When I piss it's elegant and crystal clear and still a little cold and if your piss fails to live up to that standard, you're probably are doing something wrong. It's a sign that you're likely a bad person.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
age gaps are actually not a problem in themselves (as long as both participants are adults blah blah you know the drill). the potentially harmful dynamics between two partners with a big age difference arise from other factors that are associated with age. more wealth. more stable life situation. a big gap in relationship/dating experience. this is of course worsened if you add gender and/or racial dynamics to it. age in itself doesn't create this imbalance, we just exist in a system where older people are more likely to have other forms of privilege over their younger partner.
if you're both 30 but one of you has a job and owns the apartment in which you both live, that is a lot riskier than if you're 20 and 40 but both have independent income and housing. ya know?
Like, honestly, it's more a material thing than it is some personality thing. people want to talk like any age gap relationship is pedophilic, like what do you see in that younger person I find younger people annoying, I am so virtuous because I am only interested in older people oh wait...
and it's like, ok, so where are we drawing the line? Do we match people based on relative financial stability, are we doing cognitive tests for the relationship? I think Travis Kelce is too stupid to be legally fuckable, but I don't think anyones going for that. Would be funny to have someone give you test results saying you're legally too smart to fuck that man.
but then, also, i think if we're being honest, we all have had some fantasy about taking a spin with a much older person both out of some attraction to the relative sophistication and looks, but also because we maybe kinda like the power imbalance. ooooo you're a bit stern and you know what you want AND you have a house of your own with no roomates?????
Age gap discourse feels like the increasing tendency of modern people to try and make rules out of otherwise relatively unregulated social interaction. Previously, yeah we might have said it's kinda grody when you see that ugly oldass man with a hot young supermodel. you know what's going on there. But then, it didn't really require us to dissect it and form rules we must now enforce socially. It's assumed that the young woman also knows the score here.
anecdotally, a shocking number of women I graduated with either broke up with or divorced a long time partner and got happily married to a much older man. So, I don't know what that means. I'm tail end of millenials, so I wonder how these women feel about the growing gen z distaste over age gaps. Like, these gals have had a couple kids with guys who are around 20 years older. weird stuff. idk.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Alot of you fuckers don't want to break generational curses and find the very concept of them superstitious and it shows.
But misplaced revolutionary anger is not new. Cyclical systems of oppression are not new. Sociology is not new. Invented plagues and deliberate psyops are not new. The elite wanting you to waste your life fighting your neighbor before standing up for your damn selves is not a new concept.
And so yes. We're interested in breaking generational curses over here.
Instead of crass and discriminatory "jokes", I prefer to get my chuckles from wholesome humor, such as: "my god, the scrimbly blumbo!" Hahahaha! Really, there's no need for slurs and put-downs when comedy like "skcrunklo bonglo bingo" is available! I am racist as fuck though,
This link floated across my dash but I can't seem to find who posted it
The inside story of Peter Thiel's MKUltra by someone who thinks it was kind of good, actually.
And man, I am just fascinated by the sheer number of cults that float around a movement called "rationalism".
Quick critical thinking lesson:
Then Geoff posed a thought experiment: What if Tyler took a pill, then started floating off the ground, and touched down five minutes later — then would Tyler feel that he needed to use a scientific tool in order to trust his own observations? What if Tyler took another pill from the same jar, and the second time he took the pill he floated off the ground, then touched down five minutes later? How long would it take for Tyler to conclude that each pill made him float for five minutes?
Anybody who says something like this is trying to recruit you to a cult, sell you snake oil, or both, 100% of the time no exceptions.
"If I keep proving that I can guess which card you picked out of the deck, why would you ever bother to examine the deck?"
I have a lot more to say, maybe, when I'm less tired. Lydia Laurensen is also a real odd duck.
Speaking of not being able to admit what your actual politics are, after skimming that incredibly long article Laurensen wrote about Leverage, I also somehow read this one as well.
And a few things that happened while I was there
It's paywalled now, so I don't know if it was previewed for a while, or if I accidentally pressed the button that gave me my one free article, or what, but I did read the whole thing.
