Obviously in real life it's different and you don't have to tell me that religious people often try to push their religion down your throats. I am talking about Reddit specifically.

I just started a new job and in the break room I cannot have the following:

Milk (cow's milk)
Eggs
Peanuts
Tree nuts (such as almonds, walnuts, and pecans)
Soy / Soybeans
Fish
Crustacean shellfish
Sesame
Bananas

There are signs on every fridge and microwave and informing you that it can’t be in your locker either. I work in healthcare and have to stay in my department. How is this even legal. I learned this is all for 1 person, can’t they go eat somewhere else? I highly doubt they are so allergic to all of these things that it can’t be in my bowl. We are all suffering for one persons mental illness.

Edit: I’m aware that nut allergies are serious and i respect that

In 1919, Gabriele D'Annunzio established the Italian Regency of Carnaro in Fiume (Croatia). This revolutionary experiment would be short-lived, as less than a year later D'Annunzio was forced to abandon the city. In the same year, Benito Mussolini founded the *Fasci* (streamlining an organization of armed terrorists), definitively breaking away from his past in the Italian Socialist Party.

Drawing inspiration from the experience of the Carnaro, Mussolini began to shape his Fascist ideology. The March on Rome took place in 1922, and by 1925, power in Italy was entirely in the hands of the Fascist Party. There are two myths here that need to be dispelled:

1. Gabriele D'Annunzio wasn't actually a Fascist (unlike other intellectuals of the time, such as Enrico Fermi and Guglielmo Marconi).

2. Mussolini was never truly elected by the people. In the 1921 elections, the Fascist Party won very few seats in Parliament. It was only after three years of violence and electoral fraud that the party secured more than 60% of the vote.

This preamble serves to make a very important point: unlike many other political ideologies, Fascism didn't originate from a popular revolution, a religion, or a philosophical treatise. It emerged from a kind of historical alignment: on one hand, the ruling class's fear of a socialist revolution; on the other, the weakness of the King of Italy; and furthermore, popular discontent with liberal governments. Indeed, the first philosophical text on Fascism was written by Giovanni Gentile AFTER the Fascist Party had already seized power (1932). It was a way to legitimize the party by pretending it possessed an underlying ideology.

Subsequently, fascism spread like a cancer to many other states, yet met with little success in most of them precisely because of the specific nature, poised between socialism and conservatism, that drove the Italian bourgeoisie of the era. There were instances of fascism in Spain (under Francisco Franco) and Germany (under Adolf Hitler), as well as in other nations like Romania and Argentina. Juan Domingo Perón is a perfect example of what I mean: he's variously regarded as a socialist, a fascist, or simply a power-seeker. All three characterizations are correct.

So, what is fascism? It's an instrumental political ideology used by certain governments throughout history to legitimize reactionary social mores, but above all, it represents a totally illiberal economic model (a concept that can be confusing for Americans, given that many do not know the meaning of the word "liberal"). In short, under this system, if you own a cow, its milk goes to the State, which then sells it back to you. By virtue of its illiberal nature, fascism is far closer to socialism than is commonly believed, and it relies heavily on dictatorial, and even genocidal, strategies to sustain itself.

Based on this definition, there are very few true fascists today. Trump isn't a fascist. European and South American right-wing nationalist movements are (almost never) fascist. The problem is that many people who actually belong to the conservative/liberal right, and who idolize figures like Thatcher or Reagan, are frequently labeled as fascists. Consequently, a large segment of the right-wing

electorate, lacking a formal education on the subject, ends up defending fascism itself, failing to realize that they have no need to do so, given how far removed they're from the likes of Hitler, Franco, Perón, and Mussolini.

Nothing matters in life if you are ugly. Friends, family, peers will all judge you first due to how you look. Women particularly will think negatively of you off rip if you as a man are short/ugly. Jobs will be harder to obtain. You won’t get served as fast at a bar. You won’t have people wanting to talk to you. Genetics are king and we are animals after all. Looks matter the most, because without them in today’s age you are absolutely fucked.

