McD’s or BK’s I have visited with ordering computers and only one till, looks to have around the same number of staff, mostly they just stopped taking orders while packing them.
The “automated” stores are less about reduction in labor cost and more about improving the overall operation and growing sales (thus increasing jobs.) It does help labor cost because the labor that is staffed is more efficient, but that’s more of a tertiary outcome. They still employ roughly the same number of staff, and potentially will employ even more as efficiency of the process grows.
Simplest way I can explain this is thinking about the order kiosks. One of the worst parts of fast food is that most people aren’t actually trained at birth how to order right, and secondarily it introduces another couple of humans who are fallible and won’t get it correct. EG: customer comes into McDonald’s and says “I want the whopper basket.” Crew person, internal: “wtf are they talking about, I guess I’ll give them a big mac.” Then the customer comes back pissed off because they actually wanted a quarter pounder with fries, it has to be remade distracting the kitchen, manager, that crew person, etc further.
Also, the entire time the customer is ordering, it’s engaging a whole crew person. To scale up and take more orders, you have to add an additional crew person for each order you want to take concurrently, and because customer flow is not 100% predictable, this isn’t even really possible. Most McDonalds have like 4 kiosks, and you’ll only find that they’re all used at the same time for maybe a grand total 3-4 hours a day. To replicate that with a human, you would have to be like “I need you to work from 7:23-7:59, and you to work 11:46-12:07, and you to work, 12:03-12:07…” which literally no one is going to do, and isn’t actually that predictable regardless. No automation means some customers are going to come in, see a line, and peace out. This means lower sales, and lower overall employees.
With automation, the demand can be filled much more often and a whole massive point of complexity is removed. In the example above, the customer comes in wanting a whopper basket, looks at the menu and goes “oh they call it a quarter pounder here” and clicks the buttons. Because they can now capture more demand, kitchens are busier and there are more orders to deliver, so they move that person who was going to be extremely inefficient by comparison serving customers 1:1, and move them to a kitchen position or to an expo position.)
I mean, they’re definitely working on it, but so far it’s tech that isn’t ready. also, it’s still a similar problem, at least for now. The thing I’ve heard about is automated french fry machines. Basically, a big fryer that places fries into the fryer, and then transfers them to the bagging station. From what I’ve heard, they’re very expensive and don’t work well. But the strategy there is more around improving human foibles - estimating the amount of fries needed for rushes more accurately, etc. The person is still there working the station, but assisted by tech. Also improving capacity. That one person that is supposed to be doing all of the things now has less to do, and so can focus on making sure orders of fries are ready to be bagged by expo people. This means they’re bottlenecked less often, can serve more customers, and thus hire more staff.
I mean, make no mistake, we’re headed towards a mostly automated future for these types of jobs, most likely. Tech will improve, get cheaper, etc. But this has been the way things have been for the last 20-30 years. Watch a drive through in most mcdonalds and they have a machine that makes drinks. Before that, having a machine that dispensed fries into the basket was a luxury. Even the grill being like a big panini press was an innovation. So far, this has all led to more jobs. In the case of fast food, just producing consistent results quickly has led to growth. I’d check out youtube or ticktok. I think McDonald’s even puts out a lot of videos these days showing what’s really happening in the kitchen. It’s a little bit fascinating.
You might want to read a little deeper. Technology always removes jobs. People shift to new jobs. The unknown is if new jobs will exist or if we’re entirely post scarcity.
You lost all credibility when you said it was “less about the costs”
I recently hired a mid -level manager from McDs strategy team and it’s at least 90% about cost reduction. They’re watching the adoption curve, because older and urban demographics still mostly order at the counter and refuse to use the self ordering lines. That’s why they offer free fries and free upgrades at select locations for using self ordering to force the greater adoption.
Also they’ve started reducing headcount in locations where adoption is higher, but still limit hours to hourly workers.
It’s all right there if you want to believe it, but good luck with the spin.
A shutdown is not good, regardless of how you feel about these politicians. Literally millions of federal employees would be without their paychecks
A shutdown that would halt pay for military families and government workers comes at a particularly precarious time for many households that are already struggling financially.
I was in Army basic training during the last government shutdown. What that meant for us was no busses to take us to ranges for training. No hot meals in the defac (cafeteria). Extremely limited ammunition for training. So we matched miles upon miles all over the base to get where we needed to go, pretended we had the ammo for the exercise and then we would march home and eat an MRE (meal ready to eat). 2 or 3 MREs a day for about 2 weeks straight. Shit sucked.
How the fuck do you think you can say that? Youre not on his base. Youre not even in the force.
Get back into your basement and argue with others about what OS is best.