The executive summary is that, like a truly surprising number of people the George Floyd riots broke her brain, and she gravitated towards a neoreactionary discord because they were actually willing to listen about her feelings of stress about living in the St Paul Minneapolis region and not really knowing how to deal with the riots without calling her a racist.
I don't really care about that part, riots are scary, I've often found that, especially back then left-wingers had a tendency to psychoanalyze you and explain why you were making an argument from internalized racism or whatever and right-wingers were often more able to argue directly which is, honestly, easier to deal with. "You're wrong" is a more respectful and less disorienting way to argue than, "I bet so-and-so only thinks this way because he's secretly a conservative."
The real question, which she not only never addresses and in fact seems totally unaware of, is what the fuck Curtis Yarvin was even doing there.
According to Laurensen, both now and at the time she was obsessed with the fear that increasing polarization would lead to a civil war and the final collapse of the American government, and she is intensely patriotic.
So when Yarvin sent a message to the group saying he was looking for a new fiancee (???) she thought, in her words, "What's the worst that could happen?"
So, like... Your mental health is suffering because you're afraid that increasing polarization will lead to the collapse of the government, and you're wondering what is the worst thing that could happen if you get engaged to a man who is funded by billionaires with the explicit project of increasing political polarization until the US government collapses and is replaced by an authoritarian government?
I mean... like, just off the top of my head...
It's so weird, she even brings up the leopards eating faces cliche, and like, she seems put out by it and thinks it's unfair, but she also wrote this whole article where in the middle she says, essentially, "I was having nightmares about face eating leopards, and the danger they posed to the country, so when the head of the Face Eating Leopards Party asked for a fiancee, I thought, hey, why not?"
She's a really overly wordy writer, but she is so accidentally revealing that it almost comes off as a bit.
We need some sort of "Horseshoe but rotated 90 degrees theory" for this kind of thing, where you continuously talk about your centrism and then read Yarvin and go, "Sure, can't see anything wrong with this!"
In these kind of narratives, it's always hard for me to tell what's genuine naivetee and what's self-aggrandizing lies.
One thing I noticed very early on as a child was the way that Christians who claimed to have converted from militant atheism often seemed to have pretty much no grasp of the most common atheist arguments or skeptical culture.
Took a lot longer for me to realize "Oh wait a lot of them are just liars".
Here's a free article which is different but goes over more or less the same territory, including the complete lack of explanation as to why someone who was so concerned with politics and polarization was hanging around with Yarvin.
What cancel culture reveals and conceals about redemption
someday someone will figure out what it is about being into rationalism that makes someone crazy. Like, even people who I like on this very website that are former LessWrong types will fall into these kinds of really really bizarre thoughtforms about AI where it's not clear why they're arguing against something because they don't actually hold the contrary position and aren't even playing devils advocate. There's just something about the failure to follow a certain script in other peoples arguments and logic that really grabs some people. idk. anyone ever done a survey of rationalism as a fertile substrate for cults in the same way the hippie movement was as well?
That bit about "follow a script" is a very important one, I think, because the people in these thought-cult structures believe that intelligence is a process, not a characteristic. You can "do a Smart" the same way you can do an arithmetic problem, and if you do a Smart properly the conclusion is inherently Correct regardless of what anyone else feels about it, and there is a moral imperative to act as the conclusion demands.
So you're asking "why are you arguing against something you like in favor of something you don't, and putting forth every effort possible to support that contrary position," it's because they see themselves as , e.g., a clergyman in 1633 arguing for heliocentrism even though it goes against every doctrine of their faith (not to mention established scientific theory of the time.) They think that there's no such thing as "holding a position", only "identifying a Correct conclusion via the process of Rational Thinking", and they're arguing for what they think is the Correct conclusion.
(which has some interesting tie-backs to Orson Scott Card, whose entire writing career could be summed up as "exploring what it's like when what God has decided is Correct is something you personally don't agree with")
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Here's the thing, and a lot of people will not like this, you do kind of have to be as harsh with people of color and people not in majority positions of power about certain really fucked up aspects of their society as you are with people in majority groups.
