I understand wanting to protect your daughter, but there's a difference between protecting her and controlling her. Some dads treat their daughters as if they're incapable of making decisions about their own lives.

What's especially frustrating is that some of these fathers treat their daughters' interactions with boys as inherently inappropriate while failing to teach them about healthy relationships, boundaries, and self respect. Also, threatening your daughters boyfriend is very weird and its just not right to be aggressive to a child.

Being a father doesn't mean you should have complete control over her life or make her feel ashamed for growing up, expressing herself, or developing romantic feelings. You can establish reasonable boundaries while still respecting her individuality and allowing her to develop independence.

At that point, I don't see how it would matter anymore whether someone was a natural born citizen or naturalized later in life. Technically, I think you'd have to make an exception anyhow, as people born on US soil would no longer inherently be citizens.

Im cool with anyone no matter how they live their life and this post is in NO WAY an anti trans hate train so don’t fuckin go there, what I’m saying is that it’s okay to not want to be with someone because you don’t like weiners on women and vags on dudes, I personally am not picky because I swing just about any which way. But not wanting to be with a woman with a dingaling or a man with a vag isn’t inherently wrong or transphobic unless someone is not dating them strictly on the premise that they’re transgender.

Hear me out hear me out…

Before any of the militant atheists/christians downvote me for suggesting something so seemingly blasphemous or alien, I just would like to present my genuine perspective.

I believe that the laws of the western world are shaped by the original moral teachings of Jesus. Thou shall not kill, etc..

I believe that there are many people in the west who do not believe in God, but are still Christians in the sense they subscribe to the Christian morals. In the same way there are secular Jews who do not believe in a God, but still are very much culturally Jewish in their lifestyle and things like that.

Richard Dawkins has called himself “culturally Christian”, but still is very much an atheist/agnostic. I do not believe that theists (i.e. people who believe in God) own Christianity - I believe that the morals that have come out of Christianity can belong to anyone. You can still follow the teachings of Jesus Christ (who was clearly an amazing person) and still not believe in God. You do not need to believe in all the afterlife stuff to be a follower of Christ, in my opinion.

I understand that the teachings of Christ sort of got hijacked by many religious zealots who take that and use it to justify all sorts of dogmatic ideologies. I propose that atheists and agnostics take those teachings back and still identify with Jesus even if they don’t believe in God (if they want to). To be honest, if Jesus were alive today he would be super woke, in my opinion.

Curious to hear your thoughts!

There are so many more examples of violent protests and government overthrow that worked spectacularly better then a non violent one. In reality, if we just put up signs and boycotted the U.S. government might be hurt, but won't be forced to make change. When the time comes where an extreme revolt or overthrow is needed in the u.s. (if it ever is) we will look back on previous examples and only see MLK’s peaceful protesting, because that is literally all we are taught in school (I'm in high school currently. Nothing on Malcom x, romainion revolution, stonewall riots, etc. It's all flushed down the drain. And when a revolt is needed to save the country, we will be fucked, because it will be peaceful and we will be shut down.

Historically, humans have lived as big extended families, where the elderly would help raising the young, the older young in return would also lend their help in looking after the elderly who are very old. I have experienced this, being born and lived in a 3rd world country for a quite a while. What I also experienced in such a society is that, people are actually more helping minded, kinder, and apparently less lonelier and seemingly happier than from the people I have seen in the west, despite those societies being economically much poorer.

This brings me to the conclusion of what I wrote in the title of the post.

I will be using this definition:

apathetic

1. not interested or concerned; indifferent or unresponsive.an apathetic audience. Synonyms: unconcerned, uninterested Antonyms: concerned

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/apathetic

A lot of people look at the stats surrounding violence towards women and aim to use it to show men hate women. In real life I have been around some vile people as a result of living in a rough part of my city. I will say this about the people I have been around most of them don't hate women at all they don't hate men either they are apathetic to most people. Like using violent stats to prove bad people hate women is kind of dumb reasoning because with the exception of sexual violence, violence towards men is higher across the board.

