nanana

insatiableholeinTO makes a great point about Bill Gates and RFK. I guess the rubric is that billionaires can manufacture reality but multi-millionaires can’t afford it. It’s probably more profitable to suck up to Bill Gates than to RFK Jr.

I’m Episcopalian. We have high church and gay bishops to boot, though the Arch Bishop of Canterbury struggles to keep those of different moral views under one tent.

It's definitely not deep knowledge on my part, I had never heard of him. The quotes from the NYTimes say he expressed disappointment that some Western media held "sympathy for beliefs and practices that are at odds with the gospel," in particular, the "homosexual lifestyle" and "alternative families comprised of same-sex partners and their adopted children." Prevost also opposed a government plan in Peru to add gender studies instruction in classrooms, telling local media "The promotion of gender ideology is confusing, because it seeks to create genders that don’t exist." But it is a first impression. Often people exhibit many dimensions, and it is very hard to summarize an entire future-life from past actions. I am personally more concerned not about his beliefs but about how he puts them into action; hoping non-violence/tolerance will inform his actions. The NYTimes has been wrong before... Here's his twitter feed if folks wish to do more research:

The first American Pope Leone XIV (was Robert Francis Cardinal Prevost from Chicago) is described as a fierce opponent of same-sex marriage and gender studies in classrooms. "Peace be with all of you!" - the first words of the 267th Bishop of Rome. Sounds as if he has taken actions against these things he doesn't like rather than co-existing. And the wheels of the Popemobile turn like lady fortune.... I am not Catholic but did appreciate Pope Francis' ability to co-exist even if he didn't approve of things, even pursue reconciliation and love.

@TT2025 I respectfully disagree that this applies to conservatism in general, think it is maybe true for social and religious conservatives but not as much for economic and libertarian conservatives. I would also say that as a non-liberal in a very liberal city and with many liberal friends, I find them very likely to make very oppressively uncurious assumptions that everyone agrees with them because they are of course right about everything. I am not completely sure how you are using the term "oppressive," so you may not agree that this kind of environment is oppressive. There were many liberal regimes in the Middle East that imposed a more western liberal morality (women's rights, etc.) on a much more conservative population that I think could count as dictatorships, e.g., Algeria, Afghanistan, etc. I think it is highly human not to have a universal stream of empathy, but liberals are frequently characterized as leaning towards universal values and conservatives are frequently characterized as having more immediate values. (It is very hard to generalize about these topics since the cohorts are SO big and build off of local histories and issues.)

@harrysmith25 since I first wrote, I revisited the Biden admin and have to concede how quickly I forgot the demented things he’d say, the babies he’d sniff, and the puttering on stage that he did, so concede your point about the weirdness

I am not following the “weird” part exactly, but I think you have a great point harrysmith25. I think most gay politics underestimates sound ECONOMICS as the real liberator for anyone not in the majority. Bidenomics with its massive inflation put everyone back into pie-shrinking mentality and less broad minded. Whatever its merits, woke culture struck a lot of people as imposing fantasies and delusions on others who wanted no part of it. It’s not surprising there was a backlash.

I found this to be counterintuitive thus interesting. However, it does fit with my empirical experience. There are vast differences within the cohorts but in this current era liberals seem to be more likely to get mad when people don’t take their simple worldviews at face value, and conservatives are more likely to think of liberals as well-meaning but naive, and maybe a bit loose with other people’s money. However, these qualities I mentioned can manifest in both conservatives and liberals, with a cohort of conservatives having simple dogmatic views, and many liberals having the ability to live in a complex real world where slogans don’t always work. I like the point that a higher % of Democrats think the Republicans have done harm than % Republicans who think the Democrats have done harm. I have some additions: 1) I hypothesize that a higher % of liberals think people are fundamentally good and thus find it harder to deal with people who may fail this standard in their eyes, whereas conservatives may have a higher percentage of people who see human nature as flawed so expect less perfection; 3) in my experience SLIGHTLY more liberals than conservatives take their party leaders’ speeches at face value and don’t research whether the actions match; 4) more liberals seem to take media at face value and be less aware of how propagandized they are than conservatives (who are equally propagandized but have had more recent upsets with the propaganda stream); 5) liberals seem to measure their empathic muscle by finding the person least like them and turning them into a symbolic test of empathy, whereas conservatives seem to measure their empathic muscle against the majority, their families, etc. Do others find this study counterintuitive? Any other hypotheses? Do you find the study convincing?

[think before following links] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/01461672231198001

@harrysmith25 maybe they will eventually realize what a gift diversity of thought is. In the meantime us twats still risk swimming the waters…

I’m from the southern part of east coast America. Southerners are less direct than gods own truth than northeasterners (was so excited to meet northeasterners who could both hold truthfulness and love in their hearts). But Southerners who wish to be real have a nice communication technology for saying both truth and expressing compassion: no ed cure worked for him not cialis not viagra not horny goat weed BLESS HIS HEART (the technology part of it being to affix BLESS HIS HEART to the less-than-uplifting insight, taking the word “technology” back to a synchronicity of the invention of the abacus. It was a nice way to express reality and compassion and a wish that we are all in gods hands but a suspicion that god would give some but not all of us handjobs. Before we give up on this site we should fuck an incel.

I think You have a point Rillion. Does your point apply to other social media platforms or are you asserting that X is unique in that respect?

If you're into latex, just get a body suit with holes designed in for your mouth, your cock, and your ass. Fuck condoms. The only really good condom is a human condom with its own reservoir deep in its guts.