The population of Native controlled territories in the US as 15% enslaved black people at the time of the american civil war. Immediately after emancipation and accelerating after the end of the war, the Choctaw and other tribes began the wholesale extermination of the black freedmen rather than allow them their freedom.
Black americans were shot on sight if seen walking around outside designated areas on slaveholding reservations, and their skulls were turned into decorations and markers.
No one deserves to be genocided for any reason. no one deserves to lose their land and have their culture supressed. But please do not pretend like anti blackness and fucking over black people is somehow a solely white institution. Misogyny, homophobia, enslavement, racial hatred, are not something that just happened to seep out of white society and accidentally ended up in other people groups. It was already there.
Any attempt to whitewash crimes against humanity, and specifically the wholesale slaughter and enslavement of Black people, committed by certain Indigenous peoples is not meaningfully different than irish people saying "well the Irish were enslaved too!" as a cop out, or the nation of Dahomey saying they somehow didn't know that the millions of black bodies (of their enemy nations) they shipped off for centuries were never coming back.
It is a cop out by way of adjacency to oppression.
Your black friends can be transphobic and your transgender friends are almost certainly racist.
It's not possible or desirable to purge yourself of all guilt and culpability, or to walk around all day flagellating yourself, but you do have to acknowledge that things happened. As soon as you believe you and your people are the perfect victims of history and can do no wrong, or that every wrong has to be allowed because of how hard done you are, you just end up making israel.
This link floated across my dash but I can't seem to find who posted it
The inside story of Peter Thiel's MKUltra by someone who thinks it was kind of good, actually.
And man, I am just fascinated by the sheer number of cults that float around a movement called "rationalism".
Quick critical thinking lesson:
Then Geoff posed a thought experiment: What if Tyler took a pill, then started floating off the ground, and touched down five minutes later — then would Tyler feel that he needed to use a scientific tool in order to trust his own observations? What if Tyler took another pill from the same jar, and the second time he took the pill he floated off the ground, then touched down five minutes later? How long would it take for Tyler to conclude that each pill made him float for five minutes?
Anybody who says something like this is trying to recruit you to a cult, sell you snake oil, or both, 100% of the time no exceptions.
"If I keep proving that I can guess which card you picked out of the deck, why would you ever bother to examine the deck?"
I have a lot more to say, maybe, when I'm less tired. Lydia Laurensen is also a real odd duck.
Speaking of not being able to admit what your actual politics are, after skimming that incredibly long article Laurensen wrote about Leverage, I also somehow read this one as well.
And a few things that happened while I was there
It's paywalled now, so I don't know if it was previewed for a while, or if I accidentally pressed the button that gave me my one free article, or what, but I did read the whole thing.
The executive summary is that, like a truly surprising number of people the George Floyd riots broke her brain, and she gravitated towards a neoreactionary discord because they were actually willing to listen about her feelings of stress about living in the St Paul Minneapolis region and not really knowing how to deal with the riots without calling her a racist.
I don't really care about that part, riots are scary, I've often found that, especially back then left-wingers had a tendency to psychoanalyze you and explain why you were making an argument from internalized racism or whatever and right-wingers were often more able to argue directly which is, honestly, easier to deal with. "You're wrong" is a more respectful and less disorienting way to argue than, "I bet so-and-so only thinks this way because he's secretly a conservative."
The real question, which she not only never addresses and in fact seems totally unaware of, is what the fuck Curtis Yarvin was even doing there.
According to Laurensen, both now and at the time she was obsessed with the fear that increasing polarization would lead to a civil war and the final collapse of the American government, and she is intensely patriotic.
So when Yarvin sent a message to the group saying he was looking for a new fiancee (???) she thought, in her words, "What's the worst that could happen?"
So, like... Your mental health is suffering because you're afraid that increasing polarization will lead to the collapse of the government, and you're wondering what is the worst thing that could happen if you get engaged to a man who is funded by billionaires with the explicit project of increasing political polarization until the US government collapses and is replaced by an authoritarian government?
I mean... like, just off the top of my head...
