[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
news

Return ] Entire Thread ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 21182)
Message
File  []
close
83439833_1321375481392480_7773046445254377472_n.jpg
211822118221182
>> No. 21182 Anonymous
1st February 2020
Saturday 8:03 am
21182 spacer
Plymouth mum fuming at Tesco Valentine's Day cards for children

A Plymouth mum has demanded Tesco removes its Valentine's Day cards for children as it is "weird".

Nicola, who has an eight-year-old son, said she would "punch" anyone in the face who sent her child a Valentine's Day card and was horrified to see a large selection for sale in the Transit Way superstore.

Nicola said she believes Valentine's Day is for adult relationships and believes that it is "an attempt to normalise abnormal relationships with children" and that anyone who sends a child a card "needs locking up".

She said: "There's one that says, 'Daddy loves you lots like jelly tots', that's weird. This is not normal.Valentine’s Day is for lovers. It’s not something that you should involve children in. It’s not something that a normal person would think of sending a child. It’s wrong."


https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/plymouth-news/plymouth-mum-fuming-tesco-valentines-3791387?

Children sending each other Valentine's Day cards is one step on the road to normalising paedophilia.
Expand all images.
>> No. 21183 Anonymous
1st February 2020
Saturday 8:16 am
21183 spacer
Adults sending kids cards for an explicitly romantic holiday is a little strange.

Children sending eachother cards isn't so unusual.

Valentine's is actually a kind of infantilising of adult relationships, all things considered.
>> No. 21184 Anonymous
1st February 2020
Saturday 9:53 am
21184 spacer
>>21182
You know what, I fucking agree with her. That is deeply weird.

I am more than happy to show and demonstrate affection toward my boys and they're very affectionate back. But that's a completely different kind of emotion than romantic love.

I don't often get to say it but BAN THIS SICK FILTH.
>> No. 21185 Anonymous
1st February 2020
Saturday 9:56 am
21185 spacer
>>21184
I know a lot of lower class women who call their kids sexy.
>> No. 21186 Anonymous
1st February 2020
Saturday 10:06 am
21186 spacer
When I think of children and Valentine's Day, I think of that episode of the Simpsons where Lisa and Ralph exchange handmade cards. In fact her entire class of eight year olds exchanges cards. It's portrayed as entirely normal, almost thirty years ago.

The commercialised card pictured is a bit weird - I don't see what superheroes have got to do with Valentine's - but this Nicola is probably herself a bit nuts. She would punch anyone giving her son a card? So she would punch little kids? She's the sick one.
>> No. 21187 Anonymous
1st February 2020
Saturday 10:17 am
21187 spacer
>>21186
I doubt she would punch Jenny from his class for making her first crush a card. But anyone who would reasonably call her son a "special little boy" should probably have their genitals removed if they start sending him romantic symbols.
>> No. 21191 Anonymous
1st February 2020
Saturday 10:42 am
21191 spacer
>>21187
Again, I think it's a bit weird, but I certainly don't think it's paedogeddon, as both you and Nicola are implying. Companies just want to sell stuff and will use any angle. If they can get kids riled up about Valentine's Day they can sell more Love Heart sweets and the like. Nobody is selling them sex.
>> No. 21192 Anonymous
1st February 2020
Saturday 10:51 am
21192 spacer
>I believe primary schools should ban Valentine's Day as I feel the children are too young to really understand the concept of relationships, they should let children be children.

Bet she never got a peck on the lips in primary school. Just look at that hand.
>> No. 21193 Anonymous
1st February 2020
Saturday 11:12 am
21193 spacer
>>21187
My immediate interpretation of the card is that it's intended for mums to give to their sons. Which is also entirely normal, albeit embarrassing for the child. She seems to think it's for his swimming coach to give him or something which is where the her being nuts thing comes in.
>> No. 21194 Anonymous
1st February 2020
Saturday 11:17 am
21194 spacer
>>21193
Fat full-time mums love nothing more than being judgemental and working themselves up after jumping to the wrong conclusion.
>> No. 21195 Anonymous
1st February 2020
Saturday 12:00 pm
21195 spacer
>>21193
This was my take as well, but to be honest I've never really understood that thing of mums buying valentines cards for their boys. Do dads buy cards for their girls?
>> No. 21196 Anonymous
1st February 2020
Saturday 12:43 pm
21196 spacer
>>21195
>Do dads buy cards for their girls?

