You misunderstand. Femboys are people who were born with penises.
You misunderstand. Femboys are people who were born with penises.
No, a femboy is a feminine boy. They usually crossdress or at least dress androginously. They don’t necessarily want to transition or take HRT (although this one does).
I’ve heard it called being “homelessexual”
Vertical tabs? I’ve been using an extension for that so I didn’t even notice. Is that already on the main release or still on the nightlies?
Sorry for asking here but a DDG search just turns out a bunch of pages telling you how to get them with extensions, which I already do.
privacy these days is really hard to achieve
Which is exactly why claims like this should be backed with evidence.
Unsourced claims like this do absolutely no good to anyone, ever. Which means that either right before typing this comment, you though to yourself “time to be a bad person for no good reason” or you’re a shill for some surveillance agency with an interest in scaring people away from privacy enhancing solutions.
This woman is clearly a plastic surgery addict. I am 100% positive that she looked a lot better before the last 30 or 40 interventions.
That’s very different. Wikipedia doesn’t allow people to edit their own pages. They don’t have rules against linking to interviews with persons involved in an event, for example.
But if you read a primary source, that’s one persom who had the opportunity to make stuff up. With a secondary source, even if the primary it’s based on is legit, there’s some other guy who wasn’t there and may either be lying to you or misinterpreting the primary source his report is based on. Each new level of isolation adds another opportunity to stack both lies and mistakes onto the data.
It’s not that you can’t go wrong with primary sources. It’s that you can go a lot wronger without them.
No fun allowed.
Nah, my writing is sigma.
Seriously Indisputably Gross Mistyped and Absurd
Yes, you did answer my question very well especially with the part about cyclical history. I will watch the resources you linked to in both comments. Again, I am very thankful that you took the time to answer me so thoroughly.
After I’ve done some studying, would you mind if I maybe DM’d you?
Thank you so much for taking the time to write this comment, and for being so nice about it too. In this polarized political climate, it’s quite refreshing to find someone who holds “extreme” views and who is still willing to educate rather than butt heads.
Can I ask a follow-up question? Reading your comment an immediate concern that came up was with complacency. The system you described seems to rely very heavily on nobody being an idiot (in the original Greek sense of the word, someone who isn’t interested in matters of the city-state) but in reality, a lot of people are. What if a few generations into an anarcho-syndicalist utopia, a group of people decide to elect a representative in a broad sense, informally of course, because they trust him and it’s easier this way and they can focus on other things? And then another group likes the idea, and another, and these representatives end up scheming amongst themselves…
I think where I’m going is that the structure doesn’t seem rigid. That can be a very good thing for several reasons, but it can also be bad in that it seems (again, to my uninformed self) to not be very resilient against erosion.
I hope you’ll notice that I am absolutely on board with the abolishment of impositional hierarchies. Both concerns I’ve expressed have to do with how the system would stay alive rather than with what it sets out to accomplish.
Thanks again for taking time out of your Sunday to educate a total stranger.
It becomes its own thing. Like if you hear the word “truther” out of context you wouldn’t be blamed for thinking that it refers to someone who takes the truth very seriously. But in the context if a “9/11 truther” it means the opposite: someone who is completely dissociated from reality.
When a movement adopts a word as its name, it’s like the word splits in two: one with the original meaning and one which refers to the group and means whatever that group stands for. Which one becomes dominant basically depends on what version the mainstream media uses more often. It’s a zeitgeist thing.
I am not the guy you responded to but I am interested.
Because in my ignorant head, the big problem with anarchy (I use the word broadly to mean “a lack of government” mostly because I don’t know any better) is: what’s stopping an ill-intentioned mob from making itself a de facto government little by little through coercion when people can’t resort to a system that concentrates and organizes the otherwise sparse powers of society that want to uphold the state of anarchy? It’s like you’d need a government to ensure that there’s no government, which is clearly absurd.
I was thinking more along the lines of “everybody uses more soap than they, specifically, need to”. We’re taught to completely remove the outer layers, wven exfoliating the skin in some cases. That’s too much regardless of where your starting level was.
Using too much soap dries your skin. So then you moisturize to make up for it, increasing consumption and pollution when just using less soap would accomplish the same thing without the drawbacks.
If you’ve never watched the movie 12 Angry Men, do yourself a favor and watch it. You are going to love it and it has everything to do with your comment.
You may not object but that’s not how the word is commonly used. Anyone can call themselves anything, but for words to have any meaning we need to have a gentleman’s agreement about when and how to use them, which is basically what a language is.
Anyway, I’m just explaining the word’s conventional meaning. I have no interest in arguing with you as if I were some kind of linguistic prescriptivist.