idiot here

[kayla-denker]

Ok, so you don't like TMA/TME. You don't like that its a "harmful binary."

Good! You should hate it!

We do too. That's the whole point. You think we like being subjected to transmisogyny?

The problem is that you are regarding transfeminists, and trans women in general, as if we are the ones who created this situation instead of the transmisogynists who actually created it and are enforcing it. We're just describing it, giving it a name so that we can fight it. If you hate it so much, why are you attacking the women who are trying to end it?

[obviouslyunobservant]

It's really not enforced or conceptualised by the average person (who is the enforcer of transmisogyny) as a binary in nearly the same way as the gender binary is. Like the average person isn't really likely to divide the population into the binary categories of "transfem" and "not transfem" (which is what I understand tma and tme to mean? (i know what they stand for. everyone is "affected" by transmisogyny one way or another so if you take the literal meaning it is useless) correct me if wrong). For a start, the tma/tme categories are not balanced like men/women. So while your average person will have preconceived generalised notions about both men and women ("men like rocket ships", "women like dinosaurs") it is only really feasible to actually hold preconceived generalised notions about the tma category ("trans women like velociraptors") because the tme category is so large.

My point here is just that tme is almost useless as a category - the only uses I see for it are in rhetorical symmetry with tma ("tmas are generally given far less leeway to make professional mistakes than tmes") whereas tma as a term is generally very useful to describe a set of experiences, disadvantages, oppressions, etc. without mentioning tmes at all ("tmas are often subjected to a kafkaesque process when attempting to get hormones" (note how this does not and can not say anything about all tmes recieving swift access to hormones because they don't necessarily)). The only things you can even correctly say about tmes are things that can (and I would argue should) be rephrased purely in terms of the tma term.

[kayla-denker]

TME is not "useless as a category" because everyone is not affected by transmisogyny. Your own statements prove that. Like where you point out that transfeminine people are given less leeway to make mistakes than everyone else.

Your brain is there, you understand the truth, but your inherent subconscious transmisogyny isn't letting you accept it.

[obviouslyunobservant]

I'll assume you mean "not everyone is affected by transmisogyny" and not "everyone is not affected by transmisogyny".

If tme is useful as a category, make a statement using it. Say something useful or helpful about tmes that is not actually just about tmas (my "statements" in the second paragraph were both about tmas, not tmes. The first statement was directly intended to show the only purpose of tme that I can think of, for rhetorical symmetry. The statement makes perfect sense (even if it is worse grammatically) without the last 2 words, hence the tme is useless except for rhetorics).

[kayla-denker]

Yes, my first statement was a typo. Not everyone is affected by transmisogyny.

I think I see your problem. You think these are supposed to be identity labeles similar to "gay" or "lesbian" or "queer" etc. They are not.

Yeah, obviously TME is useless for categorizing people outside of talking about transmisogyny and how it affects transfeminine people and how it doesn't affect non-transfeminine people. The entire point of these terms is to talk about who is affected by transmisogyny and who isnt.

Your point is what is useless.

[obviouslyunobservant]

"You think these are supposed to be identity labels" No I do not. I think they are supposed to be similar to "man" and "woman" (which are confusingly also identity labels) strictly in their use as delimiting social classes. I compare "tmas are given less leeway to make professional mistakes" and "women are given less leeway to make professional mistakes". However, whilst men as a social class (occasionally) have expectations unrelated to women ("men are expected to perform masculinity by gaining and exercising power over other people") tmes as a social class do not have any expectation that is unrelated to tmas. This leaves tme as little more than a vestigial organ of tma, and so, almost useless compared to tma.

Again, my argument is an argument from ignorance; you can disprove it via example of using tme productively, please do so.

[kayla-denker]

Ok, so you don't like TMA/TME. You don't like that its a "harmful binary."

Good! You should hate it!

We do too. That's the whole point. You think we like being subjected to transmisogyny?

The problem is that you are regarding transfeminists, and trans women in general, as if we are the ones who created this situation instead of the transmisogynists who actually created it and are enforcing it. We're just describing it, giving it a name so that we can fight it. If you hate it so much, why are you attacking the women who are trying to end it?

