You can buy a raspberry pi and have Pihole setup on it. It’ll act as your local dns server and block any ad domains for the whole household.

There’s no problem with that. It’s clear based on your responses that you’re just trying to understand it and wrap your mind around it. Just thought to give you a heads up about the term in case you start using it or something.

I see where you’re coming from. Just keep in mind that the original intent of the group has been stolen a long time ago, something like 10 years ago at this point. At this point these people aren’t a sub-group of incels. They’ve completely co-opted the term and rebranded the incel term. Anyone who was originally incel for the right reasons has run off so far away from this term they might as well be in another planet. And I don’t blame them, who wants to be lumped into misogynistic assholes who fantasize about killing and raping women as well as underage girls simply because they think they’re entitled to sex?

It started off as people who are involuntarily celibate due to unfortunate circumstances. It ended up being co-opted by individuals incapable of self-reflection and self-improvement to understand that their celibacy is entirely based on their lack of hygiene and attitude towards women. They would rather blame the world for their problems instead of owning up to them and making positive changes in their lives.

Does identifying as an incel automatically come with those negative beliefs around gender and society, or should those two have separate terms?

Absolutely, yes. Incel culture is one of misogyny and sexism. People identifying as incels are typically the ones who blame women for not wanting to have sex with them while doing nothing to make women actually want to have sex with them.

My advice to you OP is stay far away from individuals and communities identifying as incel or pro-incel.

Except my comment wasn’t regarded the California DoJ. It was regarding Kamala Harris. She spearheaded the initiative to take down the site. She talked about it and used it as a talking point on how tough she is on human trafficking. Except, what actions did she actually take on human trafficker’s? Why go for the platform that is easily replaceable and not the actual people perpetrating it? All she ended up doing was creating an environment that is less safe for sex workers and victims of human trafficking.

There has been one temporary ceasefire with hostage releases.

And there have also been instances of Netanyahu sabotaging getting hostages released as well.

Also remember the recent ceasefire for vaccinations.

You mean for polio right? The disease that started spreading because of Israel’s commitment to depriving children of basic human rights like clean water and healthcare, right? The same ceasefire where Israel has been reported not allowing vaccinators to enter right?

There are a string of other events that happened because of successful diplomacy.

And there’s a longer string of events of unsuccesful diplomacy on the Israeli side. I’ll also remind you that this list doesn’t start from October by the way.

Israel’s message to Hamas since the beginning of the war has more or less been: surrender or die.

Israel’s message to the Palestinian people is to simply die. Let’s not confuse what’s actually happening here.

Netanyahu never does anything in good faith. He is all about his personal advantage.

Oh, so you agree he’s untrustworthy?

You’ll be pleased to know that despite your attempt I got someone with that joke :)

What? No, it’s because they’re still alive silly :).

I actually remember learning that no one living in that area could be buried in the cemetery. Fun fact!

You know, instead of going from “Harris did address it” to “Climate change isn’t important”, you could have just said “I didn’t read the article so thanks for pointing out the actual message of the article, here is why I agree/disagree with it”. You know that’s a completely ok thing to say, right?

If it’s enforced it kind of loses it’s charm and appeal, no?

What industry OP?

Completely missed that part where it talks about climate change is a big issue for the majority of voters according to polls, did you? I even quoted it in my comment for you, and you seemed to ignore it again.

Given the events of the past 8 months would you say Netanyahu, and by extension the Israeli government, have been negotiating in good faith and actively trying to end the war?

It’s been brought up in previous debates as well. Again, the article mentions that. The message of the article is how little it gets addressed given how much of an important topic it is for voters. Even if it does get brought up in the debate saying “The amount of time for it as well as the points made were not enough” is still a very valid thing to say and that’s what the article is about.

Persons is used in a more formal context like legal document. People is used in conversations. This is generally speaking of course.

I could be wrong here but it may be that your sister is not laughing at your use of the word since it’s actually correct. it could be she’s laughing at your generalization of “those people” as that can sometimes be seen as condescending or derogatory.

Well if Israel says that then it must be safe for him. …Right?

The article is more of a critique on the political landscape surrounding climate change in America for the past 20 years. It mentions all the presidents since Bush and how the talk has changed but the fact that it’s still not enough. Despite it being a big issue for voters.

But for more than 20 years, the networks running the presidential debates — and the candidates on the debate stages — have decided that climate change is simply not critical enough to voters to warrant substantial attention. Never mind that more than a third of voters in the U.S. say that global warming is “very important” to their vote, or that an additional 25 percent say they would prefer a candidate who supports climate action — to pundits, climate change is an ancillary issue. Very soon, however, this will have to change. Polls show that climate change is a top issue for young voters in particular, and that 85 percent of young voters can be moved to vote based on climate issues.

It does critique her stance on fracking but I consider that fair game since she did vote for it and advocate for it in the debates.

As Kate Aronoff wrote for The New Republic, Harris could have put forward a number of facts about fracking’s failures, rather than wholeheartedly embracing it. Oil and gas companies depend on billions of dollars in annual tax subsidies, for instance, including a massive bailout during the pandemic in 2020. “Fossil fuel companies thought [fracking] was too expensive to be worth doing until the federal government poured billions of dollars’ worth of funding into basic research and tax breaks,” Aronoff wrote. “But leading Democrats, including Harris, seem incapable of talking about the downsides of fossil fuel production.”

This is not a situation in which everyone, including oil and gas companies, can get a slice of the climate solutions pie. Science shows that fossil fuels must be phased out expeditiously for the health of the planet. But the severity of this crisis — and the aggressive action necessary to abate it — is not adequately captured in Harris’s debate response. In fact, her embrace of fracking and her focus on boosting oil and gas development alongside clean energy production is emblematic of one way in which Democrats and past Republicans have historically overlapped on the climate issue.

We’ll know after the election.

It might be that these endorsements help bring in some more moderate Republicans to her side but there’s also a very real possibility that she disincentive the more left leaning voters from voting for her as well. Remember, Hillary lost because she didn’t do enough to incentivize people to vote for her. She just relied on people hating Trump and didn’t rely on people actually liking her. Regardless, this is all conjecture. It’s too early to tell and no one will have a definitive answer until the results are in and a winner is announced.

You’re kind of missing the point of my comment. I wasn’t talking about why didn’t they go after the actual owners. I was talking about why they didn’t go after the human traffickers using the site. The article goes in depth about how it did nothing but make it worse for the people stuck in the situation where they are forced to sell their bodies.