Basically it’s allowed but they must properly mark it as NSFW, so it can be filtered out for minors and people who are actively trying to avoid it. More or less they’re making the sharing of adult material a more legitimate thing for twitter, which is kinda hard to tell because twitter has always been filled with porn but I guess it’s just more official.

Wherever or not people will actually mark their content as NSFW or if Twitter will enforce it is in the air. I’ve seen Twitter content sensitivity setting used more for video game spoilers than it’s actual intended use.

My conspiracy theory on this is that Twitter Blue isn’t doing well so they’re doubling down on ad revenue.

Public likes disincentvise interactions, which is one metric that could be used to measure engagement, so hiding likes, along side their recent policy changes about NSFW stuff, is a way to encourage more engagement towards attention grabbing content that users were otherwise not inclined to interact with.

In other news, water is wet.

Economically comfortable (until very recently maybe), smug middle class lefties using harmful stereotypes to punch down on conservative voters has been a long running embarrassment to the political landscape.

The demographic these jokes target often have the least amount of freedom to spend on being politically engaged and figuring out who is actually in their best interest, which is why they usually end up voting for a strong personality like Trump and the right’s bias towards the Christian inspired philosophy.

When the left space fills it’s self with explicitly elitist, classist, and exclusionary rhetoric like this just so they can all sit around a jerk each other off about how much more smarter they are, they only end up pushing them furtherer away from learning about the left and developing a more nuanced and informed political world-view. If you don’t have a lot of time to spend on yourself, are you going to waste it surrounding your self with people who constantly blabber about how much they hate you and think your a incestuous degenerate drug addict invalid?

You don’t need to if you just want better options for your presidential candidates.

If Republicans wins, doesn’t that make you a “ineffectual whiny loser” too?

Man, if only there was some kind of like, party representative, whose job is to be the face of the party and their policies in order to motivate people to vote for that party. Oh well, might as well cry about Trump a million times over instead of thinking about how the party could improve it’s own odds of getting elected.

I just think we should hold our political representatives to a higher standard. Trump got in, for a number of cultural reasons I’m told, but a significant contributing factor was because Democrats pushed Hillary Clinton super hard under the assumption that they’d win anyway, and ended up alienating much of the left who didn’t like Hillary who, shockingly, didn’t vote for her.

Biden’s stance on Israel has likely alienated much of the voter base who has ties to Palestine or at the least are sympathetic to their struggle. I don’t like seeing patterns of loss in the party that’s supposed to be the good guys in the two honestly pretty bad parties.

Yeah if America was just honest about the political douloploly then merely being better than the worst option would be a valid strategy.

Unfortunately these pesky third parties seem to provide a better option to part of voterbase, and sadly the poor Democrats still have to compete with them too instead of just settling on being the least mediocre. So sad, so evil.

Yep, not denying that, and the solution is just for the Democrats to just not be a worse option that third parties. Democrats are not entitled to votes becuase they’re just better than the other bad option.

I mean in an ideal democracy voting for the party you actually like wouldn’t just lead to the party you hate the most getting more power.

I said third parties my gamer, as in people not voting either rerun of the crusty old guys.

As an outsider, I feel that the Democrats would have an easier time turning third parties over if they didn’t push a dementia patient who could lose the last of his competency next term.

The best way to refute a moral relativist is to simply kill them.

They’re not marketing to kids becuase:

A) it’s illegal in some countries

B) It should rightfully be looked down on

Probably good that a junk food merchant isn’t marketing to kids to heavily.

Most people over here are pro-returning artifacts. It’s just that it’s a common anti-British talking point and not many people actually have the agency affect what happens with the artifacts, so eventually it just gets frustrating to hear about all the time.

Progress isn’t a competition, there need not be losers. We can acknowledge two things being bad at the same time. As we type there are children being forced to mine toxic cobalt with no protection just so we can have these electronics to argue. How can we argue our lives are any bad compared to them? Might as well put off anyone’s progress until we finally beat out the modern salve trade. It’s a unproductive way of thinking.

Do you think a newborn “white male” as your oppressor too? Someone who has never had the chance to do anyone wrong? Must they really be subject to your scorn?

And what of the white men today? If they gain nothing from your progress, then why must they be concerned with it? After all you seem to think that white men as a class have the ability to crush others with their privilege. How could we expect these people to work in the interest of a movement that only seeks to take from them indiscriminately? And wouldn’t it be natural for them to simply follow the example that you have given them? Be wrathful, spiteful, hateful, boil down human beings to their perceived class, do anything to get a win for their own group. Hell just look at the news, abortion rights are being repealed in America. This is happening in real time, and I promise you neither of us are happy about it.

Socioeconomics can say whatever it wants about groups and demographics and “numbers this” or “numbers that”, that doesn’t change the fact that we are individuals in a world of many other individuals. Privilege, true and quantifiable privilege, is always relative and we should listen when people tell us about their problems, since it will encourage and empower them to do the same.

We can together to build a world that’s better for everyone, but that requires that we don’t waste our lives away trying to hold each other down out of a need for revenge. Every step we take for ourselves or our own perceived group is a step backwards, and it’ll be our children who will have to make up for that. Do you care for the next generation, and what you’ll leave them to deal with?

Nobody is arguing for “elevation”, nobody in their right state of mind anyway, and I’m not asking anyone to turn their cheek to anyone wrong doings done to them. However, when it’s men who feel wronged you ask them to turn the other cheek. Man up. Deal with it.

The fact of the matter is it’s exactly this dogmatic rejecting of men that pushes them towards people like Andrew Tate. If the progressive zeitgeist refuses to listen to someone, they will follow anyone else who will. We shouldn’t tolerate the intolerant, but if we truly seek to defeat it we must understand it and treat the systemic issues that cause it to arise. It’s not the romantic ideal of the rebel taking down the empire in a victorious display of self-satisfaction, but it is the method that gets lasting results.

I’ve never stood on anyone’s heads, least of all yours. I’d appreciate it if you could at least treat the next generation with the same respect.

Ignoring the issues people face becuase they come from what you determine to be a “privileged” class is just another form of bigotry.

Young men don’t stand to benifit from the same patriarchal systems we do, nor do we stand to benifit from the patriarchal systems our fathers did. And even if it did, one privileged doesn’t nullify the issues faced by other inequalities such as race, wealth, class, ability.

The issues they face are real reguardless of what privilege they have or are assumed to have.

Equality should be about giving every individual a fair chance at life regardless of who they are or what they came from. Not some team sport where “one side” must be crushed under to goosestep of self proclaimed progress seekers.

Backwards thinking.

Andrew Tate isn’t creating these young men out of well adjusted people.

Young men today face a mountain of issues with zero sympathy from the people or institutions around them. And grifters prey on these men.

Having grown up in the “teach boys not to rape” era of progrssive rhetoric, it’s actually insane to see all these people just insist being in a guy’s world is all sunshine and rainbows and all these men are just awful people falling of their own accord.

Young men get told some pretty damaging things growing up, even from progressive people.

Everyone has problems, lots of people are coming of age all kinds of fucked up, and we can’t fix this by implying it’s all their own doing.