[obviouslyunobservant]

It's really not enforced or conceptualised by the average person (who is the enforcer of transmisogyny) as a binary in nearly the same way as the gender binary is. Like the average person isn't really likely to divide the population into the binary categories of "transfem" and "not transfem" (which is what I understand tma and tme to mean? (i know what they stand for. everyone is "affected" by transmisogyny one way or another so if you take the literal meaning it is useless) correct me if wrong). For a start, the tma/tme categories are not balanced like men/women. So while your average person will have preconceived generalised notions about both men and women ("men like rocket ships", "women like dinosaurs") it is only really feasible to actually hold preconceived generalised notions about the tma category ("trans women like velociraptors") because the tme category is so large.

My point here is just that tme is almost useless as a category - the only uses I see for it are in rhetorical symmetry with tma ("tmas are generally given far less leeway to make professional mistakes than tmes") whereas tma as a term is generally very useful to describe a set of experiences, disadvantages, oppressions, etc. without mentioning tmes at all ("tmas are often subjected to a kafkaesque process when attempting to get hormones" (note how this does not and can not say anything about all tmes recieving swift access to hormones because they don't necessarily)). The only things you can even correctly say about tmes are things that can (and I would argue should) be rephrased purely in terms of the tma term.

[kayla-denker]

TME is not "useless as a category" because everyone is not affected by transmisogyny. Your own statements prove that. Like where you point out that transfeminine people are given less leeway to make mistakes than everyone else.

Your brain is there, you understand the truth, but your inherent subconscious transmisogyny isn't letting you accept it.

[obviouslyunobservant]

I'll assume you mean "not everyone is affected by transmisogyny" and not "everyone is not affected by transmisogyny".

If tme is useful as a category, make a statement using it. Say something useful or helpful about tmes that is not actually just about tmas (my "statements" in the second paragraph were both about tmas, not tmes. The first statement was directly intended to show the only purpose of tme that I can think of, for rhetorical symmetry. The statement makes perfect sense (even if it is worse grammatically) without the last 2 words, hence the tme is useless except for rhetorics).

[kayla-denker]

Ok, so you don't like TMA/TME. You don't like that its a "harmful binary."

Good! You should hate it!

We do too. That's the whole point. You think we like being subjected to transmisogyny?

The problem is that you are regarding transfeminists, and trans women in general, as if we are the ones who created this situation instead of the transmisogynists who actually created it and are enforcing it. We're just describing it, giving it a name so that we can fight it. If you hate it so much, why are you attacking the women who are trying to end it?

[obviouslyunobservant]

It's really not enforced or conceptualised by the average person (who is the enforcer of transmisogyny) as a binary in nearly the same way as the gender binary is. Like the average person isn't really likely to divide the population into the binary categories of "transfem" and "not transfem" (which is what I understand tma and tme to mean? (i know what they stand for. everyone is "affected" by transmisogyny one way or another so if you take the literal meaning it is useless) correct me if wrong). For a start, the tma/tme categories are not balanced like men/women. So while your average person will have preconceived generalised notions about both men and women ("men like rocket ships", "women like dinosaurs") it is only really feasible to actually hold preconceived generalised notions about the tma category ("trans women like velociraptors") because the tme category is so large.

My point here is just that tme is almost useless as a category - the only uses I see for it are in rhetorical symmetry with tma ("tmas are generally given far less leeway to make professional mistakes than tmes") whereas tma as a term is generally very useful to describe a set of experiences, disadvantages, oppressions, etc. without mentioning tmes at all ("tmas are often subjected to a kafkaesque process when attempting to get hormones" (note how this does not and can not say anything about all tmes recieving swift access to hormones because they don't necessarily)). The only things you can even correctly say about tmes are things that can (and I would argue should) be rephrased purely in terms of the tma term.

[kayla-denker]

TME = cis men, cis women, trans men, transmasculine nonbinary people.

TMA = trans women, transfeminine nonbinary people.

Both categories include women and nonbinary people

Both categories include people with penises, and people with vaginas, and people with ambiguous genitals.

Both categories include intersex people.

TME includes cis and trans men.

Anyone claiming this is a binary is being disingenuous or willfully ignorant, which is honestly the same thing.

[obviouslyunobservant]

I think thats the point? The terms represent near infinite complexity and experiences and nuances so reducing that to two words (which, to be clear, is a binary. binary means two. "a binary" colloquially refers to when you say something is either a or b but not both. whether or not this is a bad thing is a separate question) can be fraught. The terms themselves do not help their case with affected vs exempt which, due to the excluded middle of "partially affected" (?) does indeed form a binary.

