Search Results: answering questions on the site

I've lurked here as a user and as a visitor since about the 2014-2016 era. I get bored easily you see. Howe we due to also life's distractions, I'm actually about to turn 30 and I feel im personally too old for the demographic of this site, particularly the dating, relationships and sexuality categories on GAG. Will you miss me from this site as a "veteran" of GAG? I for one will just be going onto other hobbies and other commitments in the real world. I just don't have the spare time for GAG or the interest lol, im too old. Happily by choice at 29 and a 3/4, almost 30.

like on GAG, do you give BS answers to questions... so that the data on this site could not be used to train a neural network to replace humans?

If someone walks into a store, and looks at you, and then looks down at your hands, or your pants, they are probably checking you out

If someone of the opposite gender, like a friend or associate, sees another person of the opposite sex of you, and says ''he/she is cute, you should talk or go for her", that means the person that said it, probably thinks your cute too, but isn't interested on you like that

If someone of the opposite gender mentions to you, that they are texting someone of the same sex as you, or they openly tell you, that so-so can "get it", they aren't interested in you, or they don't think you're interested in them

If someone of the opposite gender has you on Instagram, or Snapchat, and you respond to their stories, and they usually don't get back to you, until 2 hours later, every once in a while they aren't on those sites, and don't get back to you, for a day or two, but they respond every time, most of time in detail, but occasional 3 word answers, they will compliment you from time to time, and respond to your stories once in a while, but they don't ask you questions, but they watch your stories often, it means they only like you as a friend

I just figure that they think it's important enough to ask again, especially if they only got a few answers before

I've been saying for a while, especially on this site, that the concept of "BLM leadership" is something that exists pretty much entirely in right wing media. And even floated the idea that "BLM leadership" was actually plants, propped up by right wing billionaires to be the 'animated strawman' they need for their narrative. Turns out that weird theory is likely.

I suppose it makes sense. If a casual observer such as myself can think of it then surely professional think tanks could come up with it. And as they are backed by billionaires, if it is a strategy that can be funded, the question is not if it could be done but why wouldn't they do it? And the only answers that makes any sense are variations of "because it wouldn't work." But looking around it's hard not to notice the lurch to the right in our media, both social and mainstream, despite that same media telling us it actually moved to the left (another strategy that worked). So, something the right wing billionaires wanted has been delivered and any retrospective explanation anyone can come up with likely occurred as long as it would actually work, with preference possibly given to the more cost effective ideas, however that might be measured. Propping up a few "blm leaders" almost no one on the left cared to know about is certainly within the power of the far right.

So, yes, the christian nationalists have been at this for a while and are very close to solidifying their power permanently.

Or No, at some point christian nationalism will require work to no longer take place behind the scenes and when people see it the christian-nationalists-owned media saying that isn't what they are seeing won't be enough (even though they already accomplished that once by telling people 1/6 was a peaceful protest and not an attempt at civil war).

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/reclaiming-narratives-black-lives-matter-founder-mark-fisher-s-controversial-shift-from-blm-leadership-to-trump-endorsement/ss-AA1iVHq4