- cross-posted to:
- technology@chat.maiion.com
- cross-posted to:
- technology@chat.maiion.com
Porn sites must have government health warning in Texas from September 1st::Just when we didn’t think the state of Texas could get any more wacko on tech policy, this latest bill really suggests otherwise. House Bill 1181 is an age verification measure that is similar to what we’ve seen in the state legislatures across other red U.S. states. You have an age verification proposal that is similar…
You must log in or register to comment.
The party of small government sure does a lot of mommying.
I remember being VERY pissed about Obamacare requiring an individual having insurance by paying a for-profit company, else pay a penalty, because of the pro-corp “nanny state” implications, much like I despise legally-required auto insurance (without a government-funded baseline).
Yet here we are with “muh indivdulizm” republicans making the overreach far worse than Democrats ever would have.
Obamacare was invented by a Republican. It was done as a compromise because most Democrat legislators are right wing and don’t want to see public healthcare enacted in the US.
This. In retrospect it’s kind of amazing it even got passed, and that is the best we can do with democrats controlling 60% of the house and 58 senate seats. And unless republicans are somehow tricked into voting for national popular vote legislation and federally enforced fair districting, or we wait 25 years for all the boomers to die out and hope that millennials still want UHC, AND we also repeal citizens united, the ACA is probably the best we are going to get for some time.
What an insane, ahistorical take lol
It’s basically true. The ACA drew a lot of support being compared to Massachusetts’ healthcare when Romney was governor. The individual mandate, which was the necessary compromise to get it passed, was first proposed by The Heritage Foundation.
You ever notice how the republicans can’t shut up about how much they hate Obamacare, but whenever they have enough seats to end it, they don’t? It’s because they secretly like it (because it’s their plan) but they just don’t want to give Obama or the other Democrats credit for passing it.
“basically true” that “all Dems wanted this instead of SP” because "all Dems are right wing??
No that is not “basically true” lmao
Why you put “all Dems are right wing” in quotes when what I said is that most are. Which is true. American politics are very far right of centre economically by the rest of the world’s standards.
You can’t backpedal from a lie by lying more lol
Yes, most Democrats are right wing. They take money from medical, insurance, and banks who would very much like to prevent single payer. So instead we got ACA modeled on a Republican plan with a cop out mandate from a Republican think tank. (And the Republicans still lost their frickin minds). Yes, I vote Democratic but I have no illusions that they’re left of center 'cept maybe Bernie.
Romneycare was what the basic concept of the ACA was called before it was called Obamacare. There are very few American politicians on either side of the aisle who favour single-payer healthcare.
After Obama campaigned on healthcare as a key issue, he ended up using a Republican healthcare reform as the framework for his federal reform in order to get the corporate crony faction of the Democrat party on side. The Republicans, in a classic example of American politics being literally the dumbest thing ever, decided that they couldn’t be seen as agreeing with a Democrat (particularly a black one), even if it was their own idea, so they moved the Overton Window even further right and began claiming that even ACA was a bridge too far.
Obama’s first proposal was for a single-payer system. That proposal lost by effectively 1 vote.
You don’t need to link me anything, because I was a grown adult in 08.
“Obamacare” for instance, was coined when Obama won, because right-wing talk channels had been expecting Hillary Clinton to win the Primary and had already coined “HillaryCare” from her own single-payer proposal shed had since the 90s.
Fuckin weird that leftists try to distort recent history as if people weren’t fucking alive in 2008 and can correct them.
Fuckin weird that you seem to think ‘leftist’ is a cogent insult.
It’s not an insult - right-wing people don’t do that. They make up different wholesale bullshit
Obama’s first proposal was for a single-payer system. That proposal lost by effectively 1 vote.
Have you not noticed that this happens every time? They always manage to find that one vote to prevent anything truly progressive from happening. If we need 60 votes to make something change for the better in this country, there will be 59 yay votes, with 2 people voting “present.”
They dont “find the vote” to do that lol. That’s exactly backwards. Democrats are a loose coalition of “not Republican” and some regions of the country elect nominal democrats that are not on board with every party intention
You have Bernie Sanders one example, and Joe Manchin as another, to give a recent opposition.
I’m afraid yours is the a historical one. Democrats shelved things like the public option. Never putting them on the table convinced that they could win over Republicans support. They didn’t even have the support in their own party for that. And never through the whole process ever won a single Republican over.
