exocrinous

Yeah, I know there's impractical brutalist buildings, but those are the big expensive projects, right? The cheap ones are practical as far as I knew

Yeah nah I don't get it. Homeless is homeless, housed is housed. I'm currently homeless and I'd take apartment #5722 in a heartbeat, long as it was near public transport and had good insulation. Guess there's some people who'd rather rough it than stay in a boring apartment, but I think maybe we should house all the people who are willing to stay in boring apartments before we worry about catering to picky people. If they're comfortable enough on the street that a boring apartment is worse than the street, maybe they can stay on the street a little longer than the rest of us and be relatively okay. I definitely believe in helping them, but I think we should be trying to help the most people the soonest with the limited budget available.

Well I may be biased because I think brutalist architecture is beautiful, but I disagree. Every penny saved on the appearance of the building is a penny towards the functionality of the building, or towards housing more people. Would I rather have a pretty brick facade or 1% better thermal and sonic insulation? I'll pick the insulation. Would I rather have a visually interesting architectural shape or rooftop solar? I'll pick the solar. Visual appearance has never been a factor in my living needs, ugly wallpaper aside. I don't really understand the mindset of that stuff being important. I'll pick a nice colour for my bedsheets, and that's as far as it goes. And besides, elegance of form and function is a beauty all its own. I recently got a new mouse and it's beautiful to me because it works well. It has a pleasing heft, comfortable shape, no waste, and that's beautiful. A mouse in the most pleasing colour, but with poor ergonomics, would be ugly to me. Single family detached houses are hideous to me.

Low effort brutalism looks cheap because it is. And that's a good thing. In my country there's a homeless crisis. The waitlist for government housing is five years. And that's because too much of the government housing is single family detached houses. The politicians always say "we don't have enough money to build government housing for everyone who needs it". You know how many homeless we'd have if the government built soviet block style apartment buildings? Next to none. The people who can live on their own and just don't have enough money can live in that, the people who need support can stay in the homeless shelters that have support, and only the people who want to be homeless would be left. Brutalism is efficient. American style suburbia is inefficient, so much so that it needs to be subsidized by the government using money taken from the city, because the suburbanites can't pay for their own single family detached houses, even the ones with high paying jobs.

And that day she learned the importance of punctuality

This enby wakes up to the Cheers theme every morning

Nobody in this thread mentioned "pure" virgin gfs or said virgin partners are better than sexually active partners. I was answering a question that's applicable to myself in a direct and literal sense by explaining my queerness. You responded with hostility, accused my queerness of being the result of an incel fetish, and used this other weird tangential thing to explain your actions while continuing to insult me. Did you at any point consider being nice?

Also you're being really pedantic in a linguistically inappropriate way. You keep stressing the point that there isn't a 1:1 relationship between asexuality and virginity. Nobody made that assertion. Somebody asked about virgins in relationships and asked what it was and I responded "it's called being asexual". That's not a statement that every virgin is asexual, nor is it a statement that every asexual is a virgin. It's a colloquialism establishing an explanation for at least one occurrence. You read superfluous meaning into something I said and proceeded to repeatedly I'm wrong about something I didn't say. It's mean, cut it out.

You presented with the same visible symptoms, but we don't know if your illness had the same amount of resistance to treatment

Yeah I don't think the manipulative piece of spyware is actually friends with him. It's a robot that tells lies. Abandoning a friend is just how his amygdala and other primitive parts of his brain process his behaviour. The way he's feeling is a normal way for a sack of thinking meat to feel. It's not good, but it's not like we can act like his behaviour is abnormal. If we say his case is a freak occurrence and no normal person would fall for this, then the risk we run is that when the technology improves, a lot of other normal people are gonna fall for this and we won't have been prepared. This technology is designed specifically to prey on blind spots common to most males of the species. I don't think we should use language that inclines us to underestimate the dangers. We need to understand how the hindbrain processes the stimulus this technology creates if we want to understand the dangers. We're gonna need to make an effort to see the world through OP's eyes so we can see why it works. Because I guarantee the dangerous companies developing this tech are researching OP's perspective to improve their product.