I am talking about disorders that are like actually serious and will make kid's life much harder, or can even lead to kid's death.

I don't care about the " but we love each other " thing, the fact that you want to have kids even trough you are very well informed, that kid will inherit your defect is disgusting to me.

Making a child that you know will likely suffer from the same thing you did suffer with, maybe suffer even more than you did, is just morally wrong

Edit: welp, i learnt about IVF. It is an insanely cool technology. I practically take my argument back bc of it. Now i only have problems with people that have severe disorders that they know will pass down to their kids, yet refuse to use IVF. Honestly learned alot from this post. About eugenics, about nazism. Even though this post is a form of eugenics, i think that the idea of this post was, way less radical than alot of people thought. I practically only meant that i am mad at people i was talking about, not that i want something to be legally enforced

I want to preface this by saying I don’t believe either one of these generalizations are necessarily valid but they are utilizing the same “a few bad apples ruin the bunch“ framework. I know that black men face overpolicing, disproportionate exonerations, disproportionate sentencing etc but those apply to all men since men are the majority of criminals.

Philosophy, creative writing, art, history, and linguistics are foundational studies to the human experience. By losing those we lose freedom of thought. Not by force but by simply forgetting the freedom exists. There is a deeply ingrained value in studying the technology of human expression. Especially today where we all spend alot of time online.

this occurs so often on social media and i am so sick of it. a parent will take a video of their child where the outfit is obviously hand selected by the parent and the outfit is clearly inappropriate for someone of their age. people in the comments then rightfully point this out and are accused of being a nonce by people who say "why are you looking at a child that way". everyone can see it and i am sick of people pretending that this issue doesn't exist or that parents have a right to dress their child in wildly inappropriate ways. have some class and dress your child to their age.

Many people decide to have children without truly reflecting on how difficult and complex the process is.

It's common for them to act similarly to when they adopt a puppy: they're enthusiastic at first, but when the novelty wears off or complications arise, many parents become emotionally detached. Yes, the child is fed, housed, and clothed but there is more to raising a human than just that. And, unlike a pet, a child cannot be rehomed because a parent decides they're unfit. Many children are being raised by screens as a result.

My heart hurts for these people, but especially the children.

I think having to provide childcare over an extended period of time should be more common. For instance, what if teenagers were required to volunteer at an elementary school or daycare for a period of time? What if we asked them to imagine living that reality long-term rather than just experiencing it as a temporary volunteer project? It would be a tangible experience to reflect on.

I know I felt so much relief when I'd go home after a babysitting gig, or how glad I was when my younger siblings could finally do more for themselves. Those feelings have never been forgotten, I know I don't have it in me to be a parent.

Rebel Wilson. Orpah Winfrey. Kelly Osbourne. Melissa McCarthy. That one dude from My Name is Earl. Jonah Hill. CRISP RAT.

They all looked so much better when they were overweight! Some of them just look plain weird without the weight on them and the others that have become really ripped and skinny... ugh. It doesn't look right. Not everybody needs to be super skinny and jacked to be attractive. Look at Nelly Furtado- she put on weight and now she looks even better than she did before. I want to see more of that, not these GLP-1 goop people.

Imagine if Chris Farley got on Ozempic. John Candy. Arethra Franklin. Mama Cass. Fucking DIVINE. They would look terrible! Let some people be plump and beautiful!! Not everybody needs to be a bag of bones 😤

When someone says "Why are you not helping X!?" and the reply is "What's in it for me?" the response should productive, not insulting. That goes for absolutely everything. You cannot say, "Because it is right or moral and why does it even need to be asked?" and expect rights to be given to you. Compromise, collaboration, persuasion, coalition building, powerbases, funding, those are the keys to change.

