Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

I know I’ll get negative comments on this, but I'll share my thoughts on the statement “I love animals more than people”. This is often an escape mechanism for not doing the work required to feel fully comfortable in your own authenticity. Yes, animals feel safer, more predictable, less...

23,904 views • 2 months ago •via X (Twitter)

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

🦖: I don’t feel anything (about the situation). It all started because of my fan and (the post) said “Why do gay tops like to wear Stussy?”. I felt like teasing them so I said “Because it is cool”. Then some people said “But with this style/appearance, you do not seem like a top”. When I express myself, no matter what I am, it is something that came out of my mouth. So I feel that when there are people who would judge, for example, when you stated, “you are a male”, but there is someone who says, “But you are not a male”. How would you know what that person is? isn’t that right? Regarding the topic of gender and preference in terms of your role during intercourse, it is a private and sensitive matter. Since you are not living with them, you have no reason to judge them on whether they are a top or bottom. I feel that we have no right to judge people on these matters. In 2025, everyone can choose who they want to be and in these times, the world is more open-minded. Anything can happen. This kind of thing is fluid and a very personal matter. 🦖: I feel that when it is a very personal and sensitive thing, there might be a certain group of people who are not be comfortable expressing that they are not straight. Besides not being straight, this also includes having to state their sexual preference or their role during intercourse. It is way beyond that. So I feel that if they are comfortable expressing who they are, but you just feel that their outward appearance does not align with what you think, and then you judge them by saying “But this is not right, this appearance should be a bottom. There is no way.” How would you know? Isn’t that right? OUROAD AT SIAM PARAGON #SiamParagonSummer2025xOUROAD #ต้าห์อู๋ #Daou #Oueiija
1:59

Sensitive content

🦖: I don’t feel anything (about the situation). It all started because of my fan and (the post) said “Why do gay tops like to wear Stussy?”. I felt like teasing them so I said “Because it is cool”. Then some people said “But with this style/appearance, you do not seem like a top”. When I express myself, no matter what I am, it is something that came out of my mouth. So I feel that when there are people who would judge, for example, when you stated, “you are a male”, but there is someone who says, “But you are not a male”. How would you know what that person is? isn’t that right? Regarding the topic of gender and preference in terms of your role during intercourse, it is a private and sensitive matter. Since you are not living with them, you have no reason to judge them on whether they are a top or bottom. I feel that we have no right to judge people on these matters. In 2025, everyone can choose who they want to be and in these times, the world is more open-minded. Anything can happen. This kind of thing is fluid and a very personal matter. 🦖: I feel that when it is a very personal and sensitive thing, there might be a certain group of people who are not be comfortable expressing that they are not straight. Besides not being straight, this also includes having to state their sexual preference or their role during intercourse. It is way beyond that. So I feel that if they are comfortable expressing who they are, but you just feel that their outward appearance does not align with what you think, and then you judge them by saying “But this is not right, this appearance should be a bottom. There is no way.” How would you know? Isn’t that right? OUROAD AT SIAM PARAGON #SiamParagonSummer2025xOUROAD #ต้าห์อู๋ #Daou #Oueiija

𝐟𝐢𝐥𝐦.

249,277 views • 1 year ago

ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos: “You call them lunatics but the president just had this post where he says ‘we’re in discussions with a new and more reasonable regime’ – let me try to pin you down on that, who is this ‘new and more reasonable regime’? Is the United States in direct contact with them?” State Secretary Marco Rubio: “I’m not going to disclose to you who those people are, because it probably would get them in trouble with some other groups of people inside of Iran. Look, there’s some fractures going on there internally. And at the end of the day, I think that if there are people in Iran who now, given everything that’s happened, are willing to move in a different direction for their country, that would be great. Imagine in Iran that instead of spending their wealth, billions of dollars supporting terrorists or weapons, had spent that money helping the people of Iran, you’d have a much different country.” “So we are always hopeful that that would exist over there. It’s unfortunate, the people of Iran are incredible people. The people who lead them, this clerical regime, that is the problem. And if there are new people now in charge who have a more reasonable vision of the future, that would be good news for us, for them, for the entire world. But we also have to be prepared for the possibility, maybe even the probability, that that is not the case. So we’re gonna test it.” George Stephanopoulos: “But the president said they are, is that the case or is it not? I’m just trying to get some clarity on that.” Marco Rubio: “So you have people that are saying some of the right things privately. Obviously, they’re not going to put it out in press releases and what they say to you or put out there for the world doesn’t necessarily reflect what they’re saying in our conversations.”

