I enjoy making porn.

We all sell our bodies, the entire working class. We sell our potential relationships, our potential health, our knees and our backs. It is not different to sell your cock.

We all have fundamentally the same stupid monkey brain. Given a novel problem, we usually all make the same stupid mistakes. But it only takes a tiny factor of divergence for each of us to evolve into a totally unique system.

I’m fond of dulse but it’s an acquired taste. Certainly tastes of the sea.

It sounds like you think these people are homeless because they are addicts, but it is the other way around. Taking fent or even becoming addicted won’t turn you into a homeless person living in hell.

The coral all died.

I found Wab’s comments really disappointing. He sounded like a typical rural Ontario voter, buying the bullshit.

I could have used a lot less public support from Kinew regarding Ford spending $70+ million dollars of Ontario tax payer dollars to place ads on US television. Otherwise, though.

Obligatory gifts are never cool.

Nah. When people use medical terminology to stigmatize and dehumanize people, they are using words wrong. When people use the word for a class of person as an insult, they are using words wrong. When people speak in bad faith, they are using words wrong.

If Tarantino is the exemplar of what you want from your media figures, fuck that shit. Anyway, you act like there are not reasons people act with professionalism and courtesy for their colleagues. Slagging each other in the press is not in their best interests and I again wonder why that would appeal to you.

Please don’t talk at me. You’re not really addressing or engaging with what I said. You have a point to make that’s got nothing to do with me, take it to the top level.

Why? This feels more like an unexamined emotional need than a practical one.

I would punch that guy right in the dick.

Self-reflection and critical thinking are almost always defeated by social conformance among healthy well-adjusted humans. For a social animal, it is more important to agree with the group than to be objectively correct.

1. That’s a revisionist view of China’s labour history. There have been many examples where the glorious leadership did NOT find meaningful employment for its workers.
   The Chinese government sees their citizens as a means, not an end. If it works out better to let people starve homeless, people will shiver in the rain. If it’s cheaper to use slaves, they will use slaves. If it’s cheaper to let people die, people will die. If they don’t anticipate the need for human labour in the future and there are a billion extra mouths to feed, a billion people will die.

2. China has some of the worst domestic environmental damage in the world. To their credit, they also have some of the best environmental remediation, but it’s still selling out the future of everyone on the planet.

3. I’m not the one holding out exploitation as prosperity, so I do not have to defend the actions of other exploitative environments. By your own logic, they should be viewed strictly in terms of their prosperity, so obviously you think things in Germany and the USA are just peachy.
   But I would note that in Germany and the USA, corporations are independent of the state and the state is not directly benefiting from that exploitation to the same degree – merely enabling it through legislative capture. But that is not a thing in China because the Chinese government is effectively entirely captured, being effectively the same entity as all the major Chinese corporations.

You just conceded the argument right there. Your purpose here isn’t to promote China and make people think it’s good, it’s to merely create doubt about the subject. That’s all the wiggle that is needed.

But really, it’s sold in every supermarket, right next to the spring water, in an almost identical package, with no warnings. I infer people are not dropping dead left and right.

Nah, I just process it with my mighty system of organs.