@SDCumPup since you are able to form this opinion it implies that you DO know how to read or understand scientific reports. If you’d be willing to show us an example of how RFK Jr misinterpreted a report and how you could correctly interpret it, your insight would rise above the level of an ad hominem attack, which is a rhetorical approach people use when they put down the person without addressing the substance of the argument. Since is painfully obvious to you, would you be willing to give an example? It would be helpful for those of us for whom it’s not as obvious. Thanks in advance, NaNaNa

What are your thoughts about this quote. Does it resonate? Does it repel? Does it partly resonate and partly repel? Is truth “nice”? Is “nice” truth?

You do realize that X is a billion people with diverse worldviews? I’m having a hard time understanding how you’d distrust X sort of like distrusting that your email didn’t change a’s into e’s. Can you help me understand how you’d distrust something as transparent as e-mail? Agree that many of the billion with X accounts might not be trustworthy but it feels like drowned baby in bathwater.

I don’t dislike this point… AND another observable quality is that he seems to TIMEBOX his campaigns and MOVE ON when no quick win emerges.

I never listen to Fox. Here are some references to the ActBlue controversy: [think before following links] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/potential-actblue-criminal-charges-over-possible-fraud-donations-once-again-reveal-the-dems-fraud-campaign/ar-AA1qQv0D; [think before following links] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/05/us/politics/actblue-democrat-fundraising-resignations.html?searchResultPosition=1;[think before following links] https://www.iowaattorneygeneral.gov/newsroom/attorney-general-bird-demands-proof-from-actblue-over-concerns-of-illegal-donations-that-may-influen; [think before following links] https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/04/breaking-exclusive-corrupt-and-criminal-democrat-party-receives-half-its-donations-from-unemployed-who-are-likely-elderly-voters-whose-identities-are-stolen-wheres-the-money-really-coming-from/ ; [think before following links] https://www.zerohedge.com/political/actblue-tightens-donation-security-requirements-amid-investigations; I think you have a great point though PozBearWI in that people of different political persuasions find it difficult to stomach the editorial styles and spins from various sources of reporting and typically gravitate to sources that OMIT coverage of news unfavorable to their readers' worldview. I think this is true of ANY partisan editorial board, from the New York Times, NPR and the US AID-Funded Politico to FOX, Wall Street Journal and the Gateway Pundit. Both major parties' partisans miss out on a balanced view of the truth. Despite my best efforts, after seeing so many omissions from liberal leaning sources, I am more likely to get into the non-liberal sources, but to your point PosBearWI, that puts me at risk of being pulled into a bubble. I think I am as subject to anyone else is to propaganda and failing to kick the tires of a source. To help me combat that, I try to go to the sources of information to see whether my interpretation is the same as or similar to the reporter's interpretation or the editorial source's information. Frankly, that takes a FUCKLOAD of time, so I certainly don't blame people if they accept things at face value from a trusted source just to protect their time commitment. I also try to read a diversity of sources and hopefully to find contradictory viewpoints to help me asses and triangulate the truth value of what I am hearing or reading. I also assess how much "data" is being presented as opposed to how much "assertion" is happening in the article. Most "objective" and even "partisan" sources find it difficult to avoid all assertion, and all get a different percentage of data versus assertions in the mix. I try to assess the logic of the article. I also try to "follow the money" to try to get a sense of who may be benefiting from the spin, the omission, or the focus. It's definitely a messy world. I don't begrudge people coming to different conclusions than I do and placing different truth value on different sources. PozBearWI, whatever conclusion you come to about ActBlue, I don't get the sense from your question to me "@nanana reading your reply above has me thinking maybe fox is all you listen to?" that you were even aware that ActBlue was being investigated, which makes me think you rely on sources that limit your access to full information. So, what sources do you rely on to get your complete picture? (I ask respectfully and not to win an argument. It would not make me happy @PozBearWI to impose a worldview on you...).

Not probably too surprisingly, I have a different view of this. While I share some of the folks’ concerns about what I think Trump’s unconstitutional actions against free speech (e.g., deporting “anti-Zionists”), I would consider the ActBlue fraud, the almost treasonous efforts by Democrat superdelegates and Nina Jankowicz to encourage Europe to shut down free speech via the Digital Services Act, and the self-enrichment of Democratic leaders and their families on a par with any accusations the Democrats make about Republicans. In one aspect, I recognize the Democratic Party that huntnhole describes, but only in the ideals it espouses and not in its actual performance, which is appallingly corrupt. I look forward to the day when Democrats are able to mount an honest critique of their ugly baby.

There is no pain. Pain is just weakness leaving the body.

Greetings fellow barebackers: I remember seeing a video about global contest to take the most loads, the World's Hungriest Cumhole Contest, sponsored by Bareback Jack. I think there was an intention to turn it into an annual event, sort of like the Westminster Kennel Club's Annual Dog Show, but somehow I think this never happened. Does anyone know of any organizations that sponsor cumhole contests or similar competitions? Thanks in advance for your domain knowledge. Best, NaNaNa

Okay so am I the only faggot who thought he had a great ass?

Nice to hear your views SDCumPup. What you just described though is a legalistic interpretation that would bind future generations slavishly to some past decision. I personally am not bound to some past decision just because some dead or superannuated person forgot to add a clause. Thank goodness Senator Johnson is sponsoring an inquiry into 911 Truth.

Oops maybe I’ll get suspended.

Nixon was set up by Deep State operatives because he was going soft on Viet Nam and China.