papertowels

I just down fistfuls of Costco lactaid, lol

A dude was quitting magic the gathering cuz he played it with his ex. Bought his collection. Found a non-precious metal wedding band. I don't know where it is now, perhaps it rolled it's way to smeagol.

If it's easier to reason with third party voters than trump voters, it seems like the logical thing to do.

EDIT: also worth pointing out the difference between "attacking" trump voters as individuals, because they have proven themselves to truly be deplorable, and "attacking" third party voting as a decision.

Not quite your ask, but there's a Japanese dub floating around somewhere....There are a few links in the comments.

Unfortunately boomhauer didn't carry over well.

If you'd like to give it a shot, I've found bocchi the rock to be a wonderful story about an introverted high schooler looking to join a band to meet people that has pretty much no sexualization at all.

Do you prefer the dub or sub of propane genesis evangelion?

God, the custom tailored ideal American healthcare system, you're right but I hate it lol

The fucking bugs under the skin.

I was going to say, there were definitely horny games but you wouldn't talk about them in the open.

Honestly genshin and honkai aren't even that bad. You want a bad one, look at nikke. Ass and titties jiggle physics: the game.

And still refuse to address the core issue, which is the lack of moderation and policing of content creating the essential need for adblockers in the first place.

You are voluntarily consuming content that the content creators agreed to have the ads for. You can just not consume that content.

Why won't they think of the content creators?

For the upteenth time, they probably are thinking of them because the content creators agreed to have them as a revenue stream.

You're acting like content creators are completely removed from this. guess who pays them? generally speaking, not you. It's the big bad ad companies. Why? BECAUSE THEY HAVE AN AGREEMENT.

Especially in a world where far better alternatives (like merch and patreon type sites) exists to give them money, directly, without having to deal with advertising hellscapes.

Great! Consume your content from those places! I'm in the patreons for a few podcasts myself for the ad-free versions.

Be smart, use an ad blocker for your sanity, but at least acknowledge that you are likely at least a tiny bit cutting into a revenue stream that the creators utilize. Again, no guilt trip here, I've ran pi hole instances myself. In fact some folks definitely encourage their base to use ad blockers on their content, I believe Louis Rossman is one of them. But I don't delude myself into thinking this is their fault. That is truly some "LOOK AT WHAT YOU MADE ME DO!" reasoning.

After all of this, do you see why it can be comparable to piracy? Because content creators agreed to have it as part of their revenue stream to be served alongside the content, so having it blocked cuts into that revenue stream.

I'm not asking you to change behaviors. It just feels like I'm talking to a wall. Do you disagree with anything the previous paragraph?

After all of this, do you see why it can be comparable to piracy? Because content creators agreed to have it as part of their revenue stream to be served alongside the content, so having it blocked cuts into that revenue stream.

EDIT: so optimistically, it takes two parties to have poor communication. So I'm going to try and clear things up.

I am NOT arguing that users have to be subjected to ads.

I am arguing that content providers serve ads as a revenue stream, and blocking that cuts into that revenue stream. Boo hoo, I'll do it anyways and probably support them in other ways, like subscribing to them, buying their merch, sharing their articles or songs, etc.

But I'm saying I understand why, from a content provider/creators standpoint, being deprived of that revenue stream that I intended to be served alongside my content, is comparable to piracy. Because as the content creator I agreed to financially benefit from ads being served alongside my content, and instead content is being consumed without that financial kickback.

You're missing my point - the creators of the content you voluntarily consume have an agreement with advertising companies, under which they get financial compensation when people view the ads.

Therefore, when you use an ad blocker, you are depriving them of that expected financial compensation.

This is why it can be comparable to piracy. You are voluntarily consuming content while depriving the content creators of an intended revenue stream.

Do you have any criticism against that line of reasoning, or are you just going to try and criticize me instead?

Do you agree that "What the advertising companies have done" was in agreement with the providers of the content you're consuming?

Meaning, the providers of the content you're consuming intended for the advertising to be a revenue stream?

Meaning it's not "the big bad advertisers" - it's really the providers of the content you're voluntarily consuming who you're trying to frame as the bad guys?