Only if they're already on a register of some kind.
>> No. 21198 Anonymous
1st February 2020
Saturday 1:09 pm
21198 spacer
>>21196

There is kind of an unhealthy bias though that women doting on their sons is fine, whereas caring fathers showing the same kind of affection for their daughters, but probably also to their sons, is seen as potentially paedo-rapey.

One of my mates has a four-year-old daughter, and his wife often works long shifts as an A&E doctor at a hospital, and so it's often down to him to take their daughter to go places like a shopping centre or a playground or an ice cream place while his wife is at work. And according to him, the level of suspicion he can occasionally see in the eyes of some passers-by who think he's a wrongun for being an early 30s man playing with a four-year-old girl, or just being accompanied by one, just makes him very sad. And I think he has a point. If, for argument's sake, you were a paedo child snatcher, the last place you'd probably go would be a shopping centre or a playground, where everybody could see you with your victim, and later ID you off a CCTV camera.
>> No. 21199 Anonymous
1st February 2020
Saturday 1:11 pm
21199 spacer
>>21198
Look, the phone thing was just a joke, alright? I've paid my dues by now surely?
>> No. 21200 Anonymous
1st February 2020
Saturday 2:18 pm
21200 spacer
>>21198
I can't say I've ever felt like I'm being eyed up as a carpet-bagger for taking my kids out alone. It sounds like he's had carpet-baggery thoughts and now he's over compensating for it.

That said, going to pick up your kids as a dad is terrible. A lot of the mums act like they're still in school and part of a clique.
>> No. 21201 Anonymous
1st February 2020
Saturday 2:30 pm
21201 spacer
>>21199
Unexpected mirth, how fucking long ago was that now.
>> No. 21203 Anonymous
1st February 2020
Saturday 2:35 pm
21203 spacer
>>21201
I reckon it will have been some time around 2015. I know he used to post about growing weed on /A/.
>> No. 21204 Anonymous
1st February 2020
Saturday 2:43 pm
21204 spacer
>>21203
According to my recollection it would have had to have been years before that.
>> No. 21206 Anonymous
1st February 2020
Saturday 2:45 pm
21206 spacer
>>21204
Possibly 2013, but I don't think it was earlier than that.
>> No. 21207 Anonymous
1st February 2020
Saturday 3:07 pm
21207 spacer
>>21203
>>21204
>>21206
Christ, we've been here too long.
>> No. 21208 Anonymous
1st February 2020
Saturday 3:35 pm
21208 spacer
>>21198

You want to get yourself over to r/gendercritical and see how the TERFS feel about any man being alone with a kid, ever.

Were biologically hard wired to be rapists, didn't you know? We can't help it.
>> No. 21210 Anonymous
1st February 2020
Saturday 5:11 pm
21210 spacer

funny-answers-on-reddit-1.jpg
212102121021210
>>21208

>reddit

Sigh.
>> No. 21211 Anonymous
1st February 2020
Saturday 5:16 pm
21211 spacer
>>21210
Why do people dislike reddit so much? It seems like a good platform to gauge public opinion - barring the ease of account creation.
>> No. 21212 Anonymous
1st February 2020
Saturday 5:19 pm
21212 spacer
>>21211

Only a specific demographic's public opinion, it's fairly useless for informing real world decisions.
>> No. 21213 Anonymous
1st February 2020
Saturday 5:21 pm
21213 spacer
>>21210

I find it hard to believe anyone at all would find it so difficult to spend a month alone and bored that it wouldn't be worth five million.
>> No. 21214 Anonymous
1st February 2020
Saturday 5:30 pm
21214 spacer

nintchdbpict000348708609[1].jpg
212142121421214
>>21213
There was a TV programme on Channel 5 called In Solitary: The Anti-Social Experiment. The volunteer participants weren't given much, but it was more than specified in >>21210. I'm not sure there was a prize at the end - it certainly wasn't £5m. My point being, this bint lasted four hours.
>> No. 21215 Anonymous
1st February 2020
Saturday 5:35 pm
21215 spacer
>>21211
I have limited experience of it, but it's a curious mixture of faux-sincerity between posters and a hilarious lack of understanding of how relationships actually work in the real world, whereby the solution given to almost any social interaction is to immediately cut all contact.