It also has unintended effects on the nonfederal workforce too. Losing even more FAA staff cannot be good in addition to everything else the goverment orchestrates, funds, or builds. A long shutdown might affect the border, getting passports, student loans, rural hospitals that depend on Medicare funding, SNAP, etc…
We’re also potentially going to lose financial credit. One of our strengths as a nation was at one point that we were always good for the money we borrowed. Shutdowns compromise that and with it our dominance as a currency and trading partner.
Parts of the government that will shut down include popular DOI departments that a lot of people appreciate: FDA, national park service, EPA, United States geological survey, etc etc
You know, government researchers and ecologists. People that overwhelmingly do not vote republican.
These shut downs hurt civil servants that are the actual machinery that makes the government work, while congress has their collective feet in their collective asses a lot of the time.
It’s deeply wasteful. Federal employees get backpaid for shutdown time. The government still has to meet contractual obligations. Work is left unfinished.
Might feel like schadenfreude, but you’re totally off base of you think the government employs primarily republican voters. The US government is larger than the DoD (by the way, the military will still be paid through the shutdown most likely).
Ah, I am probably wrong. My husband was in the military during a shutdown, and I remember he was paid, but now I remember it was our credit union that covered his paychecks.
I remember it not being a problem, pay-check wise, for other people. We all probably banked through the same credit union, though (navy federal).
An eye for an eye makes the world blind. The answer to our problems is not to cut our nose off to spite our face. This isn’t a winner-takes all situation.
Even if it was, it’s not like states like Taxas (lol, typo but keeping it) would go away. They’d just sit there and fester, spewing crime and hospital cases to the not-fucked up states. Same thing with Idaho, which relied heavily on other states when their hospitals all fell to covid cases during the peaks of covid.
So it’s in our best interest to help everyone and show them that there’s benefits for not voting for retarded politicians who actively try to run our republic into the ground.
I for one appreciate having a food and drug association, environmental protection agency, and occupational health and safety administration. Partly because I’ve read about what it was like without them.
These agencies have definitely made their fair share of mistakes/coverups and have had plenty of corrupt staff, but the overall quality of our health, food, air, and water would be significantly worse without them. I hate cliches, but we can’t let perfect be the enemy of good. For the most part, the scientists and bureaucrats that work at these agencies do their best with the extremely limited resources we give them. Their best is not perfect, but it is SO much better than nothing.
If I was Fetterman, it’d now be my personal pet peeve to subvert this dress code whenever I could by showing up in the most ridiculous-but-formally-correct outfits.
If you are too lazy to pickup your own food and need someone to deliver it to you, then yeah it is your job to pay those people. You expect someone to want to bring you food for free?
No, I think he expects their employer to pay them through the fees they collect. If the tip is mandatory, it’s not a tip, it’s a fee and it should be included in the up front costs with payroll taxes etc deducted.
Instead of a bribe, I call it a Bid. I’ll give a tip for good service, somebody waiting around an extra 10 minutes at the restaurant because they’re giving us BOTH the runaround? Absolutely, have an extra bit of cash, you didn’t have to do that for me and I want to compensate that extra effort so they’re more likely to go that extra mile in the future without fear of it hurting potential profits they would have made by dropping me and picking up another order.
Invalids and disabled people use these services too. The problem isn’t they expect it for free, the problem is the people who do the work are not being paid a living wage to do it.
There is a deeper problem that doesn't get discussed enough: namely, that customer may not actually value delivery enough to pay workers a livable wage. Delivery companies are bleeding money left and right, and none of them are meaningfully profitable. They were riding the money tap from low interest rates for a while, but now that that's dried up and people are starting to hit their limit of how much they'll pay in fees for delivery, we're gonna hit a breaking point, especially as governments start to tighten the rules like this.
Either customers will actually pay enough for this to be a financially viable business, or they won't. Pretty much every sign has pointed in the negative so far, and the companies are eventually going to run out of money to throw at this. From a teeny bit of research, it seems like the average delivery worker gets somewhere around 3-4 trips per hour. To hit $20 a hour, which isn't exactly a high wage, each person ordering delivery is going to have to accept adding at least five more bucks or so on top of the cost of their food, and on top of a fee to actually keep the platform itself running, and those engineers aren't exactly cheap, and even more fees to start paying down the company's debt (Uber has about 9 billion dollars of debt right now), and even more fees to pay shareholders.
There's simply quite of lot of cost built into a single delivery trip, and I don't think the average consumer is really willing to pay it just to save a bit of time and effort getting food. But hey, we'll see.