BUT, and this is crucial, it's not like usage of the terms itself is what enforces this binary! The binary is enforced, much like gender, by society, through oppression. So all you have to do to use the terms helpfully is to use it similarly to how "men" and "women" should be used, avoiding pitfalls like the pregnancy pitfall (probably has a proper name, but it's when someone uses a term like "women" when what was actually meant was something like "people who can get pregnant". with tma/e this can look like, for example, calling an experience a "tma" experience when describing an experience that trans men experience too)

[transand]

we need less “trans women/men should be allowed in women’s/men’s spaces” and more “gender segregated spaces are inherently sexist and transphobic, and we should replace them with gender neutral spaces”

[obviouslyunobservant]

no, we need more "trans women/men should be allowed in women's/men's spaces" AND more "gender segregated spaces are inherently sexist and transphobic, and we should replace them with gender neutral spaces"

these arguments arent mutually exclusive and they are both correct. while it is true that trans-exclusive gender segregated spaces would be best as entirely gender neutral spaces, they would still be better as trans-inclusive gender segregated spaces than they would be otherwise

[transand]

gender segregated spaces can never truly be trans-inclusive though, that’s the entire point. fighting for gender segregated spaces to be “trans-inclusive” is a distraction that tries to make things seem “better” on the surface level but ultimately fails because it doesn’t actually address the root cause of the problem. it’s a losing battle from the start, and it’s also one that completely throws all nonbinary people under the bus in the process.

in practical terms, the only way to have a gender segregated space is to grant or deny access to that space through the policing of people’s genders which is, y’know, notoriously bad for trans people and intersex people and POC and anyone perceived to be even slightly gender non-conforming. “well we just won’t police it like that” 1) okay well if you’re not actually enforcing it then it just becomes gender neutral by default, so what’s the point? 2) people WILL police each other’s genders in gendered spaces, this is just a fact and not something you can actually stop from happening in any meaningful way.

not to mention the fact that gendered segregation is, again, just inherently sexist. this is something that even cis feminists have been saying for decades, but due to the rise of radical feminism we’ve slid completely backwards to the point where people who think of themselves as feminists genuinely believe that gendered segregation is somehow actually a good thing, or that it can be made progressive if we just do it the “right way.” the focus on including trans people in gendered spaces is just accepting the premise that gendered spaces should exist and are somehow justifiable, which is counterproductive to the acceptance and well-being of everyone, and is especially detrimental to anyone who isn’t a white gender-conforming binary cis person.

anyway. end gendered segregation NOW.

[obviouslyunobservant]

Look, is arguing for trans-inclusive (as opposed to gender neutral) spaces surface level? Sure. But that doesn't mean that arguing it and achieving it can't materially improve people's lives.

I would like to say that I strenuously agree with most of your points: yes, gendered spaces can never be fully trans-inclusive. Yes, spaces should always be gender neutral in a just society. But it is not a "distraction" to argue that currently extant gendered spaces should be trans inclusive.

To invent an example, if an all-women's motorcycle club denied a trans woman's entry, this would be an inherent and to some extent inevitable consequence of the gendered nature of the club. This doesn't mean that it isn't also an individual example of transphobia that can be fought. Sure, it doesn't solve the systemic issue with the club, but arguing for allowing that trans woman entry into the club in particular has the potential to make someone's life materially better, and classing it as a distraction is unhelpful.

This is not to say that you can't simultaneously argue that the club should not require a specific gender from its members, but again, both arguments are materially helpful and correct.

[transand]

we need less “trans women/men should be allowed in women’s/men’s spaces” and more “gender segregated spaces are inherently sexist and transphobic, and we should replace them with gender neutral spaces”

[obviouslyunobservant]

no, we need more "trans women/men should be allowed in women's/men's spaces" AND more "gender segregated spaces are inherently sexist and transphobic, and we should replace them with gender neutral spaces"

these arguments arent mutually exclusive and they are both correct. while it is true that trans-exclusive gender segregated spaces would be best as entirely gender neutral spaces, they would still be better as trans-inclusive gender segregated spaces than they would be otherwise

[aubeezz]

thank you australian government from protecting me, a child (21 year old) from the scary hells of the internet

[fruitypies]

I recently got a ✨️verify your age uwu 👉👈✨️ restriction for a YouTube video, and I can unfortunately confirm that VPNs do not work, Revanced does not work, Newpipe does not work, and YouTube to mp3/video downloaders do not work EITHER because age restricted videos appear to function similarly to private videos in that they more or less invisible no matter where you go or what you do until you hand over your private information.