Edit: oh wow, I can't believe this blew up! Thanks for the gold, strangers!
>> No. 21216 Anonymous
1st February 2020
Saturday 5:43 pm
21216 spacer
>>21210
I think the worst part would be the inability to keep time. After a while you'd have no way of determining how long you've been in for and how long you have left. You're simply in a room. Forever. Until you're not.
>> No. 21217 Anonymous
1st February 2020
Saturday 5:44 pm
21217 spacer
>>21213

Most people start losing their mind after a couple of days in solitary. You'd be lucky to finish 30 days without developing full-blown psychosis.
>> No. 21220 Anonymous
1st February 2020
Saturday 5:46 pm
21220 spacer
>>21215
Reddit has in the past surpassed Facebook's Alexa ranking in the United States. Anyone who talks about a website that large as if it has a homogeneous culture and groupthink is a dribbling cretin.


>> No. 21221 Anonymous
1st February 2020
Saturday 5:51 pm
21221 spacer
>>21220
>Anyone who talks about a website that large as if it has a homogeneous culture and groupthink is a dribbling cretin.

I dunno, lad. I think it's safe to make broad statements about other websites which also have a large user base. For example, most posters on Facebook are mouthbreathing mongs.
>> No. 21222 Anonymous
1st February 2020
Saturday 5:54 pm
21222 spacer
>>21221
You seem to be conflating large websites and the human population of Earth. It's an easy mistake to make, I know.
>> No. 21223 Anonymous
1st February 2020
Saturday 6:30 pm
21223 spacer
>>21217

I think it's one reason why torture techniques that are based on sensory deprivation to make you lose track of days and time itself are outlawed under the Geneva Convention.

We are hardwired as humans to interact with our environment. We simply don't do well if we're subjected to a prolonged absence either of external stimuli or human contact.
>> No. 21224 Anonymous
1st February 2020
Saturday 6:35 pm
21224 spacer
>>21220

It's still an echo chamber. Sure, there are subreddits that go against the grain, but they are largely minimalised or ignored by the rest.
>> No. 21225 Anonymous
1st February 2020
Saturday 6:46 pm
21225 spacer
>>21217

I've heard this before. I don't doubt it's true, but I have trouble wrapping my head around it - I feel like I'd be fine. I'm not saying I actually would be, clearly I'd go mental, but I just don't think I can understand why or how it'd be that bad. I have lots of stuff to think about, I'd just go on adventures in my head, write a novel up there. Plan how to spend the money - that would keep me focused.

I realise I sound like I'm saying I'm special or above it all, I'm not, I just can't process what that sort of solitude would do. I understand that it would actually be torture. I just can't imagine it.
>> No. 21226 Anonymous
1st February 2020
Saturday 6:52 pm
21226 spacer
>>21225
Maybe you are.
>> No. 21227 Anonymous
1st February 2020
Saturday 7:14 pm
21227 spacer
>>21225


>> No. 21228 Anonymous
1st February 2020
Saturday 7:53 pm
21228 spacer
>>21227
Are there any good YouTube Premium series besides this one?
>> No. 21230 Anonymous
1st February 2020
Saturday 8:18 pm
21230 spacer
>>21224
Subreddits are basically old school forum or image boards much like this one. So with each subreddit having a different theme or subject. So it's really a series of echo chambers r/socialism is going to be differently politically leaning than r/trump. It seems like the more popular political subreddits are more right wing which really shows how populist politics seem to be these days.
>> No. 21231 Anonymous
1st February 2020
Saturday 8:20 pm
21231 spacer
>>21230
I think it's because lefties tend to be more upright and less likely to have a sense of humour.
>> No. 21232 Anonymous
1st February 2020
Saturday 8:24 pm
21232 spacer
>>21230

Didn't r/mensrights get labelled as hate speech by some sort of women's advocacy group a few years ago?

r/mensrights is pitiful though. 80 percent of it is threads along the lines of "My life is shit because of feminazis". Even if your life IS shit because of feminazis, incessantly whining about it to an echo chamber of other chronic masturbators isn't going to be your solution.
>> No. 21233 Anonymous
1st February 2020
Saturday 8:38 pm
21233 spacer
>>21225

I wonder what the buddhalads would say about this.