It is a simple fact that Democrats are economically right-wing. So I’m afraid you’re the one that’s in the wrong. They are at least loosely pro-social democracy. But they are solidly capitalist through and through.
This. I was too young for Obamacare to be something I knew a single thing about but as a car owner and leftist auto insurance has always rubbed me wrong.
It’s just another means to keep people from being hireable by denying them jobs due to shitty public transit and the inability to legally drive their cars.
The parts of auto insurance meant to help you are optional. It’s only the part that will help others in the event you cause damage or injury to them that is mandatory, which people who can’t afford to drive because of insurance certainly wouldn’t be able to afford.
Now change it to a system where there aren’t executives and shareholders looking to extract a lot of money from that necessity and I’m all for it. But I’m vehemently against just removing the requirement entirely.
IMO if you can afford it, it’s dumb to opt out of the optional ones, too, even with the profit going to the insurance execs and owners. Unless you have enough savings to easily replace your vehicle in the event you crash it or a tree falls on it that isn’t covered by someone’s homeowner’s insurance.
Lol. So, you’ve never gotten into an accident with an uninsured driver then? Because you wouldn’t be saying that if you had.
I have gotten into an accident with an uninsured driver. Twice. Both their fault (running reds out near Mulholland).
Are you suggesting state run insurance or no requirement for insurance?
I think there should be no requirement or a govt funded baseline
No it’s a safeguard against someone destroying your fucking car and not having the means to pay for it.
If they can barely afford the insurance and hit you their insurance isn’t paying.
I’ve been hit by red light runners thrice and while biking in a parking lot (ironically got more injured here) and only two times the drivers didn’t have insurance… not a single one paid out.
Insurance is a scam and defending it is akin to defending a Ponzi scheme imo.
The government funded baselines for insurance is the high risk pool, or just not driving.
I know right!? The party of personal responsibility 🤮
It’s not inconsistent. They want to watch you j/o and only a small government can fit in your bedroom.
Can we stop associating power overreach with female authority figures, please?
That’s reasonable.
Pretty clear First Amendment compelled-speech case. The government may not compel a speaker to say a bunch of false things (the supposed “warnings” are lies; and arguably even defamatory ones) as a condition of being permitted to speak.
The 2018 NIFLA v. Becerra is the most recent Supreme Court case on compelled speech, and it does not look favorable to this sort of thing.
I doubt that. Cigarette companies have to include warning labels as per the courts and there’s a mountain of evidence that porn can be harmful to people.
Go look at what speech they’re compelling. It’s outright defamatory.
Yeah lol
Or, that exposure to porn “is associated with low self-esteem and body image eating disorders, impaired brain development, and other emotional and mental illnesses.” Note how they use the term “exposure” as if a person watching porn was exposed to a real disease.
Not to mention
“The statements on science effects are just false, they have never been shown,” said Prause in an email to me. She elaborated that the “science” referred to in House Bill 1181 is “completely fabricated.” “APA and WHO both rejected sex and pornography as addictions because they are not. The bill flies in the face of scientific consensus.”
Everything is bigger in Texas. Including outright fabrication
APA and WHO rejecting sex and porn as addictions makes me more skeptical of them than porn addiction.
And I’m already side-eyeing WHO from how they handled covid. They are the ones where a lack of evidence had them supporting the “everything is fine” side of things rather than the “better safe than sorry”. And also lying about the lack of evidence itself because there were already stories on the internet that indicated it was airborne when they were saying that there wasn’t any evidence that it was.
WHO doesn’t have much credibility IMO and this just further hurts it.
Comments like this are just sad.
Because of my stance against WHO or because I think porn might be addictive? Or maybe both?
Because a panel of scientists has done documented research to test whether porn addiction should be an illness, and through studies they have found that in most cases, compulsive porn usage is due to another underlying issue, and the porn itself is an avenue and not the source of the issue. Attacking the WHO because of your stance on COVID has nothing to do with this.
💀
I can’t tell if this is an insult or not. What kind of shoes do you have?
And if they have something more productive to say, could you put them on instead?
