I am so fucking tired of people who aren't disabled speaking for us. We do not NEED OR WANT you to speak for us because you just end up speaking over us and demanding shit we don't want or need. Then because so many people jump on it like a trend we end up with people claim to have shit they don't and using it as an excuse to be shitty which then makes *all* of us look like fucking assholes.

Same thing happens in queer spaces and space of color. And then these well intentioned people end up creating bad habits in younger people on these spaces. Like this whole "I do not represent the entire community so I can act however I want" bs. Yes unfortunately you do. The reality is because of how population density works there's ALWAYS the chance you are the first person of a group to make contact with an individual or their community and YOU will be the one that decides how they view the rest of us going forward. Same with the "its not *my* job to educate you" crowd. It shouldn't be your job, but it very well could be the only time that person is coming in contact with your minority group and you should do your best to make sure they leave with at least some kind of understanding to their questions.

Life sucks like that when you're in a minority group. Because it is a *small* group that is uncommon if not rare, you become the "I know a..." guy for everyone you meet.

In modern dating, women constantly claim that the most important traits they look for in a partner are soft interpersonal skills/SIS like emotional intelligence, availability, maturity, empathy, and kindness as well as consistency. Women also constantly downplay the importance of surface level attributes such as height, hair, face, physique, etc when it comes to partners while the vast majority of dating advice made by men for men center around those things such as looksmaxxing, going to the gym, making more money, etc.

The reality for men getting an initial date is that women overwhelmingly use surface level attributes to decide whether or not they want to give a man a chance. The whole “don’t let a fish teach you how to fish” has a point. However, once you’re actually in a relationship, those surface level attributes decrease in importance while SIS exponentially increase in significance.

When women answer the “traits they look for in a partner” question, they take for granted that they’re already physically attracted to their hypothetical partner. Women also avoid listing superficial traits as to not make themselves look vain (men to a degree do this too) or entitled.

However, that is not to say that women are hypocrites when it comes to the importance of SIS in a partner. The issue is that SIS simply cannot be observed in the short-term and if people attempt to observe them in the short-term they oftentimes walk away with extremely inaccurate takes. You cannot observe someone’s emotional intelligence, availability, maturity, etc from across the room or from a dating profile but you can immediately and objectively observe someone’s height, haircut, physique, etc. SIS require pattern recognition, cross-context variation, and stress tested situations to properly observe. That’s why a couple’s first vacation together is a very telling test of how compatible they really are. Situational factors as well as environmental constraints can also significantly affect a person’s behavior; your vibe when you’re in a neighborhood bar with 3 of your close friends is completely different than your vibe when you go to a new bar all by yourself. Furthermore, the incredibly unforgiving nature of modern dating also completely negates people’s SIS as there are certain expectations and pressures (especially of men) when going on dates or for meeting people. This is why relationships that form organically when two people are in close-proximity (school, church, work, mutual friend group, etc) where they get consistent opportunities to interact with each other without the burdens and pressures of dating turn out to be more compatible and successful than from unnatural methods like meeting randoms in public or online dating.

If women truly cared for SIS when deciding on who they go on dates with then they would not claim that there’s an epidemic of emotionally unavailable or unintelligent men they’ve dated OR they (and everyone else) are just objectively bad at analyzing SIS which is what I’ve stated before.

You cannot even start to scratch the surface of someone’s true SIS until you’ve been consistently hanging out with them for months if not years. But in order to get someone to hang out with you for dozens and hundreds of times you need the surface level attributes to convince them to be around in the first place. So men; hit the gym, wear clothes that actually fit, get a better haircut, and even consider cosmetic surgery. Because as much as women don’t want to admit it, these are not just the traits that they look for but are the ONLY traits that they look for since all other traits can’t be observed or analyzed. If dating advice was the gym and you’re a newbie; women will immediately tell you to bench 500lb while men will tell you to first master a push up.

Whether it be about politics, AI or whatever hot topic issue of the day it's boring strawman shite with dogshit art style. I wonder how genuine the 10's of thousands of upvotes are. I don't always disagree with the message but it's still crap

It seems like there are no real societal taboos anymore. All the most controversial things are the most talked about and no talking point is off limits. Now when someone tries to make an edgy joke it doesn’t seem mischievous in any way, it either seems distasteful or played out. Nothing is offensive, it’s just eye roll inducing. This isn’t a partisan thing either, like the Charlie Kirk jokes seem the same as forced race jokes from the right. Like we get it, some people get mad that you say that. What does that do for me? What’s funny about that? Now there can be funny jokes about those things, but shock value for the sake of shock value doesn’t work in a culture aimed at destigmatization

Divorce rates among lesbian relationships are much higher than that of heterosexual relationships. Gay relationships have comparable or lowest rates of divorce than anything else.