Thus far I have not found a workaround for it. But if anyone knows one, please let me know 🙏

Fuck the Australian government & Anthony Albanese & "Esafety" Karen, fuck Google, and fuck AI.

[obviouslyunobservant]

that has literally nothing to do with australia thats just how age restricted videos have worked for years

[novastar-creations]

This is your reminder that the Australian ban on social media is a violation of human rights so long as it requires Australians to give out legal, personal, and/or private information to social media platforms and literally risk having their government information leaked in an attempt to “keep kids safe.”

It puts the government and corporations in charge of what is “safe” for kids, potentially allowing for censorship from people who, frankly, shouldn’t put themselves in charge of other people’s kids. Parenting is not the job of the government. It’s the job of the parents. If the parent can’t put the effort in to restrict what the kids are ingesting on social media, maybe the parent shouldn’t have let the kid on social media in the first place.

If the government really cared about the kids, they would actually help them. They’d provide programs to benefit students struggling in school, families in poverty, single or unemployed parents, and children in indigenous communities who (in case you didnt know) are more likely to experience all the things I just listed. They’d put more funding towards schools in general, but especially kids in low income areas. If they thought social media was damaging to kids mental health, then they should mandate for the corporations to add the ability for parental controls, not ban it from view from anyone who is smart enough to not give out their government information to corporations that are historically known for data leaking and brokerage. It should be the parent’s responsibility to protect their kids, not the government’s.

This will also affect anyone with facial differences, such as disabilities or severe scarring. Facial recognition literally doesn’t recognise them as human. So they’re cut off from social media, which for a lot of people acts as a news source, a point of connection both locally and internationally, and a creative outlet. Theres also a very good chance that whatever AI they’re using won’t be able to recognise non-white features, because let’s be so fucking real for a second? We don’t know how this tech works. As far as we know, it’s been trained on the faces of random people, most of whom will probably be white because racism is fucked like that.

This whole thing is fucking bullshit and has the absolutely foul smell of the start of fascism. Remember, if the government says they’re intentionally isolating you from the rest of the world and stopping the spread of information “for your sake,” they’re likely lying and attempting to control the information you do and do not get, which firstly, isnt for your sake, it’s for theirs, and secondly, it’s a blatant violation of the constitutional freedom of information. It’s censorship. It’s fucking censorship.

[novastar-creations]

Adding @nobodywrites-blog’s tags because they’re so freaking correct about it

On that second point, the forcing them outside part:

Going outside is not the issue. Most teens I know regularly go outside. What is the issue is that when they go outside, there’s nowhere for them to go. They go to school, or in some cases work, but they don’t go anywhere recreationally. Recreational spaces for teens and kids have been on a rapid decline since the 2010s. Places like arcades and the movies became too expensive, shopping centres and cafes became hostile to anyone who wasn’t buying stuff, and places like internet cafes and game stores died out with the rise of online gaming, technology and eventually, covid. They complain about kids being on their phones all day while actively nurturing an environment that has nowhere for them to go besides their phones. The lack of affordable places that weren’t school/home/work meant that they turned to their phones and social media and made those places online. And now the government is taking them away. It’s almost like they don’t consider teenagers human beings that need places to be themselves without parents/teachers/employers. It’s almost like adults don’t trust teens enough to exist outside of the confines of strict timetables or the watchful eyes of authority figures. It’s almost like they don’t want them to be themselves with their peers. It’s almost like they’re isolating them

[nobodywrites-blog]

Ah thank you for expanding as that's exactly what I was thinking. Also sorry for any confusion on the forcing children to go outside. I of course many others would love children to go outside more and have less time on social media.

I also just want to add some other points to rant about because I am still so peeved about this. Some are expanding on OP's points.

1. Parks and schools and other outdoor areas have been found to have asbestos which if anyone does not know is fucking dangerous and could cause short term and long term illness and even death when asbestos has been broken and people and workers come into contact with fibres. An example here and here. Yes it might be a low risk but any risk can be risky. Parks in some areas are not getting maintained and the play equipment can be out of date.

2. Police hate children and will do anything to move them along (probably the point op was saying about authority figures). Look at here and here. I just want to note the second example is of a 16 year old minor, but the point still stands hopefully. It's also worth to note that indigenous children will be more so negatively affected with police confrontation. Which begs the question, where the fuck do children go??

