StorminNorman

You can want to be as specific all you want. Doesn't mean the person you initially replied to is wrong, especially given there's a couple of American dictionaries who list that definition. And I'd temper your rhetoric about there being such a divide a bit too, especially when Ohio and Indiana voted for Trump the year he won. Sure seems like there were a bunch of northerners who were thinking along the same lines as those in the south...

Also, no need to apologise for being a prick, you shouldn't give two fucks about what people think of you here. I mean, why should you censor yourself for some randoms who don't know you from a bar of soap? We all have opinions, we should be able to express them how we want. We should also expect criticisms of those opinions though.

To be fair, they didn't actually say that what the others called it was smart or correct, just that they did call it that. But given nuance can be deduced from people's words, I think we can both assume that the person you're engaging with isn't playing with a full deck of cards...

Your first sentence is somewhat correct, I'd argue that dealing with any kind of absolute like you have done is incredibly dumb though. Of course being outspoken can get you bullied. It may be less likely in a university/college setting, but it's definitely gonna happen. And your second second sentence is so wrong it's almost comical. Bullying at a tertiary education level is so common that I guarantee there's a bunch of studies done on it and probably a wiki page for it too.

Edit: lol, yep, shit loads of studies (and there's plenty more to be found than just these few), and the wiki exists.

Actually, she did have HIV in the movie, the screenwriter confirmed it a few years ago. She did have hep-c in the book though.

Which is totally fine. Your usage of them as you did would be called a scare quote.

You sure as shit don't. They used the quotation marks just fine. So fine in fact, that this usage you are so against is a well established grammatical device, look up "scare quotes".

If you're American, they're not yanks as they aren't Yankees. But to the rest of us, everyone who is a citizen of the US is a yank, regardless of if they're a Yankee or not. Fair point on the rest though.

They don't. Go and reread what I wrote, then come back here and quote the part of my comment where I said that.

And I again refer you back to what I previously wrote, your priorities change as you age. Mine did. I'm far more likely to have sex with a partner who's company I enjoy than someone who's company I don't enjoy. That aside, I didn't say you're gonna just start solely having sex with only people you have good company with. I didn't even say that you'd stop trying to have sex with people you were physically attracted to. I said your standards will change. Which insinuated that maybe you might not have slept with someone when you were 18yo cos they didn't meet your criteria of being attractive back then, but you might now cos your standards have changed.

You're still gonna be attracted to 20yos physically. There's over 100k years of evolution that wants you to mate with the fittest, most attractive mate that you can. But is that a person you actually want to spend time with outside of the bedroom? So, yeah, your standards in regards to physical attractiveness are gonna drop as you age, but your other standards will likely change too.

"I don't get my info from Google". Then use your search engine of choice, "google" is basically genericized by now. The info is all there for you to read and not rely on your memory which is clearly wrong. And that's understandable. It's been 10yrs.

And you're not entirely right on the YouTube not stealing users from tiktok. YouTube shorts have more active users than tiktok does by a good margin. And tiktoks growth is slowing as a result. Again, these are all facts.

And finally, you're a fucking idiot. Why the fuck did Instagrams user count explode when they implemented short form video if that wasn't an attractive feature? Why is my Instagram feed 85%+ videos over pictures? I don't even follow celebrities on there, a handful of bands (be less than 10), the rest is friends but mainly content creators creating comedy. Be it memes, original creations, stand up clips, etc. Your memory is shit and fallible, the pages I literally just read are not as they are saved for posterity. I suggest you take my original suggestion and do some research on the topic instead of relying on your feelings before you make yourself look like a bigger idiot. Cos yeah, Instagram didn't take 100% of vines users, but it still took a fucking huge amount of them. The data is all out there, written way better than I can write it. Go read it and stop trying to act like you know all, cos after you read a bit, maybe you might change your tune...

Sure, you might not have, but the data suggests that Instagram allowing its users to post 15s videos and monetise them was what allowed them to poach a lot of vine users. This isn't me just talking shit, google "why did vine shut down" and I guarantee 95%+ of the results will say the same thing. Twitter got scooped in a big way. I mean, vine had more users than Instagram before it's downfall.

Data caps may have played a part, but it would've been insignificant. They were 6s videos after all, and the average American was already using over 1GB of data even back then. Instagram had about the same amount of users at the time. And their willingness to give their users more flexibility than vine was by giving users 15s videos and the ability to monetise was all it took. It wasn't helped by twitter giving zero shits about vine. Which kinda makes sense, they had their own video thing going.