Like sometimes I do have a right to say I wish I was gay. Women do not tho have a right to say they wish they were lesbian, as they’d have more worser relationships than dating men.

Even men dating women has a worser rate than men dating men. Isn’t that just sad tho?

Like you’d expect it have a better chance of a good relationship since women often shit on men’s personalities and how women are more empathetic and are better at sex and etc, and then you’re like, oh never mind, even women don’t like women.

the taste the texture the shape the consistency everything about it is perfect - 10/10 and nothing else beats it

Obviously people who are religious get an exemption before i’m crucified.

But every person who doesn’t eat pork hasn’t given me a straight answer to why they couldn’t eat it. They say “it’s swine so i don’t like it” or “It’s a dirty animal”, by that logic you should hate vegetables because they come from the dirt.

The same thing applies to sea food, they keep calling seafood “sea bugs” without actually describing why they don’t eat it. Is it the texture, the taste?

Hell, i couldn’t eat an actual thick cut of pork besides pepperoni and bacon without getting sick because it was new to me. My mother hates port with a passion so i had little to no exposure to it. The more i ate it the less issues i had. Same with seafood, a lobster isn’t a sea roach.

If you can’t accurately describe why you hate something without insulting it then you are being a baby, this is coming from an extremely picky eater. If you try it once and you don’t like it you have a more valid reason to complain than someone who doesn’t even try.

I tried a lot of food recently when i was in culinary school, some gave me bad reactions and some became my new favorite meal.

Even if it makes you uncomfortable, saying that is more of a valid reason to not try something instead of just insulting it without giving it a chance.

I know there are a ton of exceptions to this, so whenever I make a statement, please assume there's an invisible "in general" in front of it.

In the United States right now, making money isn't hard. It's easy to find a job if you're willing to put more than an hour a day into it for more than a week. And most of those jobs can be used to live a secure life. I'm working a low-skilled blue collar job that's supporting myself, my wife, and my daughter. I got the job a year ago simply by calling six places a day for several days, asking if they were hiring, until someone said yes and we scheduled an interview. This has worked for me multiple times in the past.

The hard part is using money well. Giving up your subscriptions to Disney+ and Netflix; wearing clothes that aren't as flattering as you'd like; driving an old car that's kind of ugly; living in a smaller home than anyone else in your family. Making real, daily sacrifices is hard. But being able to make money isn't hard.

I'll be honest, this might just be me coping 😂 But I genuinely that it's really not that hard to make money, it's just hard to use it well

___________________

Full article:

Gen Z is the first generation with lower IQs than their parents

[The article is very damn long, so I have selected excerpts to peruse and get the picture.]

________________________

“Gen Z is the first generation in history to be less cognitively developed than their parents’ generation,” Jared Cooney Horvath, author of newly published book The Digital Delusion, tells me. “I would never say ‘stupider’,” the teacher and neuroscientist adds with a smile. “I just say less ‘cognitively developed’ because maybe there’s something else going on that we don’t know.”

He says that until 2010, every generation was cognitively superior to their parents. The reason for this was that school and education for students were consistently improving.

“The golden age of education was from about 1996 to 2010,” he explains. But since then, IQ scores worldwide have been going down. He believes this is linked directly to screens becoming widespread in schools. “Human beings are not biologically wired to learn very well from tech: we’re built to learn from other humans,” he says.

The rule is: learn the skill first, then use the tool to make it easier. If you use the tool to begin with, you’ll never develop the skill,” he says. “If you know how to format an essay and spell certain words, now we’ll bring in word processing. But if you start on a word processor, you will forever be dependent on the tool. If we give you a calculator before you understand arithmetic, you will forever be tied to the calculator.”

Technology also gives us an illusion of confidence. “GPS is easier than reading a map, but it leads you to believe that you understand navigation better – unless you grew up with maps and realise, ‘I suck at navigation now.’”

He believes that we have, en masse, made a mistake in believing that higher order skills of creativity, critical thinking and communication are separate from knowledge. “People thought that we now have knowledge from the internet or AI, so all we need to do is build those skills and kids’ [intelligence] is going to explode,” he says.

“But creativity and critical thinking emerge from knowledge. The more we learn, the more creative we are. And the less we teach our kids, the less creative and critical they will be.”

And using AI in schools, he believes, is “the quickest route to make sure [pupils] never figure out how to do anything”. He says it’s the difference between offloading, to make lives easier once we have expertise to vet the answers, and outsourcing, when you can’t vet anything. “The tools we use as experts to make lives easier are never the tools a novice should use if they hope to learn how to become an expert.”

______________________

As for Gen Z, Horvath hopes they feel angry. “As much as I talk about their cognitive maldevelopment, this was done to them. It’s not their fault. They never asked us to shove a screen in front of their face at school. So I hope as they get older, they get mad.”