Indeed, whatever motion creates the cause, champions it, and brings forward progressive change must be willing to explain themselves and get right person to vote in the right way. Men ratifying women’s right to vote is one example; the 19th Amendment needed one more state to ratify it, and Tennessee was basically the last hold-out. Harry Burn, a 24 year old legislator was to vote nay, but in his pocket was a letter from his mommy asking him to "be a good boy" and help out, so he became a good boy and voted aye. Burn later explained that it was morally and legally right and that his mommy's advice pushed him into the right decision. What would have happened had the letter told him he was "a piece of shit for even considering voting nay and that he should do better?" Maybe it passes another month later instead of that day. Maybe it misses the 1920 election and gets pushed into the next year. Either way, an opportunity was wasted.

You can believe a right is inherent. You can believe the opposition is completely wrong. None of that changes the practical problem in front of you: if somebody has the power to give you the vote you need, pass the law you need, sign the agreement you need, or join the coalition you need, then you have to figure out how to get that person to say aye!

Why do you want to contribute to the incredibly problematic diamond industry? When we can make the exact same thing in a lab with no child blood being spilled, that also happens to be much cheaper. What are you doing

So many people cant read a map, cant change a lightbulb, cant read the clock unless its military time, KNOW WHAT LEFT AND RIGHT IS WITHOUT MAKING AN L WITH BOTH HANDS, etc. I can think of a lot of things but you get my point personally

I don’t think this is that much of a hot take, so i put it at lukewarm.

Anyone who has worked with anything regarding talking to customers or people in general know what i mean. People are fucking stupid.

I heard one guy try and return a cucumber because it wasn’t green enough. Like he didn’t buy it himself and saw how green it is. Also he was talking to a summer worker who was stocking up the shelves so either way it he was talking to the wrong guy.

This encounter made me think back to all the stupid people I’ve met during the years. And shit there are so many people out there who genuinely don’t have that much going on up there.

And i don’t wanna hear some street smart book/smart thing. I know you can be smarter in either way, but if your really dumb in one it will convert to the other one too.

Pretty much what the title says. A real fan is the contrary of what "real fans" claim to be.

A fan who actually cares will be interested in understanding the basis for the criticisms surrounding the thing they like, and wish to see an improvement of said thing regarding those criticisms they end up deeming valid.

Someone willing to defend something to the end of times no matter how many criticisms keep piling on about it, and without ever bothering to check why that might be, doesn't actually care about the thing they claim to like.

This applies to being a fan of someone as well.

There’s a big disconnect between people who believe women should be in traditional marriages where the husband works and provides financially while the wife stays home, raises the children, cooks, cleans, and manages the household, and those very people complaining about women receiving alimony after divorce.

These positions are logically compatible. If you believe a woman should spend 20+ years as a SAHM instead of maintaining a career, then you’re advocating for a marriage that makes her financially dependent on her husband. You can’t tell women to give up decades of income, work experience, promotions, retirement contributions, and career advancement and then say her financial desolate is solely her problem when the marriage ends. Alimony is literally the risk created by the type of marriage you supported.

Historically, the major reason spousal support became necessary in the first place is because women who spent years raising children and maintaining households could leave long marriages with little or no independent income and severely limited ability to support themselves. Spending 15 to 30 years outside the workforce can massively affect someone’s earning potential.

My hotter take is that I don’t necessarily care if the wife was responsible for the marriage ending.

Let’s say she cheated, or became emotionally/sexually unavailable. Suppose she was simply a terrible romantic partner by the end of the marriage. Regardless, if she spent 20+ years fulfilling the economic role that both spouses agreed she would fulfill (having and raising their children, providing childcare, maintaining the household, and enabling her husband to focus on career building) her contribution isn’t worth $0 because she was a bad wife in some other area.

Whether someone behaved badly within a marriage is one question. Whether that person spent decades performing unpaid labor and sacrificing their own earning capacity under an agreed-upon division of responsibilities is another.

If a husband works for 25 years while his wife stays home, his career doesn’t come out of thin air. He’s gaining, experience, promotions, raises, and professional connections, his wife is handling childcare, school pickups, appointments, meals, cleaning, errands, and things that would require his time or money. The SAH spouse contribution isn’t meaningless just because they aren’t receiving a paycheck.

