Well maybe. But I think you're not understanding how caring works. It's easy to not care if you don't even think about the humanity and life of the person you're affecting. Having something like this can easily cause someone who never thought about their victim to suddenly do so.
It doesn't always work, but it's useful to understand that not all criminals are hardened. If you go down that road you end up with the US justice system.
But I don't really need to, now...
Anyone who believes you’re going to shut Steve Crowder up by calling him a hypocrite is an even bigger sucker.
But you might be able to convince someone who didn't know already that he's a garbage person. Like me - I'd never heard of him.
Because you were neutered as a kitten!
This is very disappointing
They could have called it Timey McTimeFace...
Actually Frankenstein is the Bell; the clock tower is called Mary Shelley.
Or something.
From etymonline:
The slang sense of "hit, sock" is 1941, originally Australian, probably from earlier slang clock (n.) "face" (1923).
So probably not.
It's a pretty safe bet that whoever came up with the term "clock" (the part of an electronic circuit) and "clock rate" (the rate it ticks at) had in mind the current common meaning of "clock", not an obsolete meaning.
Tracking via cookies means gathering personal data, the exact thing GDPR regulates. GDPR says that data must not be collected except on one of a few lawful bases, one of which is consent. Article 7 clause 4 of the GDPR says:
When assessing whether consent is freely given, utmost account shall be taken of whether [...] the provision of a service, is conditional on consent to the processing of personal data that is not necessary for the performance of that contract.
to me this reads like: "consent does not count if you need to agree in order to access a service" and that they imagined consent as being, "yes, you can have my personal data to serve me personalised ads, because I'd rather have personalised ads than generic ones," which some people (probably not many here!) do think. However, it's only expressed as "account shall be taken" when determining whether consent was "freely given" and the lawful basis does not specify that consent must be "freely given," which is where I imagine these kinds of gaps creep in.
Gdpr seemed like it was designed to ban this, but lately companies (especially German ones?) seem to be trying this. I guess it won't be resolved without a big, slow, expensive court case.
Because it's specific types of strength that are part of traditional masculinity, not any and all types.
These things are mostly arbitrary, right? There doesn't have to be some simple, overarching principle. Masculinity can be any combination of things, no matter how difficult it is to summarise them.
I also think though that there's a real desire amongst progressives to find "contradictions" to "prove" that is bullshit. So they imagine that this guy who said that something is not manly is "afraid of his own shadow" when they have no reason to believe that. He's probably incredibly confident in his masculinity but he also believes that masculinity is something worth "enforcing".
We haven't seen him worry that he might not meet the standard, only be part of enforcing it. It's pretty silly to think that the latter implies the former