RedWave Press

419,610 views • 4 months ago

Chat: Zeudi, how many real friends you have?” Zeudi: Honestly guys, if we want to talk about friendship today… it’s a very big topic. Because when you fall in love, you fall in love — you don’t really choose it. But when you build a friendship with someone, that’s something you do choose. You choose it every day. Just like you choose your family. So the concept of friendship is actually simple: there are friends, and then there are social circles. I have many social circles — but real friends? Maybe one. Two. Maybe not even that. Friends? No. Mostly social groups. I think in life we all have people we spend time with, people to have fun with. But friendship itself is more complex. The people who are lucky enough to build friendships from childhood — that’s different. When you’re young, there aren’t as many layers, masks, or ulterior motives. You’re more naive, more genuine. So friendships can be deeper, more carefree, without overthinking. As adults, it’s harder. It’s harder to make real friends because you know that sometimes it’s “friends, friends”… and then they steal your bike. You have to be careful. I’m not trying to be pessimistic, but it’s better to live with realistic expectations. Appreciate the people who make you feel good as company — that’s fair. But friendship, like love, is built over years. There are people who date for a short time and say “I love you.” For me, honestly, that’s ridiculous. How can you love someone after two months? Three months? Even a year or two? Maybe if you’ve lived together every single day and truly shared life, I can understand it more. But there are people who say “I love you,” break up, get with someone else, and say “I love you” again. For me, that’s not love. Love is built over years, brick by brick — just like friendship. It takes time. People say, “That’s my best friend.” Sure, you can say that. But I personally know that even someone I call a best friend could still betray me. Because I know human nature. I believe in friendship, and I believe in love — but I also know they’re rare. Very rare. Infatuation isn’t a choice. But love, after a while, becomes a choice. And that’s when it starts to resemble friendship. Do you get what I mean? So in my opinion, we need to be realistic. Real friendship is built over years. And the ones who managed to build it from childhood — that’s the truest kind. Because truly knowing someone takes time. 😮‍💨

Korslayage

54,505 views • 5 months ago

Agreeable people can't get paid more. Try being disagreeable. Jordan Peterson: “You don’t ask for more money. You make the case that you need to be paid more.” “Agreeable people are good in teams. They’re very likely to give other people credit.” That’s their strength. They collaborate well. They avoid unnecessary friction. They make teams smoother. But that same trait becomes expensive in negotiation. Because agreeable people are often bad at putting forward their own interests. And careers do not only reward value. They reward people who can argue for their value. Peterson’s point is simple: If you want to be paid more, being useful is not enough. You have to make a strong case for why your compensation should change. That means walking in with: Here’s what I do. Here’s the value I create. Here’s why it matters. And here are my options if that value is not recognized. Not as a threat. As leverage. That is where many people fail. They think asking for a raise is about being appreciated. It’s not. It’s about showing your utility clearly enough that saying no becomes harder. Peterson also points out that many people, especially women, may underestimate their value going into these conversations. If you already focus more on your flaws than your strengths, and you’re naturally agreeable, you negotiate from weakness before the conversation even starts. So you soften your ask. You downplay your impact. You wait too long. You accept less. Meanwhile, someone less capable but more assertive gets rewarded faster. That’s the brutal reality. The solution is not becoming aggressive. It’s becoming firm. Not rude. Not combative. Just clear, prepared, and willing to create a little discomfort. Because if you are always protecting the relationship at the cost of your own value, you will stay underpaid for a long time. Lessons I'm taking away from this clip: 1. Being valuable is not enough if you cannot communicate your value clearly. This is the biggest takeaway for me. A lot of smart, hardworking people assume their work will speak for itself, but in business that is often not how it works. People are busy. Managers are juggling priorities. Companies respond to clarity, not silent effort. So the real skill is not just doing good work. It is learning how to explain your contribution in a way that makes your value undeniable. If you can’t articulate the business case for paying you more, you’re leaving too much room for other people to define your worth for you. 2. Negotiation gets easier when you stop treating it like a favor and start treating it like positioning. I think this is where many people get stuck. They walk into these conversations hoping to be appreciated instead of prepared to make a case. That mindset alone weakens your posture. A raise conversation should not sound like “I was hoping…” It should sound like “Here is the impact I’ve created, here is the value tied to it, and here is why this needs to be reflected.” That shift matters. The market rewards people who understand leverage, alternatives, and timing. Not just effort. 3. A lot of under-earning is really under-claiming. Many people, especially those who are conflict-avoidant, do not get paid less because they are less capable. They get paid less because they minimize themselves in rooms that require conviction. They soften their wins, downplay their utility, and wait too long for someone else to notice. But career growth often belongs to the people who can hold two things at once: humility in how they work, and firmness in how they position their value. That balance is what changes income over time.

Yasmine Khosrowshahi

62,947 views • 3 months ago