Search Results: standards

A tall good looking man liking many women who are shorter is biologically recognized as normal, but is it true that without societal conditioning, most women would assume that a tall handsome man generally finds women who are not so much shorter to be attractive, often assuming they find more women who are standard height attractive?

Unrealistic Beauty Standards and Self-Image, Increased Pressure and Comparison, Sekshualization and Harassment, Entitlement shorts like "men must this and that" and "you're enough" and narcissism, Mental Health Impact, Girls and women requiring me to have social media or they stop talking and lose all interest, Social Media addiction and obsession over likes and follows and relationship statuses and postings, self-ending for not achieving sufficient likes.

Yep. Girls and women - in my point of view - will never be the same as before social media first emerged. Thanks Zuck Ew Yuck. Real helpful (but money & user data).

Andrew Tate has mentioned, that girls are wasting all of their time on social media several times here (from 6:03 - 6:21) and here (4:04 - 4:36). Mind, that the type of girls he has chosen don't work. In a picture below is portrayed Andrew Tate talking business (shirtless because he can) while a girl sits next to him and is glued to her phone.

Not sure what everyone else is seeing in their grocery stores around the country, but where I am it seems like thick cut bacon is now the standard for all bacon, in just about every store. Like it used to be that you could get regular thinner sliced, but I only seem to find thick cut even with Smithfield. Anybody else noticing this?

FYI The "American Forces Network" online will show you what's playing worldwide if you want to see for yourself.

Now, first I realize it's VITALLY IMPORTANT that troops get news from home - it makes them less homesick and provides a sense of normalcy when you hear the Yankees collapsed in 5 games (Let's Go Mets)!

But should they be getting news from a network where the following happened:

"The hosts “have open access to spread their conspiracy theories to US troops,” VoteVet states. “And now we know they knew they were lies — just to boost their ratings in referencing Fox settlement of the Dominion Voting lawsuit of libel $800K for their "knowingly false claims".

In fact, Fox Broadcasting Company, LLC is a USA commercial broadcast television network owned by the Fox Entertainment division of Fox Corporation. As such, it avoids the stricter standards required of other journalism outlets.

In fact, during the lawsuit Fox Attorneys stated in the record:

The 'general tenor' of the show should inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "

The Trump appointed judge then states: "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."

She added, "Whether the Court frames Mr. Carlson's statements as 'exaggeration,' 'non-literal commentary,' or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion remains the same — the statements are not actionable as they are entertainment.

The decision specifically references Fox News prime-time hosts Laura Ingraham, Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity, each of whom was accused in recent court filings of knowingly spreading Donald Trump's false claims of 2020 election fraud.

So, should troops be watching "entertainment" as news? Purveyors of false claims, lies, misinfo & disinfo per the courts?