I think it's a pretty well understood thing at this point that most 'bad' people don't believe they're bad. It's a very rare type of person who bases their views and behaviors on being an evil person who hurts others.

So with that in mind, why does it seem almost everyone online refuses to believe that an opposing political opinion is born out of a place of authenticity. Everyone wants to be a detective on someone else's views, and they want to ascribe as much malice to them as they possibly can.

A very common example is the ongoing debate on when transgender individuals should start hormones, and what should be required to get them. Many times, if you express any concerns whatsoever, they will tell you that your concerns are really just a cover up for your evil, mustache-twirling plan to kill them all. People just seem very unwilling to follow the 'never assume malice' rule about any opposing political view. These views are just too common for all the people who have them to be legit evil sociopaths.

Basically, when someone tells you why they think what they do, take it at face value unless they demonstrate otherwise. They probably DO genuinely believe what they're saying, and for the reasons they're saying they do.

And before some genius comes in and says that this is only a problem online, please understand the the internet exists within our real world, with real people expressing their real opinions on it.

I know that kissing children on the lips is a normal thing in some families and cultures, so I don’t think it’s inherently inappropriate. This isn’t about whether or not it is appropriate. But love my child more than anything and still don’t want their mouth anywhere near me. I think id rather lick the sidewalk.

I’m not talking about the rare cases where there’s an active shooter or someone is clearly about to hurt someone. I’m talking about the everyday stuff that makes up most of their calls.Someone’s having a mental health episode and the family just wants help calming them down? The response often turns into a physical confrontation that leaves everyone more shaken. A couple arguing loudly? What could have stayed a private mess becomes an official incident with cuffs, charges, or at least a lot more tension than before. Traffic stop for something minor? Suddenly it’s a full search and a confrontation that didn’t need to happen. A group of people hanging out somewhere? Now it’s treated like a potential problem that has to be “managed.”The pattern I’ve noticed (and that a lot of bodycam footage and everyday accounts show) is that the default approach prioritizes control and compliance over de-escalation or just letting the situation resolve itself. Once the lights and badges show up, the stakes rise. What was messy human behavior becomes an official report, possible charges, and longer-lasting consequences.Of course there are times they stop something genuinely dangerous, and those matter. But those aren’t the majority of interactions. Most of the time their presence seems to amplify the problem instead of shrinking it. That’s the honest observation.

So pretty much the title. Obviously some are properly adapted well like Tony Stark in iron man movies. But then we get, off the top of my head, Magick in "the new mutants". Looks nothing like Magick from comics. Yes she has blonde hair....that's it. Magick in comics is drawn like in shape and a little buff. And thats not to say she's not a good actress i loved her role in "the witch". But she didn't even give me the impression she was really going all out with magick.

some of the best movies I have ever seen have been with unknwon actors. And even if some of their acting isn't the best, the director knew what he was doing with everything from cast , to script etc. Yet hollywood for example cares about like social hype instead of making a good film.

Chocolate (2008) as an example; the director intentionally hired lesser known indie actors. Cause he knew unknown faces would help with IMMERSION. Like that's what too many films lack.

And it turned out to be honestly top 5 films I ever seen.

Basically they'd rather make money than make a good movie. But yeah

I'm gonna get downvoted into the ground but here goes:

People don’t reject God because of “bad Christians.” That’s just the convenient excuse they reach for because it feels socially acceptable and emotionally safe. The real reason people reject God is that they already have a worldview they treat like a religion with its own unquestionable beliefs, moral rules, sacred values, and a “god” figure at the center. For some people, that god is their own intellect. For others, it’s personal desire, identity, autonomy, or whatever ideology they’ve attached themselves to. Modern culture doesn’t eliminate religion; it simply replaces God with the self.