For the lazy:
HB 1181 would issue public health warnings including claims that porn use “increases the demand for prostitution, child exploitation, and child pornography.” Claims that are included in the health warnings laid out by the bill suggest that porn use is “potentially biologically addictive, is proven to harm human brain development, desensitizes brain reward circuits, increases conditioned responses, and weakens brain function.” Or, that exposure to porn “is associated with low self-esteem and body image eating disorders, impaired brain development, and other emotional and mental illnesses.” Note how they use the term “exposure” as if a person watching porn was exposed to a real disease.
All of that is backed up by actual evidence though. It’s not really disputed that porn affects self esteem and body issues or desensitizes reward circuits of the brain.
Well, yes it is disputed. Those claims are just plain totally made up. The other bits about how watching porn makes you become a pedophile, even more so.
If they were going to totally make up claims they’d choose better ones to go with. These are actual topics based on evidence, even if inconvenient truths for those who support or oppose porn.
Not convinced. The claims being made are obviously parodies of tobacco health warnings, with reference to far-right sexual guilt propaganda.
Here’s a hint: If you’re a worker, and a politician tells you that your dissatisfaction with your lot in life is the fault of sex workers, probably of ethnic minorities … that politician is a fascist.
I would love for you to provide a source for “all of that is backed up by actual evidence”, and change my mind! I always want to learn.
I mean, you linked an entire website, I guess that’s a bit better thank just linking google, but doesn’t give me any specific info about your claims.
I’ll bite. Show us the evidence. Peer-reviewed, published studies in respectable journals.
From JAMA Psychiatry https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24871202/
The negative association of self-reported pornography consumption with the right striatum (caudate) volume, left striatum (putamen) activation during cue reactivity, and lower functional connectivity of the right caudate to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex could reflect change in neural plasticity as a consequence of an intense stimulation of the reward system, together with a lower top-down modulation of prefrontal cortical areas. Alternatively, it could be a precondition that makes pornography consumption more rewarding.
As OP said constantly stimulating your reward pathway with instant gratification like porn does have lasting changes in your brain.
But fuck Texas also I don’t support this bill
Alternatively, it could be a precondition that makes pornography consumption more rewarding.
It could change your brain. Or it could not. They’re just theorizing.
Interesting. The study seems to indicate a negative correlation between porn usage and gray matter. I’d love to see more research on this, perhaps over the course of several years. I’d also love to know what the r64 metric they kept using for correlation is.
deleted by creator
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27114191/
Self-perceived pornography addiction (SPPA) is reported to affect users and their partners in similar ways, such as increased feelings of isolation and relationship breakdowns.
Took me longer to paste this into lemmy than it did to find evidence in pubmed
The paper itself has lengthy discussion on the flaws of the research it’s examining.
The studies reviewed examined the possible impact of SPPA on users or their partners using cross-sectional designs, with one study also using longitudinal research methods. Of course, retrospective cross-sectional designs cannot be used to draw causal conclusions 51 about any associations between SPPA and potential outcomes because they are measured simultaneously; it might be difficult to ascertain whether individuals perceived their pornography use to be problematic before or after they experi- enced negative outcomes. Moreover, the longitudinal study used a two-wave design and a much smaller subset (n ¼ 106) of the original sample (N ¼ 1,215), which substantially limits causality- related analyses, so findings are likely to be tentative at best.
Nine of the 10 studies reported evidence that SPPA had a detrimental impact on individuals or their partners. However, some important methodologic issues must be considered. First, SPPA and its impact were often assessed using a single-item measurement, which research suggests is an adequate measure- ment of complex constructs. 4,52 If an individual’s experience is multidimensional (ie, physiologic, behavioral, and cognitive), then it might be challenging for the individual to convey this using a single item, and assumptions can be made that omit potentially important information. Second, some studies used under-defined concepts and definitions; for example, Levin et al 19 used a single-item measurement to assess impaired functioning resulting from SPPA but did not provide a definition of functioning, so it is uncertain whether the researchers were measuring the same construct for all participants
Third, three studies18,20,21 suggested that individuals’ values and morals associated with their pornography use might have contributed to their perceived pornography addiction, and Prause et al20 further suggested that conflict with their held values might have led to their distress. Therefore, SPPA might actually result from a conflict in values rather than pornography use per se.