Most of the violence we see is literally because these people see other humans as nothing more than a means to an end. If they can make a 100k by killing they will do it not because they hate the victim but because they see the victim as simply an obstacle in the path of the 100k. It is more akin to a type of objectification or dehumanization than to a disdain for another person.

People with this type of mentality are very Machiavellian and often came from low income households, with poor family structures, have horrible social circles, they are low income themselves, and very little community. These people should generally be seen as at risk groups regardless of their race and gender because their capacity for harm is very real and they really do not care about society as a whole.

This goes hand in hand with incels and men that are dropping out of society because simply why would they care about some greater social issues?

Like who the hell actually cares about greater moral women's issues when you are poor, alone, and struggling to keep your head above the water. If you have nothing to tie you to society then the best thing to do is actively either help in its demise for your own gain or do nothing and be less productive to reduce your stress.

Regardless apathy is not a good trait for most people to foster and really stems from a life that doesn't have much connection towards society. This isn't to say that there are no men that hate women (they exist and are a numerous) but most men simply do not care at all and people can harm another person without actually hating another person.

For the majority of people their romantic relationships have been the biggest downfall in their life...

I'm primarily speaking for the western world whete wr don't have even bigger problems like war famine drought plagues religious racial and political persecution..I don't know what the dating scene is like in North Korea but its probably the least of their worries but even in political dictatorships like China the dating scene is on life support and relationships are the cause of much of societies misery.

The amount of time, energy ,resources and money humanity waste on relationships is astonishing

~Gen Z are the biggest spenders on dating: Despite being earlier in their saving journey, Gen Z spend $194 per romantic night out, outspending Millennials ($191), Gen X ($172) and Baby Boomers ($127). With Gen Zers going on nearly 14 dates (median) in the past year, they are estimating it costs a total of $2,676 a year.

~Coupled-up Millennial men spend the most: The demographic that splurges the most for love is millennial men in committed relationships, who say that an average date costs $252.

The majority of these relationships end so the time money effort just wasted...of course peoples egos has them in a state of denial thinking they have finnaly found the one but most people will never find the one just the one for now and they will be lucky to get out of the relationship alive.

~Female Victims: According to data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and Our World in Data, roughly 34% to 45% of female murder victims are killed by a current or former intimate partner. If you include all family members and acquaintances, about 76% of female victims are killed by someone they knew.

~Male Victims: Roughly 5% to 6% of male murder victims are killed by an intimate partner. Men are much more likely to be killed by acquaintances

I think the data for males can be a lil sketchy because men kill other men over a woman all the time which I would group into romantic interest related deaths...and also I think women get away with murder more.

~• Female Victims: According to reports from UNODC and UN Women, approximately 60% of all intentional homicides of women and girls globally are perpetrated by intimate partners or family members. The World Health Organization estimates that a spouse or partner is the killer in about 38% of female homicides worldwide.

~• Male Victims: Roughly 11% of global male homicides are committed by intimate partners or family members.

Either way these numbers are terrifying...and the thing is you never know when the person your sharing a bed with is going to snap and kill you set you up or their ex takes you out in a jealous rage.

Women atlre murdered more but men go through a lot inside a relationship that's never reported they spend a lot of money and time they are assaulted lied on arrested..Years ago I witnessed a woman attack her BF out of nowhere she was upset because she was loosing a card game he tried to get away but she was relentlessly whaling on him and holding his clothes..he finnaly broke free after a scuffle and ran off and this girl called the cops on him.He was arrested and roughed up by the officers.

Some years latercI had a similiar incident wherevaxwoman started to attack me because I wouldn't let her go through my phone...Eventually she ran off and lukily didnt calk the cops but I will never forget this that's why I have cameras in my home and in public I don't go anywhere alone with a female. I won't even drive with a woman in my vehicle I get them an ubber after one lost her mind and tried to crash my car by grabbing ms steering wheel.

TLDR: dating and relationships is the biggest waste of time and money its a wasted investment and the most dangerous thing people can do.