3. I did see posts on Tumblr (though sadly cannot find them) about how as adults, we should tolerate children's existence and make it safe for them to just exist. Not push them aside like they are nothing and worthless. Well this is what is happening here, we are no longer creating spaces for children. I mean fuck even schools and preschools and childcares are becoming quite unsafe with abuse and bullying and other issues that will make this post go way too long.

4. I laughed when the government wanted to say it was not a ban but a "delay". Like bitch really? It's a ban. Like how children are banned from drinking alcohol or working until certain ages. Changing the name is not going to change the reality of this.

5. What peeves me the most about the whole 'going outside to nature' stemmed from a video and I just had to laugh for the reasons stated by OP. Again, where are kids supposed to go??

6. This video is great and people should watch it. It also talks about the government swiftly making this bill while also ignoring so many other reputable organisations. It also brings up the point of kids who are going through mental health issues are more likely to use social media, and I wanted to make a point that the government (I think it was the liberal government that done this originally but labour government is not fixing it) has an issue of giving medical things for free lately and privatising everything, and so people with mental health issues have to pay to see a psychiatrist/psychologist/counsellor (sometimes it is bulk billed but still over $100 which is not money people are willing to use).

7. A post circulated that the ban was passed from the ground up from grieving parents and while I am not taking away the dangers of social media and their experiences and their mourning. This ban is not the answer anyone thinks it is and the post also felt like "hey don't criticise this bill, it was created with the help of grieving parents, how dare you criticise children being safe".

Overall I find this ban to be discriminatory in so many ways and the fact our government has allowed this while not a surprise, is disgusting as they hide under the guise of "protecting kids". They don't care at all, it's censorship, it's manipulative, it's an act of control and it's lying at its finest, and I do hope the backlash for this goes strong.

[obviouslyunobservant]

I'm going to come off combatant in this. Sorry in advance.

1. Everywhere built before the 1980s has asbestos. There's not much we can do about it that we have not already done. Both examples you provided have quoted experts saying there was/is low risk, and certainly nothing like the "short term and long term illness and even death" as a result of this. I'm not saying asbestos isn't a dangerous material. It obviously is. I am saying that if asbestos currently presents such a risk to public health, please pick examples where it has caused harm.

2. This is correct.

3. I'm sure this is true but there is nothing concrete here to talk about

4. Please do not compare the social media ban to the under-18 alcohol ban it does not help your case. Politicians are going to try to make what they are doing sound reasonable and as far as twisting words go calling it a "delay" is fairly reasonable. Especially because the ban is not enforced on the children. Or the parents. It is enforced on the owners of the social media.

5. Do not act as if there is literally nowhere to go. The parks are not overflowing with asbestos and are in fact usually quite safe. Other options include any nearby libraries, backyards, or sporting venues such as basketball courts.

5b. The following is conjecture. The quality of various spaces for children to go are deteriorating, but I think it is very possible that the reason these places go unmaintained is because there is less demand for them, because it is much easier to have a social network online than it is to have it in person, and an online social network requires no library. Obviously the social media ban is not the correct solution to combat this problem but do not let it get exacerbated by allowing increased inside time.

6. The Liberals always privatise stuff, it's a part of their platform. Unprivatising stuff is very much harder than privatising it, though, so I'm not sure how much the current government could even do.

7. Not much to talk about here, I haven't seen the post

8?. They're politicians. Of course they don't directly care. I don't think the ban itself is manipulative, although the language surrounding very well could be. It is an act of control, that is the government's job. It is not lying, although the language surrounding it very well could do.

[janmisali]

did you know that youtubers use youtube? (not a trick question. I've been told repeatedly that most people think youtubers don't use youtube and I'm trying to test how common that belief actually is)

yes I knew that

no I did not know that

I know that, but I'd still act as though I don't know that sometimes

[show results]

Voting ended onOct 3, 2025

[janmisali]

slightly different question:

are you aware that it is normal and common for youtube content creators to use the platform for things other than posting video content (such as watching and commenting on other people's videos)?

yes, I know that's normal

no, I'm under the impression that either never happens or is rare

I know that's common but still sometimes act surprised by it for some reason

[show results]

Voting ended onOct 3, 2025

[janmisali]

okay multiple people in the notes are bringing up the idea that it's inherently surprising to see someone in a "different environment" from where you're used to seeing them, in which case

are youtube videos a "different environment" from the rest of youtube's features? is seeing a youtuber use youtube like seeing a teacher outside of school?

yes, those are "different environments"

no, those are the same "environment"