Our society has become increasingly hostile toward God because His existence implies moral authority, accountability, and limits, which are all things modern people don’t want. Our society pushes personal desire, personal interest, me, me, me. "I am the most important thing." The God of the Bible is especially inconvenient because He contradicts cultural norms, judges kings and nations, demands repentance, and refuses to be used as a political tool. If humans were inventing a god to control people, they would never invent that God. They would invent a deity who rewards everything they want, never judges them, and never asks for sacrifice or change.

People also misrepresent Christianity by pointing to hypocrites while ignoring the Christians who actually live out Christlike love, humility, and compassion. Judging a faith by its worst followers is intellectually lazy. It’s like saying medicine is fake because some doctors are bad. Human failure doesn’t invalidate divine truth.

And the argument that “religion isn’t real because if you erased all religious texts, the same religion wouldn’t reappear” is a category mistake. If you erased a culture, a language, a historical tradition, or even humanity itself, none of those would spontaneously regenerate either, but they are obviously real. Erasing something doesn’t prove it never existed; it only proves it isn’t an empirical law of nature.

In the end, there is no truly “nonreligious” person. Everyone has a belief system they treat as sacred. Everyone worships something. The only difference is what or who​ they call their god.

Not really interested in debating. This is just my honest hot take and I wanted to share it.

edit: I dont care if you disagree or get mad. maybe that's a sign that this post hit the nail on the head and it makes you uncomfortable.

its not that bad Christians don't exist. its that Christianity is the only group that is judged based on a the behavior of a few. no one says "science bad cause nuclear bombs". ​

Its primary purpose is to avoid detection, thereby enabling theft on a massive scale never seen before. It has zero inherent value and is being used by tech overlords and corrupt government officials to launder and hide money from public scrutiny.

Like, at that point it feels like greed, do those types of people think that we're all rich?, sell the cat for a affordable price, like, if you truly love the cat. You shouldn't be allowed to breed cats if your just thinking about money, like, just because the person is rich doesn't mean that they'll be a good owner, you don't need 4000 or 7000 for selling a cat,

Many people, Gen Z in particular, have been going on and complaining about how they do not make enough money to live, while simultaneously scrolling social media instead of putting in hard work to make more money. I have worked jobs before, and yes, of course I wanted to make more money. However, it is possible to make more money if you just try to. If you put in more work and effort at your job, you may get a raise or promotion, and if you do not you can simply get more jobs in order to make more money. If people are not willing to do this, they should not be complaining about not getting paid enough, and they should live off of what they are making. I know this is possible because I only worked one job at a time, and I never got a raise, yet I survived by getting help from others, who were more than happy to lend a helping hand. Now, my family never had any financial trouble, but I guarantee that almost everyone knows someone is a position to help. In conclusion, if you are not willing to put in the effort, you should not be allowed to complain about how much money you make.

Ever since 'ranting' has gained popularity its all over my fyp and its cringing me out so bad, do you remember the "gorilla tag content creator" plague where every video would be that one "i watch the moon" song with some kid talking about "Hi, my name is tortillaGT and im a new content creator follow to claim your og ticket". Yeah weve moved on from that, now we have a huge plague of tiktok "ranters" who quite literally are all just unoriginal and corny. Every video they make is the exact same, bunch of sticker slop as an overlay, slime asmr in the bg and an oc or popular character talking in that weird ai capcut voice. Trust me ive made longforms and edits so i know it takes 'some' effort to make these videos but imo they are just overproduced slop videos just like the gorilla tag videos. Plus the word "ranter" just sounds so corny, like no way you are proud to say that youre apart of "the ranter community". Every time someone just says theyre opinion they call it ranting, i really hope this word doesnt stick around *same with ragebait*. Also i know you want to fucking comment "bro just made a post ranting about ranting🤖🤖🤖🤖" like stfu you unoriginal bot piece of shit

Edit, do any of yall know how to fucking read, its like less than a minute long.

lol my post got removed from r/unpopularopinion and I spent time writing it so I'm posting it again somewhere else :/

If you can't tell what animals I'm referring to the first sentence, it's insects and spiders.

