Jesus, that poster! I was sure the black woman was drawn by Rob Liefeld, but wrong decade I guess

To clarify, you get the slop if you click “View details about correlation #NNNN”

No, this is a new image - you’d notice if you compared them. Also, do you actually believe the slop Trump posted is effective propaganda to anyone but his cult following?

I can see being against this post because AI. Your point, not so much.

Eh, to each their own I guess. I don’t like how snug the bodice looks, nor am I a fan of constantly managing my leg positioning and monitoring the breeze lest I expose myself - and that is without even mentioning sun protection. But you do you.

Compares dressing for presentation vs dressing for comfort

“Lol genders amirite”

Yes, but I only have a source in Swedish (specifically the later part of the video). To summarize: The national media SVT has this ‘task-force’ that verifies/debunks claims being spread on social media. In the video I linked to, they compare the clip Israel posted of Netanyahu getting coffee with pictures the cafe took and earlier posted pictures of the cafe. The same was done for the outside of the cafe shown in a different clip. Everything was highly consistent and unlikely to be AI. The only oddity, a disappearing ring, is likely due to video quality and/or hand positioning.

No, that was blamed on acetaminophen a.k.a. Tylenol

Is it? I haven’t studied philosophy (but I have studied math) - it seems to me that the Wikipedia article on Truism demands the statement to be true for it to be a truism. But it’s not true though?

The way I see it, the statement can be construed as:

I’m not allowed to criticize X -> X rules over me

But, perhaps because “allowed” and “criticize” are subject to interpretation, there are plenty of groups you will be socially penalized for criticizing (see jokes about kids with cancer below the comment with the quote - I can’t figure out how to link to them). Many countries also protect minorities by making hate speech illegal, and yet those minorities are not ruling the country (though that’s probably exactly what the quote was originally meant to imply). If anything, the truism would be the ‘opposite’ implication:

X rules over me -> I’m not allowed to criticize X

Yet even this isn’t categorically true, like in democracies (which I guess brings in the interpretation of “rule”, as well).

Missed opportunity: No creepy goat eyes

Okay, but I can’t not see this as a radish-person shocked about getting an absolute hog pointed at their face

Looks like mushi.