Pizza delivery is generally handled by each individual restaurant with some dedicated employees, so it's a pretty different model than something like Uber Eats. Pizza is also fast, cheap, and simple, so that helps to drive down costs. It's also generally a complete meal for at least two people, if not a whole group, and so the delivery cost gets split across more people.
I get the comparison, but I don't think they're really as analogous as they seem. One is a pizza place hiring a delivery person or two to drive some pizza around; the other is a large tech company settled with debt and inventor obligations paying very expensive engineers to manage incredibly complicated logistics networks and deal with tens of thousands of distinct parties.
This is really kinda my point. Why is pizza delivery so much cheaper? Because it doesn't have to deal with all these extra costs that a massive delivery network like Uber inherently has to manage. I imagine we'll eventually hit some kind of equilibrium where a lot of restaurants that can manage it have their own in-house delivery people, while the large networks will have to dramatically downsize or die.
It’s similar in some ways but overall a very different business model which doesn’t work out nearly as efficiently.
When you’re delivering pizza, you generally just work out of one location. You have a relationship with the business you’re working at which includes an area set aside for deliveries where drivers can both plan the orders into batches of ones that work well together, considering when they’ll come out of the oven, their destinations, and what the other drivers are doing. When it’s busy, drivers can go in, look over all the current orders (ready or not), and take deliveries to their cars without needing to interact with employees at all. In some locations, they might also be considered kitchen staff and can also do things like pick orders or cook items that aren’t yet ready, allowing them to both provide value to the business (further justifying a wage) and get deliveries out the door sooner.
A lot of that isn’t the case for delivery services. The food pickup can be anywhere, so you can’t just go back to the restaurant and wait, and the pickups need to be optimized just like the dropoffs (if the service even allows you to batch deliveries together). You don’t have that relationship with the business; you’re basically just another customer, so no going to the back to see what’s up or helping the employees when they are swamped.
I’ve done pizza delivery in the past. I didn’t mind it. I don’t think I would like delivering for one of these apps, it sounds like a giant pain in the ass.
If I take everything you say as true at face value. Then the business was a shitty idea. The owners of the company who have gambled away the VC money should be the ones on hook for it, not the customers.
It is the employer’s responsibility to ensure their workers get paid. Period.
That's precisely my point. It's ultimately a shitty business idea, and will probably eventually fail.
I don't really understand what you mean by being on the hook for it. Investors will ultimately lose quite a lot of money, workers will lose their jobs, and customers will endure the horror of walking or driving a bit to grab food.
A tip is merely subsidizing a company’s inability to pay its employees appropriately. I really could care less seeing Stanley Tang (door dash founder/ owner) gamble (and lose) hundreds of thousands of dollars on hustler casino live playing poker while simultaneously claiming his company can’t pay a living wage.
Don’t worry the drivers will just refuse to pick up your order. Basically the way it works given the companies show the tip to drivers. Especially door dash. Which create an extremely toxic problem where drivers can decide what they think is worth their time or pick something up and fuck with someone’s food cuz they didn’t get “tipped”
In this specific case, I’d unironically agree, though it’s more the free market than something that would be specific to capitalism. Users put out offers of “pick up this food for me and I will pay you x”, and drivers have the option of taking or leaving any of the offers. If none of them think your order is worth their time, I don’t think forcing any of them to do it anyways is the right thing to do.
Lmao L take. I seriously have to bid on a delivery service? What if I have a cash tip? Which is better cause it don’t technically need to be taxed for them. I am happy to render a tip after service is delivered. But the thought of bidding for something is ridiculous. And it already creates an extremely toxic environment and makes it even more toxic.
In an ideal world perhaps one managed by a federated system sure. But the companies they work for take part of their profit should they not be obligated to then treat these people as employees?
I don’t see how this doesn’t kill business for these companies.
Edit: I’m not defending the decision not to pay people more in general. It’s more about the service going away altogether because the wage cost will be passed into the customers. But if that’s what you fuckers want ok. I don’t live in NY so it doesn’t affect me. Enjoy losing access to all your delivery services.
Normally I wouldn’t give a shit. But for these P2P businesses the unit economics for the business to be profitable requires passing on that expense to the end customer.
I’m not going to pay an extra $10+ dollars or whatever for my meal when I’m already tipping, paying tax, and service charge.
So I’m saying while it sounds awesome to pay people more, in this case it will just cause these services to go away.
Everyone down voted me like I’m defending the companies, but that’s not my intention. It’s more that these services as they are won’t exist, so everyone loses. The employees lose the job and their customers lose the service. The company goes out of business too but that’s not the issue I care about. We will effectively all lose delivery services except those willing to pay a lot for it, which stifles demand and makes the problem worse.