It's so weird, she even brings up the leopards eating faces cliche, and like, she seems put out by it and thinks it's unfair, but she also wrote this whole article where in the middle she says, essentially, "I was having nightmares about face eating leopards, and the danger they posed to the country, so when the head of the Face Eating Leopards Party asked for a fiancee, I thought, hey, why not?"
She's a really overly wordy writer, but she is so accidentally revealing that it almost comes off as a bit.
We need some sort of "Horseshoe but rotated 90 degrees theory" for this kind of thing, where you continuously talk about your centrism and then read Yarvin and go, "Sure, can't see anything wrong with this!"
In these kind of narratives, it's always hard for me to tell what's genuine naivetee and what's self-aggrandizing lies.
One thing I noticed very early on as a child was the way that Christians who claimed to have converted from militant atheism often seemed to have pretty much no grasp of the most common atheist arguments or skeptical culture.
Took a lot longer for me to realize "Oh wait a lot of them are just liars".
Here's a free article which is different but goes over more or less the same territory, including the complete lack of explanation as to why someone who was so concerned with politics and polarization was hanging around with Yarvin.
What cancel culture reveals and conceals about redemption
someday someone will figure out what it is about being into rationalism that makes someone crazy. Like, even people who I like on this very website that are former LessWrong types will fall into these kinds of really really bizarre thoughtforms about AI where it's not clear why they're arguing against something because they don't actually hold the contrary position and aren't even playing devils advocate. There's just something about the failure to follow a certain script in other peoples arguments and logic that really grabs some people. idk. anyone ever done a survey of rationalism as a fertile substrate for cults in the same way the hippie movement was as well?
This link floated across my dash but I can't seem to find who posted it
The inside story of Peter Thiel's MKUltra by someone who thinks it was kind of good, actually.
And man, I am just fascinated by the sheer number of cults that float around a movement called "rationalism".
Quick critical thinking lesson:
Then Geoff posed a thought experiment: What if Tyler took a pill, then started floating off the ground, and touched down five minutes later — then would Tyler feel that he needed to use a scientific tool in order to trust his own observations? What if Tyler took another pill from the same jar, and the second time he took the pill he floated off the ground, then touched down five minutes later? How long would it take for Tyler to conclude that each pill made him float for five minutes?
Anybody who says something like this is trying to recruit you to a cult, sell you snake oil, or both, 100% of the time no exceptions.
"If I keep proving that I can guess which card you picked out of the deck, why would you ever bother to examine the deck?"
I have a lot more to say, maybe, when I'm less tired. Lydia Laurensen is also a real odd duck.
Speaking of not being able to admit what your actual politics are, after skimming that incredibly long article Laurensen wrote about Leverage, I also somehow read this one as well.
And a few things that happened while I was there
It's paywalled now, so I don't know if it was previewed for a while, or if I accidentally pressed the button that gave me my one free article, or what, but I did read the whole thing.
The executive summary is that, like a truly surprising number of people the George Floyd riots broke her brain, and she gravitated towards a neoreactionary discord because they were actually willing to listen about her feelings of stress about living in the St Paul Minneapolis region and not really knowing how to deal with the riots without calling her a racist.
I don't really care about that part, riots are scary, I've often found that, especially back then left-wingers had a tendency to psychoanalyze you and explain why you were making an argument from internalized racism or whatever and right-wingers were often more able to argue directly which is, honestly, easier to deal with. "You're wrong" is a more respectful and less disorienting way to argue than, "I bet so-and-so only thinks this way because he's secretly a conservative."
The real question, which she not only never addresses and in fact seems totally unaware of, is what the fuck Curtis Yarvin was even doing there.
According to Laurensen, both now and at the time she was obsessed with the fear that increasing polarization would lead to a civil war and the final collapse of the American government, and she is intensely patriotic.
So when Yarvin sent a message to the group saying he was looking for a new fiancee (???) she thought, in her words, "What's the worst that could happen?"
So, like... Your mental health is suffering because you're afraid that increasing polarization will lead to the collapse of the government, and you're wondering what is the worst thing that could happen if you get engaged to a man who is funded by billionaires with the explicit project of increasing political polarization until the US government collapses and is replaced by an authoritarian government?