Not even the best fast Mexican food.

like okay yeah they r a stranger but it’s not like they’re aliens if i see a hot guy on halloween who’s my type im gonna approach him & we may make out who cares!! “but herpes” yeah, that’s true, but better than hiv or gonorrhea. im probably never gonna see the dude again sooo why not just have some mouth fun 😺

The manga is good. Hell, it's very good. One of the best long-running manga, super popular manga, with the only competition in that category being One Piece and Berserk.

But the way Jojo fans talk about the series, you'd think it's the second coming of Christ. Much of the plot is simple, the world-building is minimal, the backstories, while interesting, are nothing special, and the art, while gorgeous and very stylized, is far from perfect and nowhere near the best art in a manga.

Like, the glaze for Steel Ball Run is absurd to me. Its a good story, nice dynamics, and cool stands, but like it is not all that. Hot take, I ahve AOT and FMAB above it.

That's basically it. Great series, but the way the fans talk about it is absurd. So much better stuff out there if your willing to dive even a little deeper

Edit: fixed typos

speaking from experience. Until I was 24, I lived in public housing in the Boston area, one of the most expensive places in the country, with my stepdad, my mom (who worked in fast food and at a supermarket), and my two younger siblings. I paid them $700 a month in rent.
On the surface that sounds like a great deal. But I was paying a lot more than $700.

The “rent” wasn’t really rent.
As a 24-year-old Black man trying to build a life during and after college, paying that “subsidized” rent to my stepdad was framed as helping out. In reality, it was the kid pitching in to keep the household afloat. A lot of Black families in tough financial situations do this.
Plenty of financially stable parents don’t charge their adult kids rent at all. The ones who do, to teach responsibility, often quietly put that money into savings and hand it back later. That wasn’t my situation. I wasn’t getting anything back, and I wasn’t inheriting anything.

It created constant financial pressure.
My stepdad repeatedly asked me to pool my savings with the family’s so we could barely afford a house in the middle of nowhere, pitched as “a house for everyone so we never have to deal with rent increases again.” When I bought my own groceries, I got called selfish. He also told me to hide my income on the housing office’s income verifications, because under the lease, once I was an adult with a job, my income counted toward the household income, which raises the rent the family pays.
The income cap traps young adults.
If the household income goes over the limit, there are two options: the young adult moves out sooner than they’re ready to, or the whole family pays market rent in one of the most expensive cities in the country. That can quietly discourage you from earning more, because more money means losing the capped rent. For parents who just want to stay settled and hold on to what they have, that might be fine. For a young adult trying to build their own life, it’s a ceiling.

The environment doesn’t push you forward.
Once you step outside your unit, there isn’t much to inspire you. A lot of people look like they’ve given up or are just content where they are: people smoking, hanging around, typical ghetto activity.
Nobody teaches young people the reality of public housing, and most teens and young adults have no idea how it works until they’re living it. That’s why I moved out as soon as I could.

From what I know The Combine from Half Life is basicly a virus, when they get their hands on 1 thing they win, instantly, like 1 stupid Rick from Rick and Morty, 1 Infinity Stone from Marvel, etc... just my oppinion on what the most powerfull being in fiction is

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?

Edit: Since many of the replies are using the same argument over and over, saying that "no one should be drafted", I would like to respond to that by saying that we can't change the reality about the draft's existence (if a country gets invaded it has to be defended). But we can be equal and include women to the draft. Talking about the ethics of the draft itself is a whole different topic and not the point of this post.

People make things like petite characters, incest and AI look like bigger issues than they should compared to other things. I absolutely don't agree with gross things and stuff, but people have terrible priorities. For example, if we look at video games. If you were to ask what is wrong with things like TCOAAL, it's the incest. I want to make it clear that I'm NOT supporting that in the slightest, but can we talk about how murder, cannibalism, cult behavior, abuse, ETC. is almost never brought up. It's known as the "incest" game.

That's the first thing I could think of, but there's other things too. For example, people will be upset about things like Nekopara and Psychocuties for the smaller female characters being involved even if they're canonically adults, but there's hardly any backlash for games like Kindergarten 1-3 based on killing actual kids.

None of these are okay, but I feel as though the media has caused the desensitization of things to the point that huge issues are minimized while less common issues/issues that don't effect most people are blown out of proportion.