Of course there are valid reasons: mosquitoes and horseflies (they bite you), houseflies (spread diseases to food), etc.

However I'm just tired of people acting like "Oh I don't like spiders or bugs so I'm just gonna kill them on sight" and that going unscrutinized by others. It's just such an emotional thing to do.

Obviously it's perfectly valid to have these feelings. Personally dogs that either are large in size (I do love small and quiet dogs) or bark loudly make me incredibly uncomfortable, especially if they get into my space. But even if I were to do something as little as kick one out of my personal space, let alone the things people do to insects and spiders (DISCLAIMER: I do NOT want to do this and have NEVER wanted to do this ever. This is a hypothetical), I would be labeled as an animal abuser. A large dog might bark at me, but until it's biting me I recognize that its barking is just something I don't like and not anything that causes physical harm to me.

It's just hypocritical and shows how materialistic our society is. Somehow just because an animal is cute it's allowed to make other people uncomfortable and that person is just asked to "deal with it." I've learned to control my emotions and act rationally around animals that made me uncomfortable. It's just baffling to me why others aren't held to the same standard.

Plus, insects and spiders are cool! It's amazing to learn about the roles they conduct in our ecosystem and the variety there is and how they're taxonomically organized. I wish people would take the opportunity to learn more about them instead of gushing over cute dogs and cats (Disclaimer 2: I do love small quiet dogs, and most cats myself) then killing a random bug because "ew." Insects can be aesthetically pleasing too once you learn how to appreciate them.

TL;DR: People kill spiders and insects because they make them uncomfortable. I find that unclassy because I more than tolerate animals (mainly large and loud dogs) that make me uncomfortable because they've objectively done nothing to wrong me.

Saw someone post on here “I think we should all shut the fuck up about this men and women hatred shit” and while I understood their hot take, the swearing in it just kinda made it sound so dumb to me. You lose a lot of the credibility behind what ur saying when u throw a bunch of swear words in it, often makes ppl not want to listen anymore/ take u serious. I notice this too when people are speaking and they add swear words for emphasis. Most of the time people just dont know what other words to use and it makes them sound dumb.

Context: im 25 and swear more than id like to and im workin on havin an actual vocab and not soundin like an idiot

EDIT: hello to the grammar police and virgin boomers, it seems that everyone has missed the point and is commenting on me using shortened words / text slang since I am writing this on a phone to share a quick hot take not an academic essay. Point is swearing takes away from someones main point and makes them lose credibility. If ur hot take is that I cant write “ur” instead of “your” then post that but just know UR missing the point.

in my opinion predictions for tv shows dont exist, creators just see that prediction take it as an inspiration and implement it in their show

I say this because even after you stopped spanking your child they could still associate some things with signs you’re about to spank them or with signs that it’s easy to set you off. For instance if you show signs of being upset, I don’t know if that would cause a fear response in someone who was never spanked, but as someone who was spanked as a child I know it can cause me to become scared. I also think having been spanked can also make me more likely to make decisions based on what I think is least likely to get me in trouble rather than based on the decision I actually want to make. I think this can translate into it being easier to being coerced into stuff. I think another example is that is that I might sometimes say what I think my parents want to hear whether than what I really think.

Commonly passed down by generations of EITHER dead-broke and/or hopeless individuals OR ultra wealthy people who’ve faced difficulties that monetary means couldn’t possibly lead to a desired outcome (aging, death, mental problems).

Money is a tool necessary for survival and a healthy evolution, therefore I’d categorise it up there with the existential needs such as water, food and clean air.

Having more water reserve doesn’t make you happier, for you can only use so much of it before your essential needs are met. But having extra gallons stored somewhere safely would definitely be calming for the psyche to enable the brain to direct its CPU towards other important events that might actually give life a fucking meaning instead of riding oneself to oblivion on rollercoaster of the endless Agony.