Could you just practice meditation for a month?
>> No. 21234 Anonymous
1st February 2020
Saturday 10:15 pm
21234 spacer
>>21233
There is a thing of secluded meditation where you will block yourself off from the outside world, no internet, tv, contact with people, etc. Usually takes place in a small hut that has a little stove or something to be able to cook a small meal on, with a simple bed. It's doable, though the last one I saw had a window so I'm sure that alone would make a difference compared to a windowless cell.
>> No. 21235 Anonymous
1st February 2020
Saturday 10:54 pm
21235 spacer
>>21234

Silent and secluded retreats are an important part of Buddhist practice, but they're not something you can just have a go at. Psychosis is a known risk of intensive meditation retreats, a risk which has drastically increased in the last few years due to the mindfulness boom.

A lot of people are starting out in meditation and doing too much too soon; either they tell porkies about their level of experience when signing up for a retreat, or they shop around for a disreputable teacher who'll take anyone's money. A lot of people approach meditation like they'd approach training for a marathon, they want to achieve enlightenment ASAP and they usually lose their marbles in the process.

In particular, the Goenka Vipassana movement is producing a worrying number of stories like this:

https://www.esquire.com/uk/latest-news/a25651175/the-other-side-of-paradise-how-i-left-a-buddhist-retreat-in-handcuffs/

I've done a shitload of intensive meditation, I can happily sit for days at a stretch, but I'm pretty sure I'd go crackers in solitary confinement. It's one thing to choose to sit in a bare room with nothing but your own thoughts for company, but it's quite another to be forced into it.
>> No. 21236 Anonymous
1st February 2020
Saturday 11:20 pm
21236 spacer
>>21235

>but it's quite another to be forced into it.

Absolutely, but what about doing it for five million?
>> No. 21237 Anonymous
2nd February 2020
Sunday 2:43 am
21237 spacer
Not going to lie. Solitary confinement sounds like a doddle.

If anything it sounds like a relief, no one trying to burden me with their problems or drag me down. Not sure about a month. But anything short of a week seems like it would just give me time to work out my ideas and thoughts. Give me a pad and a pencil and I could easily go the distance. I'd make my own fun.

I've cracked out 48 hours alone hiking in the wilderness this doesn't seem like it could be that different. I mean all it would require is setting yourself several personal task for that time that you won't get too bored of.

The way this thread talks about it makes me wonder if humanity has entered the behavioural sink, that you are so addicted to society you can't function without its approval for more than a day. You know people live on their own and sometimes they don't go out for a while right.
>> No. 21238 Anonymous
2nd February 2020
Sunday 11:05 am
21238 spacer
Feels like I'm living this already. I've spent over a month sick, stuck inside and I'm alone in my life anyway, I rarely socialise or even see anybody. I've gotten extremely bored this past month and a bit but I've survived so I reckon I could do it just by sleeping most of the time and reading, especially if it were for £5m.
>> No. 21239 Anonymous
2nd February 2020
Sunday 11:09 am
21239 spacer
>>21237

>I've cracked out 48 hours alone hiking in the wilderness this doesn't seem like it could be that different. I mean all it would require is setting yourself several personal task for that time that you won't get too bored of.

I think the point is that you're in an empty room with nothing to do. A couple of books or a deck of cards or even just a paper and pen would change the experience significantly.

I could spend the rest of my life completely alone provided I could traverse the wilderness. It's the lack of stimulation that would do you in.

I too think it sounds easy but it's clearly not. I think I could last a lot longer than an extrovert could, and I could amuse myself for a while by counting the hairs on my leg or squeezing blackheads, but not that long.
>> No. 21240 Anonymous
2nd February 2020
Sunday 1:23 pm
21240 spacer
>>21239

At the most extreme even pulling out my leg hair and using it to write prose out of would be something that could easily use a bit of time. Of course I'd much rather settle for a pointed rock and a surface I could scratch.

The more you are willing to just apply your imagination to things the easier it would be I think which probably would look insane to the outside. The only ones we see are people being monitored (obviously) and that either affects peoples behaviour, or it must be cleaned up for TV because not a single one seems to resort to wanking furiously.

Making up a dysfunctional relationship between the toilet and the pillow followed by writing it down with the rock on the ground and having a celebratory wank. Sounds like a good day.


The real fuck you from what I can tell in these environments is constant light. I don't need to be in solitary for a bright light when I'm trying to sleep to fuck me up. And I don't think it proves a point about solitary at all.
>> No. 21241 Anonymous
2nd February 2020
Sunday 2:11 pm
21241 spacer
>>21237

>The way this thread talks about it makes me wonder if humanity has entered the behavioural sink, that you are so addicted to society you can't function without its approval for more than a day. You know people live on their own and sometimes they don't go out for a while right.