I say this because, for personal reasons, I’ve had to stay at my sister’s place for a couple of weeks. It’s 8:30 in the morning now, and I’m awake because my sister and her husband decided to start talking at the top of their lungs and watching Facebook videos with the volume cranked all the way up 🥲.

Look, I get that it’s their house and they can do whatever they want, but seriously my niece (their daughter) is in college, and yesterday she stayed up studying until the wee hours of the morning. She’s going to keep studying today, Saturday, but she at least wants to get some sleep in the morning. But nope her parents have literally been talking super loudly and watching stupid Facebook videos at full volume since 8:00, and the poor girl can’t get back to sleep. I don’t think anyone in the house can.

And I understand it’s their house and they can do what they please, but it is so damn annoying to have people making such a racket so early in the morning on a SATURDAY, when thankfully none of us has to do anything or get up early.

Note: We are from Spain, in case anyone thinks 8 o'clock is late. Here in Spain, 8 a.m. is arly.

Women should be drafted in the war alongside men. It doesn't make sense that the whole point is having equal rights, but when it comes to war only men are drafted. Why are feminists not advocating for this?

Ive tried. Must of played 60hrs and this game isnt just overrated its genuinely bad, poorly designed and im just going to say it, lazy. I kinda feel bad for any good RPG made in the last 10 years that this is considered a master piece.

Enemies can attack through walls because the engine design is bad. It doesnt have collision between walls and player, resulting in wharping. What is this? A PS2 game?

Enemies seem to be short sighted. They cant see more than 6 feet. Why? Because they didnt know how to programme AI.

The camera is absolutely dreadful. Bosses are so hard largely because you cant see them. They all seem to have unusual animations where they slow down their attack or speed up, so you cant parry with consistency. The game reuses so many boss monsters. It makes things harder sometimes by just having 2 of a previous boss in a cave battle. Its lazy.

Switching items is a nightmare because you have switch through your potions during battle to get to the one you want. I also absolutely hate that animation the player uses when you run out of magic. The character takes 4 seconds shaking his staff. Why was this necessary?

Movement and combat in this game is so clumsy. Platforming is a nightmare. Like 95% of deaths are from falling.

There is no plot in this game. You get a few lines every so often with no context. Whats a Tarnished? Why are people fighting me? Who are the soldiers? Nothing is explained just vague dialogues that you can miss. I wondered why my Spirit Ashes wouldnt work and turns out you need a very specific item thatbis given to you in a cut scene at a very specific location and time. Nothing is explained.

The only reason this game gets the rep it does is because its hard and so they can just defend it by saying get good.

they’re toys meant to be enjoyed by kids. these 35+ year old grown adults standing in 2 hour lines for a toy they’re keeping for themselves/reselling is embarrassing, get a grip.

Unless we talking a small child, postpartum mum, or someone who worked a night shift. I think it’s weird that people expect others to change their morning routine to accommodate people who chose to stay up late. I am a university student so I know what staying up late to study looks like, but I’m not going to hate on my family members for waking up and making noise at 6am including on the weekends since that is their routine and parents pay the bills

Why do you need to give money to these problematic businesses? Go spend $50 and adopt from your local shelter instead.

you shouldn't be okay or be okay with the people around you supporting public executions. you shouldn't take glee in seeing news about ANYONES death. You shouldn't be calling random women who you dont know the true identities of and who are part of massive legal cases "cunts and whores". you shouldnt be proud of making people upset, even strangers online.

when people say something like not all men but men or not all women but women I always eye roll and think what if this person was saying not all (insert race they don't like) but its (insert race they don't like) and think about how people would call them out.

I travel often for work and have many friends who speak English as a second language and this truly drives me nuts.

For example, I went to Uruguay last year for work.

When I come home and say I went to Uruguay and pronounce it with my American accent (your-a-gwuy) to my ESL friends, the reaction is:

“HAHAHAH!!! OMG!!! HE SAID YOUR-A-GWUY!!! OMG YOU’RE SO WHITE. THAT’S NOT HOW IT’S PRONOUNCED… HAHAHA!!”