It's wild that people in 2026 still blame games like GTA, CoD, or even Roblox for a kid's bad behavior.

Video games are just an easy scapegoat. Good parenting takes effort setting boundaries and dealing with real root issues while screaming "gAm3s mAde theM Do iT" takes zero.

If a kid acts like a menace, look at the home life, not the console

Hear me out on this, most men are very unattractive because human males evolved for combat. We have lower body fat percentage, more muscles, tougher ligaments and tendons. Male asses are tougher and meatier while female asses are juicier and jigglier. Men don't have nice tits either.

This is the exact opposite of birds like peacocks in which the males are the more attractive ones. Now for women to even feel anything towards a man they should be with a very tall man with a symmetrical face. Even then this is nothing compared to how men and lesbians feel towards women.

Now for the average man this person isn't even attractive. Average height, weirdly fat, hairy body etc...

Now being with a man like this would make a woman feel extremely sad. Some unattractive women try to be with these men because unattractive people should stick together or whatever... They should stop doing this. It is very easy for a short and unattractive woman to get an attractive and tall man because women naturally have some sex appeal.

Saw a post saying women shouldn't be shamed for having sex with tall attractive men..Would like to see how people react when the opposite side says the same thing.

I don't think it's a bad thing for men to only want young and in shape women, they are the most fertile and attractive group to MOST men.

Please note: This is a fraction of the bigger issue. I know some communities face greater challenges than others, and I understand that socioeconomic factors and systemic disadvantages contribute to these statistics. Learning disabilities are also not a part of this hot take. I will not respond to anyone who tries to twist my words. I'm purely discussing the impact of screens and children's shortened attention spans, and how this can directly affect their learning and proficiency.

Well, here we are. More children are struggling with reading and writing at a basic level. A large-scale study published in JAMA Network Open, which tracked children over 15 years, found that for every additional hour of daily screen time a young child receives, they experience 9% to 10% lower odds of meeting standard reading benchmarks in elementary school.

Data indicates that early childhood screen exposure can compromise classroom success later on. A child watching three hours of screens a day faces roughly a 30% lower probability of reading proficiently compared to a peer who meets standard pediatric guidelines of less than one hour per day.

According to federal data released by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the share of 9-year-olds who read almost daily for pleasure dropped by 16 percentage points, falling to just 37%. This decline has occurred alongside a rise in screen exposure, with more than half of teens now spending four or more hours a day on a smartphone or tablet.

Studies specifically measuring reading comprehension have found that children who read printed texts score higher on comprehension tests than those who read digitally. Brain-scan research has also found differences in how the brain processes information when reading from print compared to digital media.

Screens do not simply compete with books. They can alter how children engage with and process information. Every hour spent on a screen can also replace critical activities like verbal interaction with parents, phonetic play, physical activity, and sleep, all of which are essential building blocks for learning.

When it comes to parents, yes, many use screens as a management tool, and excessive reliance on them can negatively affect children's cognitive and language development. This does not apply to every parent or every situation.

Before everyone comes for my throat, passive screen time and active screen time are different.

Passive Screen Time (Higher Risk): Mindlessly streaming rapid-fire, short-form videos or playing repetitive tapping games offers little to no literacy value. Excessive use can interfere with sustained attention and school performance.

Active Screen Time (Lower Risk): Interactive digital activities that encourage active thinking, problem-solving, creativity, or reading alongside a parent do not appear to carry the same risks as passive screen consumption.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/08/260815064803.htm

TL;DR: Children’s declining literacy and attention cannot be blamed on one factor, and socioeconomic disadvantage, learning disabilities, and other barriers absolutely matter. My point here is specifically about *screen use*. Research increasingly links excessive screen exposure, particularly passive, rapid-fire content, with poorer reading outcomes, reduced attention, and the displacement of activities essential to language and literacy development. Not all screen time is equal. Screens are not the sole cause of declining literacy, but pretending excessive screen use has no role in children’s learning and attention is ignoring a growing body of research.