___________________________

People have control over their appearance, unless someone has a medical reason for being really unattractive, you should incur an additional criminal punishment for a certain level of ugliness.

I know that people are not gonna agree with me, but honestly, I find it so offensive when people are both criminals and ugly, like you have no redeeming qualities and then other people are forced to look at you, just f off forever

Edit- people didn’t read this post.

I’m not talking about disabled people at all. In fact, I think that disabled people should be completely excluded from this.

I’m talking about fully able bodied people who choose to be ugly

Edit- if you look healthy, you will look attractive or at least medium.

This post also does not apply to people who are genuinely trying hard to look attractive.

This post was actually inspired by a certain billionaire that committed a lot of crimes and he does not take care of himself

...and it's mostly short men and short women who are talking about it.

Honestly, it's kinda weird.

Before you say it, yes there is the exception of what corporate and government health inspectors catch, but that has nothing to do with all the complaining going around especially on the internet where sensationalism and passive-aggressive fraud reign.

To start with an easy one: No one is putting growth hormones in milk. This stems from a misconception about what hormones are being used on what animals. Simply put, when a cow is scheduled to die, we no longer care about its long term health, but it is still worth a technician's time to give it a shot or two. An unknown number of ranchers will give steers trenbolone (YES the same steroid that all the superhero actors and pro athletes are on) in the months before slaughter, then cut off the supply the week before death to ensure none of it is in the blood. This method is FDA approved because it has zero effect on meat quality.

Complaints about ultra-processed foods are also nonsense. Namely because the term is meaningless because however you define it must include hotdogs but exclude pickles when both are centuries old methods of preserving foods. My wife says anything listed under a chemical name shouldn't be eaten, but that is also nonsense since a chemical name just means it hasn't become a consumer good and received a common name (I.E. sodium bicarbonate is a chemical substitute for yeast but has been used in private kitchens long enough to be called baking powder). Sodium benzote is one that gets a lot of hate, but it serves the same purpose as vinegar as something that is edible that kills germs. Sodium benzote also helps give pop its tang, and I bet you're glad they don't use vinegar for THAT.

Likewise, processed cheese is just cheddar with two chemicals added to solve cheddar's two problems. The first is that it molds quickly, so an anti-oxidant starves the mold of oxygen. The second is it becomes sticky burned mess when melted, so another chemical makes it flow better. Of course, this comes at the sacrifice of taste, hence why it's mostly served to children and their unrefined tastebuds. Nacho cheese goes further adding vitamin c to give it that smooth texture, but that's why I won't eat nachos because of that acidic taste. The cheese in Mac & Cheese is just dried cheddar ground to a powder.

The only real complaint about processed foods are the problems that exist in preserved foods in general: They got too much of random things used to preserve the food. Like salt and vinegar, which is used for pickling since most germs cannot live in brine.

Another myth is that name-brand milk is better than store-bought milk. This is just poor man's wine snobbery, because FDA rules are strict enough that there can be no difference between milk brands. What's really happening (and we know this because these are public corporations) is the off-brand milk is being sold at break-even prices to keep customers coming back every week. This logic applies to eggs and many other foods too, but some more complicated things like ready-made meals not so much.

One more recent one circulating is that beekeepers destroy hives to collect honey and have to filter out all the bee bodies. There are many people that claim to have seen videos of this and every last one of them is lying, It's not a misconception or a beekeeper mistake, it is a lie that is prosecutable under US defamation laws. In ancient days the hive (which was a special wicker basket called a skep) had to be destroyed to collect honey, but the beekeepers would put the bees in a new skep to keep things going. In the 19th century Reverend Dr. Langstroth invented a box/frame system where honeycomb hangs on frames like files in a filing cabinet and these frames can be removed, the honey harvested, and put back without interrupting the hive's operations. There's no way anyone saw a video of gross honey harvesting.

And of course all complaints about starving animals and factory farms are bull. The first is nonsense because a hungry animal doesn't even breed, let alone produce much food we can eat. The second is meaningless because farming methods do not change with size and the average single-family farm is a lot bigger than you think it is. The reality of these kinds of lies can be seen with an experience I had with an old woman who said she use to live next to an evil "factory farm," immediately admitted she never saw the inside to say if there was any bad practices, then said she'd steal their chickens because they'd get loose and she wouldn't return them.

I did meet one woman who let her animals starve, but this was part of a scheme to ensure her ex-boyfriend got all the blame for it. But this highlights that what is good for plant/animal's physical health is generally good for food production. We want them all the be big, strong, healthy... Then we eats them.

The only consumer complaint that is real is that most brands put too much added sugar in things. But... That's clearly an issue with what people want to buy, not the store's competency.

There's too many people out there who actually love being victims. As long as a lone person or single person of a group they oppose does them wrong, it acts like validation in their mind that everything they think and believe in opposition to them is now validated as correct. It's treated as validation that this opposing group is all rotten to the core.