Research that examined the impact of SPPA on the partners of self-perceived pornography addicts found that they experienced several negative effects such as feelings of betrayal, shame, and isolation. These effects were attributed to the behavior of the self- perceived pornography addict. However, research investigating the effects of pornography use has shown that women who attribute their partners’ pornography use to an inadequacy about themselves experience a greater level of distress.53 None of the studies reviewed considered the characteristics of the partners of self-perceived pornography addicts, yet negative outcomes can be affected by factors such as thinking styles and attitudes (eg, how we perceive information), which can lead to these feelings of inadequacy.
There also were concerns regarding the measurements used to make conclusions about the impact of SPPA. Many relied on adapted and non-validated measurements that were not neces- sarily theoretically driven and were derived from a non-clinical sample; thus, the findings are difficult to generalize. For example, Twohig et al21 used a median cutoff (58%) from a non- clinical sample to determine an arbitrary level of problematic cognitive and behavioral outcomes of SPPA.
I could keep going, but I think that’s enough for this post - read the “Correlates and Possible Outcomes of SPPA” and “Limitations” sections of the paper you linked.
“Self-perceived pornography addiction” Aka being an evangelical with an internet connection. I’m sure that doesn’t skew the study’s results at all…. One wouldn’t trust a study on cancer that used self-diagnosis (I would hope), why trust this?
Those claims are about porn addiction. Not the act of watching porn. On top of that, putting the burden of child trafficking and abuse onto the sites that would publicly host porn is like blaming climate change on people putting plastic in the wrong bin. Places that propagate the awful content mentioned by this warning are already against the law and flying under the radar. This is just BS that gets righteous Texan votes, not something that helps victims. It certainly doesn’t accept that consensual adults make and watch porn in healthy ways. It’s also why these folks get called out for their scandals, which wouldn’t be news worthy if they didn’t grandstand.
No, the claims are not about porn addiction, which is another issue. Legally the sites already have a burden to take down child abuse material and they do so. Complaining that the warning labels don’t account for healthy porn use sounds like the same whining that smoking warnings don’t also address people who occasionally smoke.
No clue why you have so many downvotes, I guess we got a bunch of weirdos in here. Porn is poison. It’s what happens when patriarchy meets capitalism.
Damn, people should stop having sex at all. Don’t let people view media that shows examples of sex
Don’t let people view media that shows examples of sex
Damn, what vanilla porn have you been watching?
The legal ones. How about you?
deleted by creator
Tell them to ban action movies too. Go full Amish
What in the hell is happening across the country right now? Why are we getting all of these short sighted, personal-liberty-violating, bullshit laws popping up?
We let the South off to easy and they been slowly poisoning America from within.
We learned nothing from Reconstruction.
Honest opinion: The republican party is flailing and trying to “accomplish” anything they possibly can regardless of the actual benefits to citizens.
The Supreme Court is heavily in favor of “states rights” now, so state politicians know they can cater to special interest groups (for donations of course) with impunity. States are heavily gerrymandered, so they have little risk of losing their position. In some cases, such as book, education, voting, and immigration laws, the goal is to further ensure the states remain Republican in the future (prevent children from growing up “woke,” and prevent immigrants from living there, which tend to vote Dem). Democracy in the U.S. is pretty broken, and is slowly being dismantled further.
Banning porn has been on the Republican agenda since like the 40s.
How does this help anyone? Have they got any actual problems to solve?!
It used to be that pushing positions based on morality was taboo on both the left and the right. Then the social left started pushing things that it wanted purely because of morals and the much larger, much better organized religious right realized there’d be no significant political pushback for doing so with things they’ve wanted.
In the past the religious right in the US had been kept in check by the fiscal conservative and neocon wings of the party. But after Trump, those wings no longer have the control they had before.
Then the social left started pushing things that it wanted purely because of morals
Example?
Human rights mostly.
How “small government” of them.
For retaliation, just block texas IPs. That shit will be fast tracked
Nah pornhub etc just need to release the number of ip pings they get from texas government locations.
They absolutely have this info
Why not both?
That’s what PornHub does with IP addresses coming from Utah, Virginia, and Mississippi
That’s fine if we have a sign when entering Texas warning us of all the dangerous things there compared to where they were coming from
I saw a billboard on the way to Texas that read, “Going west? Arm yourself.”
I hope it meant arm yourself with knowledge, because what this nation does not need more of is scared folks with firearms. We’ve enough of those as is.