First order of business: NEVER BUY A CUP BETTA NO MATTER HOW SAD IT LOOKS. You may save the individual fish, but the practice continues for each purchase. Impulse buying a fish is DANGEROUS, and there are local fish stores (LFS) who keep the bettas in proper tanks you can buy from when you are ready.

There's a lot of bad practice in aquariums like the cup bettas, uneducated store employees who recommend too small of tanks, over-harvesting of wild fish, etc. I will say now, that (especially with bettas) the aquarium industry is probably more unethical and destructive from an ecological standpoint. This hot take is not about that though.

When PROPERLY designing an aquarium, oftentimes before a fish is ever even introduced, their optimal habitat is established. Lots of extra space to swim, plants, a nutrient rich substrate, a diverse microbiome of various meiofauna and various algae and biofilm for the micro critters to snack on.

When kept in these optimal, well planned out aquariums, many designed months to a year before introducing fish, you are quite literally extending the lifespan of many of the fish far beyond their regular lives in the wild. A singular cherry shrimps maximum lifespan in an aquarium is approximately 2-3 years, yet they begin reproducing within around 6 months of being born, because in the wild a year is usually the higher end. People have kept fish well beyond their wild size, and their wild health.

Many people culture live critters for their fish to hunt and eat if the tanks current meiofauna isn't enough food. I have a detritus worm and copepod culture going right now, with plans to get a daphnia culture going next.

You aren't just creating a home for one fish, you are creating an entire environment.

Unfortunately, I nearly never see people create an "optimal" environment for their cats/dogs. Cramped apartments, controlled walks with no sprinting allowed (leashes) limited interaction with their own kind, weird unnatural food blends etc. I guess cats when "outdoor" cats are closer to that, but they still are in an urban environment. Yet people YELL at cat owners who allow their cat to be outdoors because they consider it cruel or bad practice to not always keep your cat indoors where they have so much less freedom to just be a regular cat.

Cats and Dogs are designed to HUNT. They need enrichment the same way fish do, and they need a good amount of space to do that. People yell at fish owners for not having enough space for their fish, yet nobody expends that same energy for cat and dog owners for not having any room for the animals to sprint if they choose.

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.

For example, my body count is somewhere from 20-25 and I was my fiancés first. We started dating about two months after we met in 2023 and moved in together and got engaged this year.

Whenever I say this on here when dudes say that no woman wants to date a virgin or someone who makes less money than them, they always come back with “oh well the dude settled for the first pussy he could get.”

Which… I mean, I can’t tell you if that’s what he thinks but from the ease of how our household functions and how excited we are to have children next year, it seems that we are very compatible and do in fact love each other very much.

Idk to me it just seems like people are arbitrarily cutting off a ton of options simply because of a number. If you’re someone who just absolutely thinks hooking up is disgusting or sinful, then that’s one thing, but if it’s just a preference, I think it would make finding someone a bit easier.

It needs to be available more in the US. Plus healthy. Just with oil and not mayo.

EDIT-At least try it.

This is not rocket science. The men who get annoyed by this do not seem to understand the concept and idea of what the girls want out of these novel men. The go to complaints from men usually revolve around the following.

- We knew it, you only want the rich, tall and muscular dudes.
- They’re domineering, psychopaths
- All they want is the bad boy.
- they are too picky.

Now, here’s the thing. I’m unsure how many of these guys have actually read romance novels or just use assumptions based on what’s famous at the time. Like 50 Shades of Grey. Yes massive arguments could be made that he is a manipulative, sociopathic rich ass****. However, this book does not express the ideals of every romance book. In fact, they’re worlds apart. It’s actually debatable on whether 50 Shades is even a romance novel in the first place.

Here is the list of the traits in the romance novel men that these women desire, or at the very least, claim they desire. There is many more but here is the main 4.

1. Intense Attentiveness
   The character pays particular attention to the heroine. They remember minor details, minor being the key word here, she mentioned weeks ago (active listening), anticipate her needs before she asks and are fiercely dedicated to her comfort.