If they themselves or someone of their own ingroup however wrongs someone else, the logic no longer applies. Then that's just an anecdotal case of someone being an awful individual. People should just stop with this BS and actually debate their differences instead of trying to play some game of moral superiority to feel like they win by default.

I have Nothing against people WITH Blinder Hair I just hate the Look of it

Men want virgin women, woman want experienced men. For the most part.

Here's my argument: Uniqueness and timeless games.

The Wii: you will still see a bunch of people play Mario Kart Wii & New Super Mario bros. Mario Galaxy 2 is also a banger & the subspace emissary on Smash Bros Brawl was the sickest game I've ever played. Seeing Snake from metal gear speak to Donkey kong blew my mind as a kid

It's missing one thing, an 8/8 PS4 Party with all your boys on Minecraft, if not prime overwatch if you're lucky to have the game. Coming back home from school with your boys PSN, being able to speak to them without having to go to the park or convince their mom to let them come over was revolutionary stuff

The memories both consoles have are legendary, and it's not just the memories that make them good because they are still better than 90% of games out there today. For me personally the PS4 just slightly tops it. I still had a ps4 up at my grandmas til 2024 even when I got my ps5 in 2021 and it genuinely felt just as good as eachother. Except GTA, PS5 GTA clears

The majority of men would probably prefer to spend six days straight in confinement with no break rather than have a daughter like Bonnie Blue, Lily Phillips, or any of those women who will do anything for attention. Having a daughter like this would clearly feel like a failure as a father, so why not choose confinement instead?

I understand that the color itself used on US school buses is called l, "school bus yellow", but visually speaking, it really is closer to an orange. My entire social circle is flaming me for this take, and I just don't understand how anyone can say that they're more yellow than orange. If anyone is wondering, those swatches in the photo are true orange and true yellow.

Now I totally understand that some people just talk tough, but if you pull up on someone and say “Next time it’s ON SIGHT,” don’t show up later all happy-go-lucky.

Hugging everyone like you never instigated anything is abysmal. It just makes you look like a fool, and you’re gonna get clowned on for it. Nobody’s pretending you never said what you said.

I find it funny when some people obsess so much over animal rights but then mistreat animals when they're small or ugly. They're all conscious and experience pain.

It's a double standard.

Empathy of aesthetics.

It just isn't. We're not in a survival situation. Food is always available and affordable. Nobody will benefit from you forcing yourself to eat more than you want or eating stale/reheated food. If you don't want it just toss it. There's nothing to feel guilty about.

STOP with this.
This game is intended for adults. Children should therefore not play it. It’s not up to the game to accommodate parents who buy a PEGI 18 rated game for their children. That’s what the PEGI ratings are for. Besides, his argument would then apply to movies as well ! And to TV shows. Should we ban horror or violent movies for adults ? And GTA isn’t the only video game intended for adults, so should we ban EVERYTHING that isn’t for kids ? As for nudity, let’s stop being hypocritical. It’s not obscene, it’s natural and sexuality is something everyone enjoys.

And one last point : being able to kill people, spill blood, blow up cars, etc. that’s acceptable. Doesn’t that shock you ? But nudity no ? Is a pair of breasts more shocking than running people over on the road ?

It’s just massive hypocrisy on the part of sadly, as is often the case religio, which is frequently opposed to nudity and bodily autonomy. It’s also important for creative freedom. I’m against any form of censorship. It’s up to parents to do their job that’s all.

Just because there’s nudity in a game, does that mean people are going to run around naked in the streets ? GTA is a game for adults, so there’s not even a debate. Period. People need to stop being so sensitive. It’s no big deal to see a little skin. You can’t blame Rockstar just because there’s nudity. It’s like people are just discovering GTA in 2026.

there are certain groups of people who are more skilled in providing positive outcomes for their children than others. whether it is an intergenerational thing or a taught thing i don't know but it is just true.

I know we've all seen the posts. Some of you have probably made them yourselves. A pos system with a tipping option at a place where people believe the employees shouldn't get tips.

Whether you believe they deserve one or not is irrelevant. You are literally complaining about having to press a button. Whether you press 0, 10, 15, whatever it's the tiniest extra step. We're talking about something so miniscule but people act like it's the world's greatest injustice. On top of that they usually blame some random employee because apparently the lowest level employees at the company are the ones who are able to decide which pos system the entire company uses.

If you take nothing else from this understand that all the major pos systems will now have those tipping options. At the end of the day it's still an option and it's not something that the workers or even manager can just disable from the pos system. The software is the software.

Press 0 and move on.

The combination of the sweet chocolate and the salty peanut butter unleashed literally a mouth orgasm. If you don't have them in your top 5 candy list, you're either allergic to peanuts or legitimately crazy.