Animals crack up in the same conditions. Harry Harlow had a unique gift for sending monkeys completely round the twist:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_of_despair
>> No. 21242 Anonymous
2nd February 2020
Sunday 2:21 pm
21242 spacer
>>21241
>Harry Harlow

What a prick.
>> No. 21243 Anonymous
2nd February 2020
Sunday 5:48 pm
21243 spacer
>>21241

To argue the toss here. He was doing it for a minimum of 30days to infant monkeys that had no comprehension of what they were enduring and if it would end. A prepared adult human for a shorter time is a poor comparison.
>> No. 21244 Anonymous
2nd February 2020
Sunday 6:17 pm
21244 spacer
>>21182
I'm sure someone's said this already, but isn't this weird mum the one with the warped mind for thinking phrases like "special little boy" and "love you lots like jelly tots" are dirty or inappropriate? I suppose "tots" is just one letter away from tits. Clearly the thead's moved on, but this is one of those news stories make me look at certain people like they were from another planet.
>> No. 21245 Anonymous
2nd February 2020
Sunday 6:20 pm
21245 spacer
>>21243

Argue what toss?
>> No. 21246 Anonymous
2nd February 2020
Sunday 6:45 pm
21246 spacer
>>21244

Don't say it too loudly, but all women are terrible perverts.

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/magazine/25desire-t.html
>> No. 21254 Anonymous
3rd February 2020
Monday 1:02 pm
21254 spacer

pick-up-penny-frugal-saving-luck.jpg
212542125421254
There's the term 'problematise' which is apparently a worldview of SJW types - maybe the mother just wants to appear switched on.
Alternatively theres the R.A.W view that you'll find whatever you're looking for - people notice what they're minded to, kind of thing.
Then again it could be projction.
To be honest i think these 3 are all facets of the same affect.

All i know is that this kind of shit can be found anywhere, to greater or lesser degrees. The problem is deciding whether it's intended, subconcious of the designer, or in your own head. Then you might ask why and really get the feedback loop rolling.
>> No. 21255 Anonymous
3rd February 2020
Monday 2:44 pm
21255 spacer
>>21246

>Meredith Chivers is a creator of bonobo pornography.

Now there's a career choice to make your parents proud.
>> No. 21256 Anonymous
3rd February 2020
Monday 2:53 pm
21256 spacer

Screenshot_2020-02-03 What Do Women Want .png
212562125621256
>>21246
Nice try, NYTimeslad.
>> No. 21257 Anonymous
3rd February 2020
Monday 3:44 pm
21257 spacer
>>21256

>While the subjects watched on a computer screen, Chivers, who favors high boots and fashionable rectangular glasses, measured their arousal in two ways, objectively and subjectively. The participants sat in a brown leatherette La-Z-Boy chair in her small lab at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health, a prestigious psychiatric teaching hospital affiliated with the University of Toronto, where Chivers was a postdoctoral fellow and where I first talked with her about her research a few years ago. The genitals of the volunteers were connected to plethysmographs — for the men, an apparatus that fits over the penis and gauges its swelling; for the women, a little plastic probe that sits in the vagina and, by bouncing light off the vaginal walls, measures genital blood flow. An engorgement of blood spurs a lubricating process called vaginal transudation: the seeping of moisture through the walls. The participants were also given a keypad so that they could rate how aroused they felt.

>The men, on average, responded genitally in what Chivers terms “category specific” ways. Males who identified themselves as straight swelled while gazing at heterosexual or lesbian sex and while watching the masturbating and exercising women. They were mostly unmoved when the screen displayed only men. Gay males were aroused in the opposite categorical pattern. Any expectation that the animal sex would speak to something primitive within the men seemed to be mistaken; neither straights nor gays were stirred by the bonobos. And for the male participants, the subjective ratings on the keypad matched the readings of the plethysmograph. The men’s minds and genitals were in agreement.