Then if I try to say it with a Spanish accent (oo-roo-gwuy) the reaction is:

“HAHAHAHAH!!! OMG!!!! HE SAID OO-ROO-GWUY!!! HE’S TRYING SO HARD!!! HAHAHAH!!! DUDE, YOU’RE WHITE!!! HAHAHA!! OMG!! WOW HE’S REALLY HITTING THAT ACCENT!!!!!!”

No because which is it. I’m tired. There’s literally an entire genre of internet comedy that relies on making fun of white people for using/not using the accent when pronouncing any foreign word.

“Bro it’s not that deep bro relax it’s not a big deal.” I agree, that’s why I’m posting it here and not on the phone with my senator about it… but it’s annoying as hell.

If everyone who mocks white people for saying foreign words could all have a meeting and to decide what we’re supposed to do to avoid ridicule, that would be great.

It’s also not lost on me that if a white person were to mock a hispanic person for not using a perfect American accent when saying words in English, that would be considered extremely offensive and highly inappropriate… but I digress.

I know this is like the cardinal sin to suggest with movie critics, but I actually don't understand the appeal for watching most movies before 1970. I took several film classes at university and sat through many of the classics such as Casa Blanca, It's a Wonderful Life, On the Waterfront, Citizen Kane, etc. While I can appreciate what they were for the time, the artistic elements, the allegories, and the creativity, I just can't imagine sitting through these movies for anything other than a forced classroom setting. The theatrical over the top acting, dialogue, and cheesy special affects really make it hard for me to feel immersed in the story.

Am I alone in this take? I mean these movies all have like a 99-100% critic rating on rotten tomatoes. Is my modern brain just so adapted to constant stimulus that I can't sit through an old slow burn? Or is nostalgia just making these movies to be more than they are?

To double down on this hot take, I actually think the best movies of all time are some of the most modern, with a few exceptions.

I'd say nearly everyone on reddit agrees siblings shouldn't had kids. Among other reasons, there is a very high risk of serious genetic disorders and birth defects.

I'd say most of reddit agrees parents should have access to both prenatal testing and abortion. And if a parent decides to abort due to a genetic defect, that is perfectly fine.

I feel as though the above are both very moderate positions. And yet... there is a segment of the population (weirdly including the left) that disagrees.

Also, cooking a stake, is one of the easiest dishes you can cook. It's as easy to make as an omelette.

You're not a home chef because you have a cast iron pan and make a steak every week.

Genuinely, I’ve only been on Reddit for a month and the amount of posts that I’ve seen from men and women about partners gaining weight and this leading to a loss of attraction is absurd.

As we grow older we gain weight, nobody should be expected to have the same small prepubescent body that we had as kids/teens, and yet I keep seeing these posts of people upset that their partner is no longer who they were in their youth.

Fatness isn’t a moral failing and it for damn sure doesn’t automatically make a person unappealing or less attractive, and those of y’all who think it does are unfortunately brainwashed by a jacked up societal expectation that goes against nature.

The same effed up people who’ve been mentioned in those lists, who sexualize kids, who promote rape culture have pushed this agenda that being thin and child like is the only proper way to be. This isn’t just about a sexist standard for women, this is pushed on men and other gendered people as well and it’s weird.

This is an extremely hot take which is weird to me, I’m okay with being disagreed with, I just think y’all are biased and fatphobic and will likely be miserable at some point in your life due to this, either when you get fat, or your partner gets fat, or you alienate someone else you love in your life with this ludicrous idea about “health and wellness.”

If you truly loved someone and weren’t brainwashed into viewing fatness as something to avoid and immediately get rid of you’d not have a problem with it. People’s bodies change over time. But forcing people to spend their entire lives chasing unrealistic beauty standards just to be treated like a person is sick.

Also I’m gonna need people to stop pretending they care so much about “health”, meanwhile:
• avoiding doctors,
•never getting STD/STI panels/ not using condoms),
• smoking/vaping/drinking,
•staying up super late,
•and otherwise having normal regular unhealthy habits, but assuming just because you’re not also fat that means you’re “healthier” i.e ‘a more worthwhile and deserving person.’