Anyway… I’m totally willing to hear counterarguments and certainly on the side of the workers, but the knee-jerk downvote and talk about how everyone needs a living wage isn’t helping dive into the nuance of how these businesses operate and make money and what impact this decision will have on the business model.
Capitalism requires regulation. If you don’t have regulation you can only have capitalism for an incredibly short amount of time. This was all detailed in Adam Smith’s book when he invented capitalism.
Lemmy seems to dream up this strawman of Capitalism while having a very rose tinted outlook on Communism. Everyone seems to miss that these are all problems with humans, not your favorite economic system.
Especially if it’s a service. Maybe if your service business can’t generate enough revenue to pay your employees then it’s a service that doesn’t need to exist?
They can make less profit in order to cover paying employees a fair wage.
They will still be make a profit, which means all of their business expenses are covered. Those who pocket that profit will also be richer than you can ever hope to be.
I don’t see how this doesn’t kill business for these companies.
That’s because you don’t know what you’re talking about.
I know everyone loves when YouTube pranksters get whats coming but shooting someone over a mild annoyance is never a good thing. This is why america seems fucking nuts to anyone that doesn’t live there.
Somebody approaching you, even though you’re trying to move away and telling them to stop, is not a “mild annoyance”. It’s dangerous because weapons are so freely available. It would be better if they weren’t, but while they are, you shouldn’t do something like this.
It’s not enough to shoot someone in any civilised country.
It’s important to realize that the confrontation lasted 30 seconds. That’s the amount of time he waited before almost killing someone.
He wasn’t being chased in a dark alley or stalked for half a hour, someone played loud noises in his face and it took a total of 30 seconds for him to decide to shoot someone over it. Literally insane.
It is in a civilized country where you have to assume everyone has a gun.
It’s important to realize that the confrontation lasted 30 seconds. That’s the amount of time he waited before almost killing someone.
Yes, I do realise that, and I did realise it when I wrote my initial comment. What is your point? That someone can’t become dangerous towards you if your interaction lasts 30 seconds or less?
He wasn’t being chased in a dark alley and stalked for half a hour, someone played loud noises in his face and it took a total of 30 seconds for him to decide to shoot someone over it. Literally insane.
See, if your point only makes sense due to leaving out important details, it’s not a good point. He wasn’t shot because “someone played loud noises in his face”.
Are you trolling, or are you arguing on the level of a three year old?
Words have meanings. They don’t necessarily have one single meaning, but generally words only make sense in the context of commonly-understood definitions. If I make up a new definition, it’s not useful to use it, as long as other people don’t use it.
Now, I can argue that the sky is blurple, and I’m fully correct if I define blurple to be the color of the sky. But you will notice that this sentence doesn’t hold any meaning as long as blurple isn’t a commonly understood definition.
You’re free to show that loose gun laws are commonly understood to be an argument against something being a civilized society. But until you do that, you’re doing what I said earlier: just circlejerking with neither funny nor useful descriptions.
It’s dangerous, it’s not an imminent danger to life and limb.
If you’re about to catch a beating, you can’t just shoot.
The police, prosecution, judge, and half the jury, and me, think this conduct exceeded any right of self defense the dude had.
No question he could.lawfully have maced him or punched him and there’d have been no charge. But to try and kill the guy?
The jury apparently fucked it up by rendering an inconsistent verdict on the sole conviction. It’s dangerous when the jury says it’s deadlocked. It generally means someone in the room isn’t being reasonable, or is not following the judge’s instructions. And it resulted with inconsistent verdicts.
Yes. Your country has a shit reputation because of the gun cult, the shootings, the constant war mongering, the blatant racism and homophobia, and the Christian lobby that fuels all of the above.
Being the world’s economic leader doesn’t mean your internal policies can’t be shit, grow up.
When Trump was visiting foreign countries, they literally flew giant ballons mocking him lmao.
Yes, they probably do think America is nuts, they just don’t have any choice. You think they’re migrating because they want to attend barbecues in parking lots before football matches?
Sure, everyone wants to get to America. Except that more Americans are trying to move to many first world countries than the other way around. Kinda makes you think, right?
Believe it or not, turning every country into Britain isn’t as appealing as some of you seem to think.
If the only good thing about your culture is the use of weapons, your culture isn’t as appealing as you think.
Ask any female friends or relatives of yours how they would feel if a 6’5” man continued to approach them and ask what they thought of his penis. See if they think it’s a mild annoyance.
My wife is 5’2". She’s been physically pushed around by a man in the past. I’m 5’11" and if I get upset at her, she will cower. If I advanced on her threateningly, she would panic. If a stranger who was half a foot larger than me did, she would absolutely fear for her safety.
news
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.