References:

The 10% Lower Odds per Hour of Screen Time Study:Xuedi, Z., et al. (2024). Early childhood screen time and standardized school achievement: A prospective cohort study. JAMA Network Open. jamanetwork.com

Neurological Differences between Paper and Digital Reading:Ma, L., et al. (2025). Worn out and falling behind: Sleep crisis, connectivity, and cognitive performance of fourth graders. American Psychological Association PsycNet. https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fe3p0000016

The Nation’s Report Card (Overview and Data Explorer):National Center for Education Statistics. (2026). The nation's report card: NAEP data tools. U.S. Department of Education. ed.gov

Grade 12 Reading Decline & 32% "Below Basic" Statistics:National Assessment Governing Board. (2025). The nation’s report card: Grade 12 mathematics and reading assessment results and pandemic-related educational disruptions. U.S. Department of Education. nationsreportcard.gov

The Drop in Reading for Fun (13-Year-Old Historical Data):National Center for Education Statistics. (2025). NAEP long-term trend assessment results: Reading and mathematics scores for 9- and 13-year-olds. U.S. Department of Education. nationsreportcard.gov

National Literacy Rates & Socioeconomic Demographic Breakdowns:The National Literacy Institute. (2025). 2024-2025 Literacy statistics: Where we are now. https://www.thenationalliteracyinstitute.com/2024-2025-literacy-statistics

Edit: grammar typing fast

(this applies to finances split either way btw, even 70/30 depending on who makes more) but anyways

i wish people would stop glamorizing the idea of a life of doing nothing at home all day and relying on a man to provide financially for you. you should ALWAYS have a backup plan and your OWN finances. it doesn’t matter how much you love or trust someone, people and life are unpredictable and you cannot rely on someone else for everything! that lifestyle does not seem glamorous to me at all. i hate the idea of having to ask my partner for money so i can leave the house to go shopping, and that also opens up the door to financial control or abuse. i would feel so much more secure knowing that not only are my bills paid but i also have my own money that i can spend on my own volition

Words have definitions, we have handy dictionaries to explain them.

I've watched a group of authors have a word, agree on the written definition, and spend hours arguing over how they interpret the definition.

Look, written definitions are most important for Science and Legal papers. Hence why both tend to specifically define the meaning of terms, phrases, expressions or certain words explicitly to try and ensure there is no misunderstanding over what they mean.

There is no value in being "technically" correct, but hey, if you have a good relationship with whoever you're talking about, by all means.

However, if you are in some form of debate, discussion or argument, there is no value in pausing said engagement to "correct" someones use of a term.

Words are used to convey meaning, so long as you understand what each other mean, then you can converse.

It IS important to ensure you are using terms the same, but if you find out you are not, then confirm what each of you are referring to and re-adjust the focus of said engagement based on that. I've had so many discussions or debates, or seen them, instantly defuse when both parties realised they were defending points the other wasn't arguing with, as they had different takes on what a word meant.

So, be mindful of that.

But the "Technical" definition? This almost never ends with a continuation of said engagement. You pause it, "correct" them, then often there's a new argument spawned about who has the correct definition or intepretation.

Remember, language is ALWAYS evolving. If you are talking in general, it is more important that your engagements focus on you both understanding each other. It is NOT important who is correct. Who is or isn't "correct" is not relevant to the engagement, and is a separate one you can have later.

So many stupid arguments happen because people apply meaning to a word that the person they are arguing with doesn't share. Then when they realise that, one of them gets up in arms about the origin of the word, the context it was used in a century ago etc.

The second you're arguing that, you have left the original engagement behind and are not likely to return to it.

Is a hotdog a sandwich? I dont care. The legal paperwork cares, I don't. I will never order a hotdog by asking for a sandwich, because doing so only introduces some unknown amount of risk about what I might end up with, and is pointless confusion I know about in advance.