>All was different with the women. No matter what their self-proclaimed sexual orientation, they showed, on the whole, strong and swift genital arousal when the screen offered men with men, women with women and women with men. They responded objectively much more to the exercising woman than to the strolling man, and their blood flow rose quickly — and markedly, though to a lesser degree than during all the human scenes except the footage of the ambling, strapping man — as they watched the apes. And with the women, especially the straight women, mind and genitals seemed scarcely to belong to the same person. The readings from the plethysmograph and the keypad weren’t in much accord. During shots of lesbian coupling, heterosexual women reported less excitement than their vaginas indicated; watching gay men, they reported a great deal less; and viewing heterosexual intercourse, they reported much more. Among the lesbian volunteers, the two readings converged when women appeared on the screen. But when the films featured only men, the lesbians reported less engagement than the plethysmograph recorded. Whether straight or gay, the women claimed almost no arousal whatsoever while staring at the bonobos.
>> No. 21258 Anonymous
3rd February 2020
Monday 5:17 pm
21258 spacer
>>21257

TL;DR Women don't fucking know what they want, and what they say they want is categorically distinct from objective reality. It's taken scientists this long to figure out what us sexists have known for years.
>> No. 21259 Anonymous
3rd February 2020
Monday 5:39 pm
21259 spacer
>>21258

You'll love this bit, sexistlad:

>The generally accepted therapeutic notion that, for women, incubating intimacy leads to better sex is, Meana told me, often misguided. “Really,” she said, “women’s desire is not relational, it’s narcissistic” — it is dominated by the yearnings of “self-love,” by the wish to be the object of erotic admiration and sexual need. Still on the subject of narcissism, she talked about research indicating that, in comparison with men, women’s erotic fantasies center less on giving pleasure and more on getting it. “When it comes to desire,” she added, “women may be far less relational than men.”
>> No. 21318 Anonymous
12th February 2020
Wednesday 9:00 pm
21318 spacer
>>21259

>“women’s desire is not relational, it’s narcissistic” — it is dominated by the yearnings of “self-love,” by the wish to be the object of erotic admiration and sexual need.


Hence the constant stream of ever-new Instagram, Youtube and twitter attention whores. Apart from a handful of younglad dickheads, I would hazard a guess that 90 percent of Internet attention whores are female.

I was on a bus after work a while ago, and a few rows in front of me was an 18something lass, somewhat nice to look at but quite dolled up, who took nearly a dozen selfies on her phone during the 10-odd minutes that we were both on that bus. Fucking annoying.
>> No. 21319 Anonymous
12th February 2020
Wednesday 9:19 pm
21319 spacer
>>21318
My friend was recently in Indonesia. She said when she went on a waterfall trail there was a group of Chinese lasses in bikinis who spent about 20 minutes posing in front of one of the waterfalls without actually turning around and looking at it once whilst their boyfriends took pictures of them before fucking off.
>> No. 21320 Anonymous
12th February 2020
Wednesday 9:41 pm
21320 spacer
>>21319

I think that's how selfies differ from traditional photography. The latter is usually really the attempt to capture the moment of you seeing something you liked, whereas selfies are all about "Look at me, Internet people, I'm cool because here I am at the Grand Canyon".

I think there is a fairly new phaenomenon of people feeling depressed after looking at other people's Instagram stories or social media profiles, and not realising that even a person posing at the Grand Canyon usually has a life off-camera that's just as dowdy and boring as fuck as yours.
>> No. 21321 Anonymous
12th February 2020
Wednesday 9:52 pm
21321 spacer
>>21320
>I think there is a fairly new phaenomenon of people feeling depressed after looking at other people's Instagram stories or social media profiles, and not realising that even a person posing at the Grand Canyon usually has a life off-camera that's just as dowdy and boring as fuck as yours.
"Fairly new" being almost as old as Facebook but otherwise correct.
>> No. 21322 Anonymous
13th February 2020
Thursday 10:50 am
21322 spacer
>>21321

I've never really used facebook for much else besides stalking exes.
>> No. 21323 Anonymous
13th February 2020
Thursday 12:26 pm
21323 spacer
>>21322

Your own personal behaviour doesn't constitute a "phenomenon".
>> No. 21324 Anonymous
13th February 2020
Thursday 2:34 pm
21324 spacer
>>21321

Long before Facebook, we had the Christmas round-robin letter.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7785410.stm
>> No. 21325 Anonymous
13th February 2020
Thursday 4:36 pm
21325 spacer
>>21324

Some people still send those out, but it seems to be more middle aged people.

Return ] Entire Thread ] Last 50 posts ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password