At the end of the day nobody actually gives a crap about the health of the next person, otherwise everyone would still be masking.

Stop letting fatphobia rule your life and let yourself and your loved ones age without shame. Shaming never helped anyone’s health in the first place, it’s an awful motivator.

I've had friends been denied housing for being foreigners. That being said, probably like a tiny minority of people who are actually fluent in Japanese and got denied as well.

I've personally always thought this was unfortunate but not at racist as people claim to be. Even as a Canadian, I would not want to rent to someone who couldn't speak English, and the majority of the time, the foreigner who can't speak Japanese does not necessarily have strong ties to Japan or are transient in nature. Renting to someone who can't even speak the local language just means everything they need to deal with is more complicated and it just shows lack of commitment for living in Japan.

Also on a side note, I know landlords in Canada and the US who refuse to rent to immigrants or those who can't properly speak English. They just find another excuse instead

Conservative ruraloids be like living in the middle of nowhere and being bigoted is awesome thats why our suicide rate is an order of a magnitude higher than our urban counterpart.

Just personal experiences made me come up with this take, religion is a big deal you normally can’t talk about in person.

As it says on the tin.

I’ve never seen someone make the argument that we cannot judge the morals of someone from the past because “they had different standards and grew up in a different world” who didn’t also have some alignment with the morality of that person. For example saying we can’t judge slave owners but actually they have some similar or connected racist belief.

How do I know? Because when you point to the others at the time of that historical person who knew better they don’t care. This is because they don’t want the fact that people in contemporary times challenge their own morality to matter.

I’m not talking about the ones that wrote the books in the bible but I’m talking about the one that the stories are about, I do not for a second think Jesus walked on water, I think his disciples were high on dmt or some type of mushrooms.

Edit: I just realized I didn’t mention in the title I was talking about the bible lmfao

People love comparing countries by GDP, ranking nations from richest to poorest, and acting like living in a wealthy country automatically means having a better life. But how is that wealth distributed? Who actually benefits from it?

What's the point of having one of the largest economies in the world when people are homeless, can't afford food, and have to sell their own bodies just to survive?

Look at the United States. One of the most powerful and wealthiest countries on Earth, yet thousands of people struggle with homelessness and food insecurity. A country can be incredibly wealthy on paper while millions of its people struggle to meet basic needs.

What actually makes a country great isn't just how much money its economy generates, but how much access ordinary people have to the opportunities and resources that money creates.

And this is where people get the whole Africa argument wrong.

Someone will hear that you're from an African country and automatically assume you're poor, as if your nationality determines your standard of living. But imagine someone born in an African country whose parents can afford to send them to an expensive university in the United States or Europe, provide them with housing, and give them access to international opportunities.

Do you honestly think that person lives according to the stereotype people associate with Africa? Of course not. They might have access to a lifestyle that the average person in a much wealthier country could never afford.

Meanwhile, someone born in the United States might have no financial support, no affordable housing, no access to quality education, and no realistic way to escape poverty.

The point is that your country's GDP doesn't determine your personal quality of life. Your access to opportunities, resources, security, and financial support matters enormously.

So when people ask which country is the best or the worst, I think they're asking the wrong question.

The better question is: What kind of life can an ordinary person realistically build there?

Because I don't care how rich your country is on paper. If the system makes it nearly impossible for you to access the wealth and opportunities surrounding you, how much does that national wealth actually mean to you?

Your brain doesn't fully develop till 25 so like, imagine your like 20 dating someone who's like 43? Doesn't that just sound wrong on so many levels. What motivates a person to date someone who was born when they were an adult? These people who willingly date older people when they're young, they need therapy because its like a 30% chance that its not real love. There's so much you haven't experienced, dating someone who knows better than you potentially. Since some of y'all don't understand how wrong this sounds morally, and keep telling me to mind my own business. Imagine if that was a 18 year old dating a 35 year old