Sadly, I’m guessing not.
Nope, it was a billboard for a gun store.
So I figured. I’m all for the 2nd Amendment, but the fear-mongering on both sides of the aisle really needs to stop.
Warning: the surgeon general has determined that this state contains government representatives whom are dangerous to your health.
Warning: Residency in the state of Texas may result in the inability to function as a decent human being.
More like 1/3 of the ppl in Texas are actively trying to hurt the rest. Lumping everyone under one bucket helps the Republicans.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
What’s an example of a health warning for looking at naked humans? Seriously someone explain what they mean because it doesn’t make any sense.
“Those movies are performed by trained professionals, do not attempt to replicate at home.”
Warning: Excessive rubbing can cause friction burns and it might fall off
I have years worth of proof that shows your statement to be false.
Hey OP didn’t ask for an accurate health warning
I don’t know why, but I started hhwackin’ it when I was about 3 years old.
I didn’t have anything in mind really. I just remember it felt good and for some reason (probably something my mom said) I just thought of the word “nasty” and that’s what got me going. Like, the word was my OG porn.
Well, I had this giant Clifford the Big Red Dog plush. It was huge. I was hiding behind it one day hwackin’ when my mom went looking for me to show her friend how cute I was. Well, her friend seen me hwackin’. She was embarrassed as hell. They wanted to put a stop to it, so my father decided he knew what would work.
“Son, you keep playing with that thing and it’s gonna fall off and you’ll turn into a girl.”
I thought, “Wait, girls don’t have a wee wee? Ohhhhhh!”
So now I had an image in mind that worked me up. It was girls, naked, nothing down there, walking without bending their knees. Kind of like walking a pair of scissors. Don’t ask me why. I don’t know.
So while I’m ranting. My mom got a new house. My aunt and my twin cousins came down with us to look at the place. The one said “mommy, I gotta pee.” The other chimed in, she had to pee too. I had a theory about how girls peed, but I really really wanted to know. I turned to my little brother, “littleseal, this is our chance. We can see how girls pee.”
So we snuck around the corner. My aunt was holding them up in the air, one hanging from one arm, one hanging from the other. We seen them from behind, and it appeared that the pee was coming from the butt. I grabbed my little brother by the shoulders. “LITTLESEAL! GIRLS PEE FROM THEIR BUTTS! I knew it!” We giggled about it for awhile. Like, way too long.
Fast forward a few years and I was living in a new neighborhood. Me and the girl next door were playing fetch with her dog. I had to pee. She said, “Can I watch? I want to know how boys do it.” I said, “Sure. We do it with our wieners. We don’t have to sit down so we can pee anywhere. I’m glad I don’t pee out of my butt.” She said, “Who pees from their butt?” She was laughing at me like I was crazy. I said, “Girls do! I seen it.” “Well I don’t know what girl you seen, but I pee from my vagina, I poop from my butt.”
She said, “come on. I’ll show you.”
I was blown away. Later on it hit me. “Oh my god! It makes sense. That’s why I have a wiener. It’s for sex!”
Sorry to go on. Your comment made me remember being afraid my wee wee would fall off and then took me down memory lane.
Get off my lawn. See you next time.
“Temporary blood pressure increases or decreases blood availability in the brain and other organs” should fit the bill
The penises featured in this film are capable of doing a lot of destruction. Your ass has been warned.
Porn is just not naked humans. It’s not like art. And the behavior in those movies rubs off on teenage guys, so they start to behave like in the movies.
I mean, I still think adding health warning is stupid, but at the same time, we can’t pretend porn doesn’t influence people.
The behavior of the actors in porn does not “rub off on” (lol) on the viewer any more than violent movies rub off on the viewer.
I’d be more concerned about the guys watching the assholes on YouTube making videos about how to be an “alpha male”.
deleted by creator
You are actually wrong about that. Do some web searches on it and you will see.
That’s not how it works. If you are making the claim, it’s your responsibility to back that claim up with supporting information.
IMO it’s everyone’s responsibility to themselves to challenge and research things that they want to know the truth about. If the other poster is correct but has no desire to follow up with it, they will still be correct.
The burden of proof is on those who want to know the truth. Unless it’s in a court of law, though even there, IMO the adversarial system is outdated and if someone is innocent, the prosecution and police should be working to determine that, not just trying to prove guilt at all costs.
