I call this comment, the “58008’s Wild Ride”

It’s better, because here the underlying pacing isn’t left ruined after the removal.

Removing the laugh track leaves behind (hilariously) awkward gaps.

I mean, they didn’t bother you guys.

The guy was just cold, and the gal had a personal moment. Not their fault, that you two little kids were scared of strangers.

Kidding aside, and assuming what you’ve written is neither internet-talk nor standard schizophrenia tendencies, it might be carbon monoxide poisoning. It was a phenomenon, with haunted houses very often just having faulty heaters of some kind, causing hallucinations in the right doses.

Holy shit this was good

No longer a mathematical problem, but determine the largest piece that can be removed, before it becomes apparent to onlookers that the leftover pizza has been tampered with.

Remember the premise, cheating is lying about the situation, and acting on those needs without consent.

There is no world where that is healthier than whatever mutual agreement the couple could end up in, after honestly sharing their situation.

If the care for the needs of the child is real and actually shared between the parents, anything ranging from a sexually open marriage, to a divorce with uninterrupted coparenting, is leagues better than pretending you want to be there while actually both having a bad time around your child’s other parent, and constantly lying.

If you don’t care about a relationship, the other person still might, and them being hurt should matter to you.

End the relationship since you don’t care about it anyways, to let the other person move on with the least lies and sense of betrayal, and then fuck everyone you wish.

Cheating isn’t a way to end a relationship, cheating is lying in order to keep it longer.

The Deep Texts… As Ancient as they are Powerful.

I see. Well, if I take what you’re saying as fully correct, then it sounds like communism compared to anarchism, is just “a different path for how we reach the same utopia”.

And this different path passes through more authority (quantity and quality), through the existence and emphasis of the state.

How much authority, is probably what makes the spectrum of Anarchy to Stalin-Lenin.

And well… As an anarchist, deafboy’s comment might be polemic, but I get it. Any authority that can, will get corrupted.

What makes this thing you’re describing, not anarchism?

I think you’re thinking of anarchocommunism specifically. Which is “not all communism”™.

State-based communism is a thing, that many people usually called tankies by others, do believe in.

The breeding kink option

uBlock Origin -Iceberg edition-

I’m about 101% sure it’s possible, ±1.1%

That’s year round.

You should see my post then

Now I’m thinking of titty pump-action milk-shooting, but the Action Movie pump-action kind

How dare you

Wait. Do they? Where is the video? So they I can independently verify your claim.

I’m getting the sense that you didn’t actually watch the whole video, because your only two points in this comment,

In the absence of IP laws, creatives would be able to create their works, but they’d also be competing against companies that have the resources to monetize, influence the general public, and kill the franchise through poor choices.

And

It’s really important to know that the vast majority of people aren’t going to have the goodwill to tip or otherwise support free works, and it’s even less likely if a large company does enough marketing to overshadow an artist.

, are answered during the video, and I don’t see you arguing the points made by him, you’re just straight up stating the opposite.

And your first point,

Right now, a majority of creatives don’t own their IP in the legal sense, and they can’t stop large companies from milking their works dry as a result.

, is about how the current system doesn’t work to protect actual artists, yet does work to protect large IP-pimping companies.

“Reasonable control” is only possible in the legal sense, not the real sense, so I doubt artists care about it, outside of monetisation, which is what we’re attempting to replace.

Right now as we are speaking, the art of thousands upon thousands of those creators is being stolen constantly by legally gray AI scraping by huge companies, or illegally by smaller merch leeches.

The internet makes data protection impossible.

The law, only prevents the most egregious kinds of ‘monetisation with someone else’s art’, and is unable to stop the rest, for practical reasons.

If artists didn’t have to worry about being compensated enough… Would they still want to have “reasonable control”? Would we still “risk” them being “demotivated”, from being unable to forbid others specifically from making money with their ideas?

I think the human drive to create isn’t that neurotic. I think this kind of “demotivation” only happens for the kind of human who has been abused for years by the rules of the absurd economy we live in. And that’s what we’re saying should change.