I'm not sure why you included it then. The open secrets link makes me think you wanted to prove

Because Greens take insane amounts of donations from right wing donors, don’t have any issues getting investments in big oil

But I really can't confirm anything just based on some peoples' names.

The open secret link is just showing individuals that have donated more than $200, and the morningstar link doesn't mention the green party at all.

Could have said something specific then, rather than "literally anything acute". As it is, I don't know why you'd assume your magical elf that's known to cause cancer could also be so benign as to only give people a cold.

Any time you vote for a candidate that loses, this is the case. And of your preferred candidate wins in a landslide, every extra vote they didn't need might as well have been blank.

They're not, they're complaining about the problems inherent to cars.

A decent number of titles I’ve seen on there don’t have DRM.

Which games on GOG do you think have DRM? GOG's whole deal is they sell DRM-free games.

That's all well and good, I'm not trying to deny that those methods work, but booty was claiming that the article telling us this year is the hottest on record was a lie without any real clarification why he thought that.

So either he read the he only read the headline and wanted to feel smug about it, or he was trying to downplay the seriousness of the situation by saying it used to be worse millions or billions of years ago. I don't really care which, the outcome is the same either way.

I know there were a bunch of subreddits with bots that automatically commented Are you looking for this specific thing? on every post, and a lot of posts were answered correctly by those bots.

Am I supposed to be seeing a fact check during the debate? Because it seems more like "I want to move on to another subject" and "well anyways" the first few times the moderator speaks.

One of the core tenets of fascism is making the “enemy” look weak and strong at the same time

Looking at these three (1) (2) (3) descriptions of fascism, only one of them (2) brings up enemies that are both weak and strong at the same time. But looking at that list, you're showcasing way more of the features of fascism if we're being honest. You clearly don't like how modern society is organized and seem to want to go back to how things used to be (1 and 2), you're very obviously showing social frustration (6), I could argue that you're obsessed with a plot (7) about how all feminists hate men, you're claiming women are physically weak and yet have social/cultural power over you (8), and there're some hints of (12) machismo, specifically the disdain for women.

Masculinity is not fragile or weak. This is nonsensical and cartoonishly evil propaganda invented by females to weaken the diametrically opposite gender.

Masculinity is a social construct. What you think of as "masculine" is shaped by society and the people around you. It's as strong or as weak as you believe it is, and different people can have different beliefs about the same thing. You can find plenty of academic studies or articles talking about this, and they all describe it in a similar way:

To date, identity research has largely focused on understanding how people’s membership in different social categories (e.g., gender, race) shapes their experiences, self-concept, and behavior. I contend that when (i) a social category is high-status and (ii) its corresponding norms are especially rigid—as is often the case with masculinity—people in this category may feel pressured to uphold its norms in order to maintain their status. To the extent that identities are pressured, I argue that they are “fragile”, in turn eliciting compensatory, stereotypical responses (e.g., male aggression) to perceived threats aimed at maintaining status.

Now on to the examples you gave.

Let a feminist tell you about pretty privilege.

Why are you assuming anyone in that video is a feminist?

Men at work being scared of women is a common thing.

This was right after the Me Too movement, a response to the very real crimes perpetrated against women in the workplace. If I remember right, it was all started in response to Harvey Weinstein being accused by over 80 women of various crimes. Similarly, Bill Cosby had over 60 women come forward with stories about him. Just these two guys have over 100 victims and got away with it for decades. The department of labor still estimates that somewhere between 25% to 85% of women have experienced sexual assault in the workplace. False accusations happen, but unreported crimes are way more common.

Why are men told to approach women and get rejected, but never women told by feminists to be “bold” and “brave” and approach and get rejected?

That video literally opens with a woman saying other women need to be proactive when trying to get a date.

Far more feminists use the small hand gesture or reject men based on small height, compared to men lightly teasing women as “flatboards” or whatever else. Easy to search. Here is a body positivity feminist doing it.

Why are you assuming the singular woman talked about in the video is a body-positive feminist? We know literally nothing about her except she sent a message to this random youtuber that was complaining about wearing a condom during sex. The guy got insulted on social media and made a 12 minute video response about how he wasn't hurt by it.

Men are avoiding approaching women and going sexless, thanks to feminism.

What part of this says it's because of feminism? I skipped to the "What's causing the rise in sexless men?" section (because I'm not about to listen to the entire 90 minute podcast) and the expert said it was because of reduced alcohol consumption, being generally more risk averse, and just not wanting to date.

Women and their one sided disregard for mens’ emotional sanctity (as sacred as womens’ physical sanctity) is why locker room talk will always exist. Disregard for the privacy of mens’ emotions has been a problem for thousands of years. And let’s not act like “girl talk” does not exist. Girls always do a lot of talking while the boys are kept out. This is another female privilege clubbed together with its self-inflicted devastation of their mental health, which they cry about later.

Again, the "locker room" talk that you're so desperate to defend is fantasizing about rape. You can have private conversations among men, that's fine and no one is trying to stop that, but you keep specifically bringing up "locker room" talk. Where you objectify women and only consider their physical attractiveness. You even say that women do it and are worse off for it, why do you want "locker room" talk to be respected so much?

And why are so many of the videos you posted from Aba N Preach? Looking at their channel, it seems they post a new video about once every 2 days, and the vast majority of it is just reacting to social media posts and other videos. They seem like a rage-bait content mill. And since you posted over 4 1/2 hours of videos, I feel pretty okay about linking this video explaining the "manosphere", because Aba N Preach seem like they'd fit right in.

The NCBI study actually supports my claim - the outdoor areas show NO particulate matter - thats what’s actually harmful to your health.

Among the different types of outdoor areas, the highest median outdoor SHS levels (nicotine: 4.23 µg/m3, PM2.5: 43.64 µg/m3) were found in the semi-closed outdoor areas of venues where indoor smoking was banned.

You can't expect me to take you seriously if you're just going to lie about what the page says. I'll admit it might not be the best page to prove my point, but it does still show particulate matter exists in noticeable amounts outside. Also, why are you trying to say that nicotine has no harmful effects?

Although health studies on nicotine exposure alone are limited, ... in vitro and in vivo preclinical studies strongly indicate that nicotine exposure alone can adversely affect the nervous, respiratory, immune, and cardiovascular systems, particularly when exposure occurs during critical developmental periods.

You're just making stuff up.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I wasn’t giving examples of things that should be allowed or banned.

Living in a tolerant society means that we need to be willing to deal with these little inconveniences in our lives. One of my neighbours has kids who love to play on a go-kart and wake me up at 6am on a Saturday morning

As long as it’s not a direct risk to health (e.g. smoking indoors) and not extremely obnoxious (playing extremely loud music and refusing to turn it down) people should be able to do what they want to.

There are plenty of studies which show that a lack of sleep leads to significant health issues.

You gave an example of something that should be allowed (kids being loud), described that same thing as something that shouldn't be allowed (people being loud), and then justified why it shouldn't be allowed (sleep is important).

Alright, but why is it okay for you to decide that some noise is okay, but Ronon Dex can't decide that the air pollution isn't? Why do you get to make that decision for them, and just say "you have to deal with some problems in a tolerant society"?

For vehicle exhaust, we’re basically already solving the problem by moving away from ICE vehicles, so I don’t see the reason in arguing about it.

Because there's more than one way of generating air pollution and some would argue that the transition isn't happening fast enough, or even that transitioning to electric cars isn't really a solution.