If you genuinely want a traditional marriage where your wife doesn’t work, cool beans. But financial dependency comes with it, during and after the marriage.

If avoiding substantial alimony after a multi-decade year marriage is extremely important to you, THEN MARRY SOMEONE WHO WILL WORK AND MAINTAIN THEIR CAPACITY FOR THE DURATION OF THAT MULTI-DECADE YEAR MARRIAGE, It’s just that simple.

You can’t have it both ways

And I 100% think it’s by design again. Astroturfed influencers. Russian bot farms. You have plenty of that going on, with lots of true believers mixed in.

When did we start to hate each other so badly? There is a whole lotta resentment between men and women. People are accused of making each other’s lives miserable based on gender.

Either you’re team men or you’re team women. The silo effect of social media and a couple bad lived experiences dictate where you fall. Society needs to reckon with this before it grows into something we can’t control. I know marriage and birth rates are down. There seems to be some real hatred between the genders and it’s being amplified by the vultures in big tech.

Everybody needs to chill out

We see hyper-sexualization everywhere - social media, OnlyFans, music videos, music artists (and mostly women, which is backed up by studies)... The internet has convinced people that hyper-sexualizing oneself or consuming constant hyper-sexualized media is always a form of "individual empowerment." Anyone who dares to critique this dynamic gets immediately shut down and labeled as either a "prude" or a "right-wing reactionary."

This is a false binary that protects media corporations from actual scrutiny.

Critiquing hyper-sexualization isn't about telling adults what they can or can't do with their bodies. It's about recognizing basic social psychology and media incentives:

1. "Choice Feminism" ignores social conditioning: No one makes choices in a vacuum. When social media algorithms and music labels reward sexual appeal far above skill, intelligence, or talent, people naturally adapt. Sociologists call these "adaptive preferences." Leaning into a system because it's the only way to get views or validation isn't genuine liberation; it's just playing by rules set up for corporate profit.
2. Self-objectification has real psychological costs: Objectification Theory in psychology shows that living in a hyper-sexualized culture causes people to switch from a first-person perspective ("How do I feel?") to a third-person perspective ("How do I look to others?"). Study after study ties this constant self-surveillance to higher rates of body shame, anxiety, and cognitive fatigue.
3. Weaponizing political labels dodges the argument: Slapping labels like "prude" on people who question hyper-sexualization is just a lazy conversational shut-off. It ignores decades of leftist and feminist critiques that point out how commodifying human sexuality primarily enriches tech platforms and media executives, not the individuals performing it.

You can fully support an individual's right to personal expression while still pointing out that our media landscape conditions people to believe their primary value is sexual. Questioning corporate-driven hyper-sexualization isn't prudish, it's just basic critical thinking.

If you do then you are effectively just shitting on everyone with those features. An example would be like some overweight or non-conventionally attractive guy gets arrested for something and people say “of course he’d do that just look at him”. Never sat right with me. Insult their character not their body.

This is reference to the post made about how feeling unsafe around men is like feeling unsafe around certain races.

You guys never fail to prove why women are wary of y’all, now they’re equating racial prejudice to women being rightfully cautious. First, stop weaponizing racism to use as a gotcha against women whenever they share their experiences of why they don’t trust or feel safe around men. People who say they don’t trust a specific race is because of their own prejudice & bias, and use statistics as a justification for their racism. Women saying they don’t trust men because of their experiences with male violence, misogyny and statistics showing women’s perpetrators are mainly men. Get a grip. Ask yourself why you’re so offended over women venting about their mistrust of men then you are more mad at the fact women even have to go through this. Same ones complaining about internet misandry but are silent when it comes to real life misogyny, but expect women to bend over and advocate for them bc someone said “men trash” were not your emotional labor puppies. Whining about “generalizations” when we literally have a gang of cornell rapists just walking free. Fuck outta here, imagine mean words on the internet being your “oppression”

You’re more mad at women’s reaction than men’s actions & that’s exactly why you guys are not to be trusted. Stop victimizing yourself and being narcissists & maybe women will work with you. Take this energy into calling out your creepy and abusive homeboys and male peers instead of screaming at women all day. And to the men of color agreeing with that post, you guys treat women especially women of your own race like how white people treat you. You hate racism but you love patriarchy and so you’ll reap the benefits of being a man because it’s the only power you have, you lack intersectionality because you can understand why I as a woman of color would feel wary around white people, but not around men.