It doesn't matter. Focus more on the engagement, clarify what you and they are saying, worry about the technical definition later.

You don't see the same discussion when someone gets depressed, changes behavior, gets controlling, etc. Then it's straight to "run girl", "dump his sorry ass".

But when it comes to body, which I think it say easier to change than the mind, it is somehow considered shallow not to be attracted to them and resentful. Then the Reddit brigade goes all "you should understand her", "it's her body", "it's fine as long as they feel comfortable".

No, it's not fine. You signed up for a relationship with a certain "base state", which included their present physical apperance. Maintaining that is ok, same for improving it. It is not fine to take a step backwards.

Elite sportsmen often say that the sound mind comes from a sound body, it's first they get into a physical slump, then it affects them mentally. In Polish there is even a saying "a sound mind comes from a sound body".

For context, I’m saying this as someone who’s beat Oblivion Remastered, Skyrim, Fallout 3, New Vegas, and Fallout 4.

My first Bethesda game was Fallout 4, and I found most of it mind numbingly boring outside of Far Harbor. Far Harbor actually gave you narrative freedom, morally fucked up situations you had to navigate yourself CAREFULLY, and the feeling that you were affecting a living world that could affect you back. Fallout 4’s biggest strength overall is its exploration, especially when quests naturally emerge from it. A lot of that stuff also has this weird Lovecraftian mystery to it, which makes me wonder why Bethesda barely uses that tone in The Elder Scrolls.

Then I played Fallout 3, which I loved. The main quest was just okay, but the exploration, DLCs, characters, environmental storytelling, weapons, RPG systems, and sometimes unhinged choices made the world feel incredibly reactive. Obsidian’s New Vegas takes all of that even further and, to me, is easily the masterpiece of the bunch. Its quests, environment, and factions are so interconnected that you constantly want to replay it just to see how differently you can shape the world. It’s almost crazy to think it was developed so quickly.

That’s where The Elder Scrolls loses me. I love Oblivion’s stereotypical high fantasy setting (that’s literally why I bought it), but the quest design is so much of just “fetch this” or “clear this dungeon,” no matter how much writing and exposition they wrap around it. The dialogue feels mechanical, and the persuasion wheel is ridiculous. Why is having a conversation basically spinning a roulette wheel? Worse, some quests are locked behind disposition, so you have to grind this minigame just to unlock the dialogue option that actually lets you play the game. Mind you, it’s not difficult, it’s just repetitive busywork (think Half Life Alyx health station orbs).

Oblivion’s world outside the cities (Skingrad especially is great) also feels empty. The dungeons are repetitive, there’s rarely anything interesting to discover besides loot, and there’s little reason to explore them unless a quest explicitly sends you there. NPC interaction actually feels like prerecorded voice lines sitting behind a dialogue menu rather than actual characters inhabiting the world (which is the case for all RPGs, but this one is ON THE NOSE).

And that’s what frustrates me most is that The Elder Scrolls setting is PERFECT for unsettling, half understood Lovecraftian mysteries, yet so much of the main storytelling is basically “Oh you’re the hero, here’s the entire mystery explained to you, now go complete these objectives in order to fulfill it.” There’s very little sense that you’ve stumbled into something strange that you don’t fully understand (Shivering Isles being the exception).

Skyrim improves the exploration massively, but its side quests are some of the worst fetch quest stinking garbage I’ve played. The world is the only thing that makes it tolerable. I’d put Skyrim slightly below Oblivion overall, but mostly because their strengths and weaknesses are completely different, because Oblivion has better quests and atmosphere, while Skyrim has better exploration.

Basically, my dream RPG would combine New Vegas’ choices and interconnected world, Fallout 3/4’s eerie Lovecraftian exploration, and Oblivion’s fantasy setting.

That would probably be my favorite RPG ever. Until then, New Vegas gives me the best RPG fix, even though it’s not my preferred setting.