GAP had a big viral marketing campaign with Katseye last quarter too
21.11.2025 12:02 โ ๐ 1 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 0 ๐ 0@lvclog.bsky.social
GAP had a big viral marketing campaign with Katseye last quarter too
21.11.2025 12:02 โ ๐ 1 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 0 ๐ 0You do recall that Biden pulled out of Afghanistan, right?
20.11.2025 16:12 โ ๐ 30 ๐ 1 ๐ฌ 1 ๐ 0That 41% figure is also not that informative without knowing the corresponding number for non-LGBT characters
20.11.2025 12:18 โ ๐ 2 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 0 ๐ 0You don't care about any of that lmao. You're just grossed out by them, which is fine, but it doesn't mean you get to use your personal distate as a justification for repression against people minding their business. Again, just get a hobby and stop being an ass.
19.11.2025 13:51 โ ๐ 1 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 0 ๐ 0Maybe try thinking a cycle or two ahead? Labour is at danger of being reduced to a regional party with a handful of seats in the next election. That seems like a much worse outcome than being out of power for 4 years
19.11.2025 04:13 โ ๐ 1 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 0 ๐ 0"Stop searching for furry content in order to get upset about" is just an easier remedy for your grievances here lol
18.11.2025 13:34 โ ๐ 0 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 0 ๐ 0It doesn't need to discouraged either. We don't have to set public policy based on the fact that you purposefully seek content that grosses you out
18.11.2025 13:33 โ ๐ 2 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 2 ๐ 0"Furryism" isn't being encouraged, you can just leave them alone and not obsess over whatever a harmless small group of weirdos are doing
18.11.2025 13:20 โ ๐ 2 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 1 ๐ 0I am referring to your recent comments on random furry accounts lol
18.11.2025 13:19 โ ๐ 0 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 0 ๐ 0Do your coworkers (assuming you have any lol) know that your hobby basically entails searching for erotic content of antrorphomic animals so you can act scandalized about it?
18.11.2025 13:16 โ ๐ 0 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 1 ๐ 0"Actually, it's normal behavior to profusely search for furry accounts for research" Do you listen to yourself lmao
18.11.2025 13:15 โ ๐ 0 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 1 ๐ 0No, you're just a weirdo pretending that your obsessions are normal and widespread. At least furries are conscious about the fact they're weird.
18.11.2025 13:14 โ ๐ 0 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 1 ๐ 0I don't know, just do literally anything besides getting your brain fried by negative polarization against... furries? Lmao
18.11.2025 13:11 โ ๐ 5 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 1 ๐ 0>99% of users here or in any other social media aren't obsessively searching for furry content so they can't shriek about it. It's not the fault of the Web 3.0 or whatever you do that
18.11.2025 13:10 โ ๐ 0 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 1 ๐ 0Really? That's not my experience at all. You're yourself probably just a "malajusted individual" without anything better to do lol. Find a hobby
18.11.2025 13:07 โ ๐ 3 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 2 ๐ 0You obviously do have a weird derangement with furries, so you're just more prone to believe whatever fabricated bullshit is fed to you, I guess. Also, it's funny that you seemingly dedicated a lot of your activity here to looking for furry accounts so you can get clutch your pearls at them lol
18.11.2025 12:56 โ ๐ 1 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 1 ๐ 0They really aren't though. The only connection in the NY Post article is that he browsed DeviantArt, which is not remotely an exclusive furry website. There wasn't any furry content he posted or interacted with
18.11.2025 12:52 โ ๐ 1 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 1 ๐ 0No, they didn't. Stop lying, their claim is just on they/them pronouns on some DeviantArt, but that's not informative because that website just defaults every account to those pronouns. Stop being gullible
18.11.2025 12:43 โ ๐ 0 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 1 ๐ 0Honestly, even Blueprint (or at least whoever wrote this article for them) doesn't seem to understand what the results of a conjoint analysis are supposed to mean
17.11.2025 06:05 โ ๐ 0 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 1 ๐ 0Yeah, the presentation does suck and consistently lead to people misinterpreting their numbers
17.11.2025 05:53 โ ๐ 0 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 1 ๐ 0They ask people to choose between the options presented (not necessarily all at once) and the results represent how likely each option was to be chosen compared to the others.
17.11.2025 05:46 โ ๐ 0 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 1 ๐ 0If they asked respondents to pick between "being a socialist" and "bringing prices down", the negative result for the former would likely be larger. Not that I think this kind of data is in any way useful or much informative lol
17.11.2025 05:45 โ ๐ 0 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 1 ๐ 0This is a conjoint analysis, the numbers measure the relative performance of the options when contrasted with each other. The "bio fact" and "issue focus" were tested separately (I think), so comparing the results between them doesn't make sense.
17.11.2025 05:43 โ ๐ 0 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 2 ๐ 0Who are the closeted twink and the entrepeneur in trouble for tax fraud?
17.11.2025 01:36 โ ๐ 2 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 1 ๐ 0Lula's approvals have risen lately at least, it seems
17.11.2025 00:21 โ ๐ 1 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 0 ๐ 0Polling seems to have him ahead at least, but it's generally a narrow lead
17.11.2025 00:07 โ ๐ 0 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 1 ๐ 0*If Lula wins re-election next year
17.11.2025 00:06 โ ๐ 0 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 1 ๐ 0This is from January. Sharon is bringing it up specifically to mock the people who were predicting right-wint cultural domination back then
16.11.2025 00:59 โ ๐ 1 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 0 ๐ 0Was there even any polling with Sherril winning by double digits?
15.11.2025 03:03 โ ๐ 0 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 1 ๐ 0I thought Dasha was just a podcaster, just now I am learning that she was an actress too lol
15.11.2025 01:56 โ ๐ 1 ๐ 0 ๐ฌ 0 ๐ 0