And watch them prove my point in the comments, which is nice because it exposes themselves

Had potential to be top 1 but it’s too echo chamber ish and discouraging of new ideas. I still have it like Top 3 or 4 but it isn’t top 1.

Character designs, pacing, overall story, it's dragged, it's oversexualized, I can't take shit seriously and the color palette burns my eyes. Come at me.

A person can be alienated from their own sexuality in a way that is neither reducible to stigma nor resolved simply by redescribing their sexual experiences as an authentic part of themselves.

By “sexual dysphoria,” I mean a persistent and distressing mismatch between the sexual life a person wants to have and the patterns of desire, attraction, arousal, or sexual response they actually experience. I’m not talking about biological sex or gender, and “I’m not claiming that ‘sexual dysphoria’ is a recognized clinical diagnosis.”

Someone can wish they were attracted to people they aren’t attracted to, wish they weren’t attracted to people they are attracted to, want a different level or kind of sexual desire, or feel alienated from recurring sexual responses. Stigma or social pressure may contribute to that conflict, but identifying those influences does not by itself establish that reconciliation is the right response.

A person can accurately recognize what they experience sexually and still wish some of it were different. Recognition doesn’t entail endorsement, identification, or reconciliation.

“Accept your sexuality” can therefore answer one problem while missing another. If acceptance means recognizing what one actually experiences, the person may already have done that. If it means becoming reconciled to those experiences or ceasing to wish they were different, that is a further claim, and it doesn’t follow merely from the fact that those experiences are genuinely present.

Repression, confusion, or internalized stigma may contribute to the distress without exhausting it. Their presence does not establish that the person’s alienation is reducible to them, nor that addressing those factors would necessarily resolve the conflict.

I often see the argument that if you want people to have more kids give them better paying jobs, less work hours, cheap childcare, low taxes etc. This might actually work for some people.

My point is even if you give all these things some societies will not reproduce at replacement rate because it's cultural. Most European countries have had below replacement birth rates since 1970s, for about 55 years now. And you can give them all the tax cuts, childcare, flexible working as you want but people would rather go on 3 holidays every year and retire early than have children. And it's increasingly both men and women who think like that, at least in my circle.

And before you come with anti-feminist talking points like "it's the women bla bla" like I said, I know many European men in my circle who are anti kids more than women.

Straight men in reality would hate getting the same attention women receive because most of the attention women receive from men is unwanted- the men approaching them may be strangers, may ignore signs of disinterest, may make sexual comments, or may continue pursuing them after they have declined.
So for a straight man, unwanted sexual attention from other men is therefore arguably a much closer comparison to how women actually feel about most male attention. He is not attracted to them, and because men are, on average, physically stronger, their attention can also create a sense of vulnerability or threat—something that is usually not present when a woman approaches him.

Someone working a customer facing job doesn't owe you a personal apology every time you have to wait. They're there to do a job, not to constantly reassure you that your time is more valuable than theirs.

Someone who is doing their best under circumstances they can't control, getting upset because they didn't apologize for the wait is just looking for a reason to be offended.

You're entitled to respectful treatment, not constant verbal reassurance that your time matters more than the workload of the person serving you.

I see so many people(women and men both) just ruthlessly shaming their partners online for validation or laughs. I couldn’t imagine how they’d feel if they saw those. It’s honestly disgusting. Especially with those people who get called out for it and bring their partner in the video response and they look like they have a gun pointed at them off camera, it just irks me.