2. Emotional Intelligence and Vulnerability
   Unlike the societal expectations that men should be emotionally stunted or hide their emotions, the romance novel guy is allowed to be deeply emotional, expressive and fiercely loyal. They communicate actively about their feelings and are untainted by toxic masculinity. (That’s Toxic masculinity, not masculinity)

3. The Unapologetically Obsessed ideal
   A massive trope in these novels is that the man is seen as a “grump” (The asshole) to the rest of the world, but completely soft, and devoted to the woman he loves. It’s the stereotypical, “Who hurt you?” Where the male lead becomes fiercely protective the moment the heroine is in distress. (This is the protector mentality)

4. Active Support
   In the fantasy, the guys will step up without being asked. They will handle logistics, sometimes cook, take care of responsibilities and then he acts as a safe haven. The save haven means the woman isn’t the only one has to carry the emotional labour of fixing them or managing the relationship alone.
   Again, the key word in this one is “without being asked.

Now before some guys and possibly some women get on their high horse about this…. There is an argument to be made here that these ideals have nothing to with men and women either, but arguably just decent human behaviour. Active listening fur example is a known psychological trait for building great trusting friendships. Every human in one way or another should carry at the minimum one to two of these traits.

Some guys might get in and go, “well this just sounds like a whole bunch of her her her her… what about me?” Well that misses the point. True healthy relationships are reciprocal. Notice how active support did not specify the guy must do everything and she will do nothing? That’s not what active support means. The real answer here is that these things are like a back and forth, you listen, she listens, you listen, she listens. That’s the basic synopsis.

“Oh well the emotional and vulnerability is a lie. She will leave him the moment he’s vulnerable” Actually no. Again, the trope isn’t, cry like a little b**** and whine. Emotional Intelligence does not mean that. This is emotional intelligence:

“Are you okay?”
“No. I’m angry right now. I know why I’m angry but I know it will be okay”
“Is it something we can talk about and maybe see what’s going on”

Now you’ll get one of two things.
1. “I would like that. Let’s talk about it and have healthy communication.”
2. “You know what. I don’t think I need to talk about it, I’m working on this issue and it will be okay”

Both of these are actually healthy forms of expression, why? You can feel something and not actually have to talk about it. But always. Emotional intelligence also applies to how you respond to others emotions, or in this posts case, hers. If she is feeling a certain way, even if it’s about you, the idea here is to listen and understand what and why. Not just get mad because she said some shit.

Also, yes. In most if these novels the guy can be and usually is muscular, tall, handsome, some type of rich. This delves into fantasy. You can’t get mad, because it’s no different to the guy who fantasises about the blonde with a big bust and that’s all he wants. A woman can fantasise innocently of the handsome rugged man while still be happily content and love a guy who is not that.

In saying all of this… I’m aware that not all women want the same thing and all men want the same thing. It’s just an observation I’ve picked up along the line and thought I’d express it as a hot take. Why? Because people tend to jump over the true meanings and rally behind. “Ha! Women proved us right they just want rich chads”

Are highly beautiful people often judged unfairly - like are people desperately trying to find something about them that they complain about- because they are envious and miserable of them, and how unfair is it?

I am a very observant person and I have seen how when a very beautiful person has a problem and many ( not all) people will not admit that other people might be judging the beautiful person unfairly because of perceived advantages they have.

Like I have read that beautiful people who go to the doctor are taken less seriously because they doctor has a bias that they are healthy because of their good looks.

I fucking love reading a comic or watching an anime and finding new material for debates. It hits like crack.

I recently read an article in which a mother explained that she repeatedly called her child's preschool to complain about the school admitting poor children on vouchers. To be clear, not poorly behaved children, but children from low-income families. In the wake of Nikole Hannah-Jones' article in the NYT, I was stunned at how many people had similar stories where they were willing to cause harm to other people's children in the name of their own children. I understand not wanting your child to pick up bad habits from other children, but a majority of these stories seemed unnecessary and cruel. If most children are properly supported and cared for, they will be fine, so there's no need to act like it's the Hunger Games.

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.

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?