Yes, you have to spread your hand out like a spider to hit at least 5 of the nipples at a time otherwise it’ll bite and nip at you.

Spoken like a true entitled bad driver

That bear didn’t do anything that was unpredictable, it did what a bear does. I never said a bear wouldn’t maul you, treat it as a bear.

I didn’t say women aren’t unpredictable, that’s a weird take at best, and an argument on a logical fallacy at worst.

I didn’t imply that women can’t be just as evil as men, they absolutely can, because they’re human beings. Same for anybody who’s non-binary, they’re just humans.

I’m sorry that happened to you, nobody deserves abuse.

I don’t understand what you mean by data source. It was an internet trend and some men, not all, got really pissy that some women, not all, chose bear instead of man. A friend explained to me why they might do that and it makes sense, at the end of the day it’s people sharing their opinions, and sometimes trying to understand others opinions helps us understand them better.

I don’t see how it’s sexist, I see no proof, only your opinion based on talking points. Same goes for it being transphobic, it doesn’t make sense to me, please clarify.

If anything this is just a conversation, not proof, your word is worth just as much as mine. We’re just two people sharing our opinions, that’s it.

Tbf a friend had to explain it to me, when the debate went viral at first I was mainly confused. I’m sure when I was younger I would have been one of the men with delicate egos that would find it irrational to not choose a man. It’s actually more thought out and rational when women say bear.

It’s hard to value a face when you’re so used to having two of them.

The question isn’t sexist, it’s emotionally driven, and dismissing it outright is narrow minded. That is what I think is dangerous.

The truth is the question reveals that to most women asked the question, men are unpredictable, and women have to navigate the world that way.

A bear is a bear, it’s always going to do what it does, and you can work around that. Leave it alone and it will leave you alone, even if you have to work hard to avoid it. If you disturb it, it will kill you. It’s predictable.

Men on the other hand are very likely to respect women, maybe even work together. However, there is the small, small, SMALL chance that they will be a terrible person. They could attack, abuse, sexually assault, straight up rape, or even kill the woman; or they could do a disgusting combination of those.

The true root of the question isn’t “do you think a random man is more dangerous than a wild animal?” Of course not.

The real question being put on a social scale is “what’s more predictably dangerous, a random man, or a wild animal?” And the fact that women almost unanimously have the same answer should be commentary enough on how they have to live their lives.

I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted, I had the same thought

I get that, I think the difference is Mr. Beast never admitted to being a dick and presented himself as “fun and kind”, whereas Louis expressly and repeatedly says “I think I’m doing a good thing, verify if you want, fuck you if you disagree, I don’t care about your opinion.”

I’ve had both kinds of people as bosses and employees, and I would absolutely work with the second kind again.

Louis is self-admittedly an asshole, but he’s a fair asshole and his people stick by and swear by him, even after they leave.

I respect him and truly feel he’s honest, especially when he has so many receipts.

I’d rather an honest asshole than a kind manipulator.

1. Trusting YouTube and TikTok over… Hmmm, I don’t know, the US census, US department of Labor, dozens of scholarly studies, hundreds of reputable modern American sociologists, anthropologists, and other educated people who’ve come to a general consensus, seems like a bad start to form an educated opinion.

2. The average human is sorrowfully terrible at understanding scale. “It’s not just a few people, it’s many” is a vague statement. What is many? Compared to what? “Almost 500 THOUSAND cases of cholera were reported last year!! Half a million people!! It’s going to kill us all!!” Yeah, but that’s 0.0000625% of humans. More than twice that many people die from accidents while playing sports for recreation. It doesn’t mean we don’t help people with cholera, and it doesn’t mean we ban sports globally; to use that as an example of a greater issue is just disingenuous or ignorant.

“Many” doesn’t mean most, it doesn’t even mean a considerable percentage. Many could just as easily be an insignificant percentage.

I like your question! To me it starts with a real apology without excuses. Real apologies are generally short and put one in a vulnerable situation, like

“I’m sorry for spreading these lies, they aren’t true and I did it from a place of ignorance”

No “I didn’t mean to,” no “I’m not racist, I’m mixed,” and so on.

She’s not expressing remorse, she’s selfishly scared for herself.

Remorse requires accountability, not excuses and projection.

She made a racist, hateful, hearsay statement and now that it might affect her she says she can’t be hateful because she’s “gay and biracial.” That’s the definition of dodging accountability.

Because they have Air Conditioning.

The thing they should have had for the last 40 years. With record breaking heat year after year it should be hazard pay without ac

It’s a common thing in many countries. It’s, among other things, a liability issue.

If your “country #1” company does business in “country #2” then what laws apply to them?

In order to distinguish clear lines what “country #2” requires is a representative for the company to be in the country. If the company breaks “country #2”'s laws then the representative is liable for it.

Generally to be a representative you have to have a measurable stake in the transaction, you can’t just be a random Jimbo, so it usually falls to a law firm (or an entity that works with one), mainly because if you need people to help your company follow the law, then they should know the law.

If the company breaks the law, the firm has to deal with that, so it’s a risk for them.

In this case, X needed that representative, either they couldn’t or wouldn’t find one, therefore Brazil said “we can’t hold you accountable to our laws, so get out of our country.”

I’m super, MEGA, oversimplifying, and I’m no expert, but this is my best understanding.

They require a representative in order to establish a chain of responsibility that deals with crime, censorship, social health (lol), public relations, etc.

It does come down to a combination of size, influence, services rendered, and other factors.

He could put a random kid in charge but it would make it worse, like putting a busboy in a chef’s hat during Rush hour.

I mean, you’re being facetious, but no, the law being “your company must have a legal representative to be within our borders”

X was told about it, given a deadline, they missed the deadline, they can’t be in Brazil

Actions have consequences

Because they broke the law.

Censorship isn’t the same as consequences.

It’s more that they have weaker muscles so they come pretenderized.

Elon’s companies have had financial trends that ebb and flow with the whims of the influence of their owner, intended and otherwise, the correlation is:

They have the same owner.