The burden of proof is on those who want to know the truth
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. No exceptions.
It’s an internet conversion, there’s no burden on anyone unless they have a goal. Wanting to convince others puts the burden on the one making the claim, but if they aren’t interested in putting that much effort into it, that doesn’t invalidate the claim, which talking about the burden of proof being on anyone else is trying to do.
Even if someone does make the effort to prove something, if knowing the truth is important to you, you should look at other perspectives.
I don’t disagree with you, which is why I’m hoping the person I replied to, who told me to “do some searches” actually does some for themselves. So hopefully they can learn that there’s hardly an epidemic of porn viewing related risks to physical/mental health. I’m not saying there are zero, I’m simply saying that it’s not at all occurring at levels worthy of mandating warnings.
Fair enough. Personally I think it’s hard to study because of how ubiquitous it is. There isn’t really a control group that is representative of the general population. I do think it’s physiologically addictive (just like everything else that is enjoyable or gives a dopamine reward), which could mean some will spend more time with it than they should. But for the rest, it’s hard to say if behaviours and attitudes come from the porn or if they are in porn because that’s just how some people approach sex.
And from a personal perspective, there’s been plenty of times while watching porn that I’ve thought, “ok, this might be hot but holy fuck that guy is a piece of shit”. Which I think indicates that there is some bad porn out there but also indicates I’m not some brainless drone that thinks, “I’m seeing this in a video, therefore it is good”.
Burden of proof is on the one making the claims.
Just because you thought something from a porn video was a good idea doesn’t mean everyone else does.
LMAO seriously. Hope this guy doesn’t watch any crime TV shows either holy fuck.
deleted by creator
Lol how exactly would you word this health warning? How utterly stupid
“Warning: Any activity or substance that causes a rush of dopamine, serotonin, and/or oxytocin may lead to behavioral or psychological dependence on said substance or activity.” ?
Thats actually reasonable. I think people are largely unaware of their own brain plasticity and how much any type of input affects our outlook and actions.
Sure, but putting it on porn and not other things that make people feel good is just pathologizing sexuality in order to shame people.
That’s exactly why Texas passed the law.
Yes. That’s why I mentioned it in response to a comment that said they were being reasonable.
Yea that’s fair. I feel like the issue lies in education tbh. Our schools don’t teach us much about practical things like the relationship between external and internal forces. I’m not for these types of warnings, I just thought that was reasonable compared to what I was expecting lol
Education for southerners!? Are you insane? You must be out of your mind!
the behavior in those movies rubs off on teenage guys, so they start to behave like in the movies.
I haven’t seen a teenage pizza delivery driver in ages! They also aren’t going into marine biology to train octopuses!
You obviously have no idea what you’re talking about 😁
You’re absolutely right. It absolutely influences people and has a toxic effect on young men.
There is room to talk about the handful parts of porn, but this certainly isn’t the way to do it. Porn doesn’t increase anyone’s desire for a prostitute or pedophilia. That’s just insane. There could be evidence that it reduces one’s self esteem, but we’d have to study that. This is just Texas furthering the nanny state and actively requiring lying to people. Again.
Porn actually helped me further my skills in building automation. It gave me a target for learning to scrape websites. Of all the things I’ve built for myself, this was one of the most generous projects in that I had tons of room for refinement as my skills grew.
Texas is moving to protect against the Communist infiltration comming for our precious bodily fluids.
Could the Texas government also post a list of all the hazardous sites in one place so i know which sites to avoid?
Warning: masturbating may cause post nut clarity. Viewer discretion is advised.
“May cause erectile disfunction”
Can you put the warning next to a photo of the governor of Texas?
The false part of that statement is “may”, it should read “will”.
buy our cure from big texas pharmacy ~~~~
why? wanking is good for your heart, prostate, it’s a stress relieve…what’s the fucking problem? Does the old testaments god Texas believe in has an issue with it?
those pathetic, backwarded, republican fucks…
It’s just like any other significant dopamine snowball; perhaps a friendly notice might be in place or some healthy advice in education. Have a healthy wank, but don’t lose yourself in it.
Dopamine snowball applies to lots of things like online shopping or following an exercise video. If Texas Republicans want big government regulations such as this, they need to follow through.
Removed by mod