I mean... like, just off the top of my head...
It's so weird, she even brings up the leopards eating faces cliche, and like, she seems put out by it and thinks it's unfair, but she also wrote this whole article where in the middle she says, essentially, "I was having nightmares about face eating leopards, and the danger they posed to the country, so when the head of the Face Eating Leopards Party asked for a fiancee, I thought, hey, why not?"
She's a really overly wordy writer, but she is so accidentally revealing that it almost comes off as a bit.
We need some sort of "Horseshoe but rotated 90 degrees theory" for this kind of thing, where you continuously talk about your centrism and then read Yarvin and go, "Sure, can't see anything wrong with this!"
In these kind of narratives, it's always hard for me to tell what's genuine naivetee and what's self-aggrandizing lies.
One thing I noticed very early on as a child was the way that Christians who claimed to have converted from militant atheism often seemed to have pretty much no grasp of the most common atheist arguments or skeptical culture.
Took a lot longer for me to realize "Oh wait a lot of them are just liars".
Here's a free article which is different but goes over more or less the same territory, including the complete lack of explanation as to why someone who was so concerned with politics and polarization was hanging around with Yarvin.
What cancel culture reveals and conceals about redemption
someday someone will figure out what it is about being into rationalism that makes someone crazy. Like, even people who I like on this very website that are former LessWrong types will fall into these kinds of really really bizarre thoughtforms about AI where it's not clear why they're arguing against something because they don't actually hold the contrary position and aren't even playing devils advocate. There's just something about the failure to follow a certain script in other peoples arguments and logic that really grabs some people. idk. anyone ever done a survey of rationalism as a fertile substrate for cults in the same way the hippie movement was as well?
the worst writing crime you can ever commit in my opinion is watering down the dirty talk because you’re self-conscious that it sounds like it’s from a bad porno…..i cannot stress this enough……leave it alone. the moment you tell yourself he would not fucking say that you’re doomed. people will say almost anything if their dick is hard enough
and listen, everyone wants to think "ohhh i'm totally cool with really cringey realistic dirtytalk"
no.
It's Stephen King. Ok? all the fucking INSANE gross shit characters say in Stephen King novels? That's how regular uncool people used to talk. The baby boomers dirty talk sounded like Stephen King dialogue, especially in that a painfully sizeable number of people were trying to either spit out a catch phrase (boomers I know personally tried to have catch phrases!) or just rattling off an ad tagline.
in flagrante, even! in the pussy someone would recite a burma-shave rhyme.
to be cringe is to be free. and in the case of the boomers, I think it meant reverting to their base programming which was unmitigated television advertisement. if millenials reached that kind of lead poisoned unburdened zen, they might be firing off famous Vines or youtube poop during climax.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
in part I think the discourse around "the amazing digital circus" is stupid because I think anyone trying to prove an online creator is secretly an evil racist based on screenshots is always stupid. People do not encode secret racism in their artwork to further a secret racist agenda. It's always super super super super obvious every time because nazis are not good at this. crypto fascists are always out and proud but are calling themselves something one letter removed like the Blazi Party for National Centrism and they say all the sig heil shit but with enough of the serial numbers filed off that you can't officially legally ban them in germany. Everyone knows they're a racist it's just that by social convention we are compelled to pretend the guy making biblical rules for warfare (how to loot and burn for christ) in the state senate is just a fiscal conservative. anyway.
I also think it's stupid because TADC looks like colorful tripe for hot topic Fandom infants and all the characters are named shit like moogle and rimple dee and fafney and The Proper Noun and shit. like fuck you man I've got grey hairs and pay taxes I am not engaging with this stupid bullshit I got Harlan Ellison at home. I have artwork with homosexuals and transgenders in it that doesn't trigger a migraine when I look at it.
i'm biased because the first time I saw TADC referenced it was someone doing algo slop for unloved ipad babies where the hosts got the weird quaaludes voice that goes down and trails on too long at the end of every sentence.
andulkaphoto
areudirty
2087
stormborns
pixelskylines
yousharknotpass
titsay
snowghoul