[show results]

Voting ended onOct 3, 2025

[janmisali]

also even if this is a fair comparison, do people react to seeing their teacher at a grocery store the way people react to seeing a youtuber on youtube? do people say, out loud, "what are you doing here?" and then sheepishly say "oh sorry I didn't think you'd actually respond" when their teacher says "I'm buying groceries". idk maybe that is normal but it doesn't feel like it should be

[obviouslyunobservant]

It's more like seeing a celebrity at the grocery store. Like presumably David Tennant goes shopping but it would still be surprising to see him there. The "didn't think you'd respond" stems more from the fact that the vast majority of people you interact with about a celebrity are not said celebrity so it becomes easy to view, say, comments on a social media post as a place to talk about the person with other people. This probably applies less to youtubers because they are incentivised to place themselves as a personal friend of their viewers (pro-socially) because viewers will be more likely to engage if they feel like they are talking directly to the creator, but clearly it still happens.

[janmisali]

every time I've criticized the pronunciation of gif debate (specifically my stance is that it's politically regressive to believe any given word "should" have one singular "correct" pronunciation and that an alternate pronunciation must be "wrong" regardless of how common it is, so "both sides" are equally wrong for the same reason) I've gotten the, in my opinion, incoherent response that it's "just a joke": everyone knows it's fine for different people to pronounce the same word in different ways, they're just pretending to get mad at each other for using an alternate pronunciation because it's funny to make it impossible for anyone to say the word "gif" out loud without going through a ritual of roleplaying as a linguistic prescriptivist. somehow.

so like,

is that a reasonable defense? is the pronunciation of gif debate "a joke" in a way that makes it not make sense for me to say the debate itself is bad?

no, it's not just a joke. a significant number of people are serious about it

no, it is a joke for most people but that doesn't make it okay

no, it's a joke for everyone but it being a joke changes nothing

no, it's not a reasonable defense for some other reason

yes, it's just a joke and therefore it is beyond criticism

[show results]

Voting ended onAug 24, 2025

(anyone arguing about the pronunciation of gif in the notes will be blocked on sight, joking or otherwise)

[bobshush]

What is "people are serious about their opinions, but don't assign it much importance beyond that"? I'd say it's lighthearted, but still an earnest attempt to decide on a shared pronunciation. Many do genuinely find the "wrong" pronunciation annoying. I personally find one of the two options annoying, but at maybe a 2/10 level? Around if a fly is in the room.

Slightly more serious than "is a hotdog a sandwich?," possibly around on par with "is Die Hard a Christmas movie?," less than any other debate about technology preferences (best IDE, browser, OS; Linux vs GNU\Linux). I'm not sure I would consider any of them a joke in the traditional sense.

[janmisali]

"an earnest attempt to decide on a shared pronunciation" okay so it's sincere linguistic prescriptivism. it's a genuinely held belief that with a word with two commonly accepted pronunciations one and only one of those pronunciations is "the right one".

[obviouslyunobservant]

Aren't you ascribing moral worth to a language evolution process

[animentality]

[obviouslyunobservant]

look idk really how to articulate this but to most people participating in the systems of society is instinctual. like when men feel sad they dont go "hmmm. instead of talking to my friends i will bottle this all up." its more like how when you go outside you dont really choose whether or not to wear clothes - you just do. what kind of clothes, sure, but you're always wearing something. like yeah depression isnt exclusive to men, duh. not talking to people doesnt really help that though. you cant convince them to talk to people either, because thats like trying to convince someone to go in public without wearing any clothes. literally the only solutions are systemic change (seeing other people reject it) or extremely targeted deprogramming. some men recognise this and work towards it themselves but, stretching the metaphor, most just accept that their clothes itch.

this is not to say that the men that oop replies to are in any way right. theyre complaining abt their clothes itching without doing anything about it. its just that owning them on twitter doesnt help either and both parties are talking past each other

[carby]

Hold on. My USian ass is baffled. Do other countries have commercials for every major drug like Ozempic or whatever?

Continental sound-off

The Americas (EXCLUDING the US): Yeah (specify)

The Americas: No???????

Europe & Asia: Yeah (specify)

Europe & Asia: No???????

Africa & Australia: Yeah (specify)

Africa & Australia: No??????

Antarctica (bald/see results)

Voting ended onJun 5, 2025

[obviouslyunobservant]

iirc every country bans ads for medical drugs except for the US and New Zealand