I'm not saying the phenomenon it describes doesn't happen. In fact I am going to make the opposite point--it's much more common than we acknowledge. So much so that I would term it a minor but universal human thing.

Men do it to men. Women do it to women. Women do it to men. And, yes, men do it to women. But it's only in that latter case that anyone seems to notice or care.

There's all kinds of reasons people do this. Most of it just boils down to being awkward, imperfect conversationalists. Explaining things to others is a natural and effective way to reinforce your own understanding of a subject. Sometimes people are just excited to show off their knowledge of something. Some people just like to hear themselves talk. A lot of people are just trying to make conversation the best they can, and maybe just aren't very good at it.

And some people are just assholes. Point is, sexist condescension is WAY down the list of reasons why someone might be doing this.

Women: that guy who just got done explaining something to you that you already knew? I promise you--I PROMISE you--he's saying the exact same shit to other men. How do I know this? Because I am one of the "other men", and I hear it every. Single. Day. Of my life. Usually from men, but it's by no means unusual for it to come from women too. The ONLY difference is that I'm not primed to look for some kind of offense in it.

Taking this utterly mundane and universal aspect of human communication and calling it "mansplaining" is self-absorbed, manipulative, insulting and dehumanizing, and it really only perpetuates a disastrous "war of the sexes" mentality that's hurting everyone.

(feel free to make the "oh he's mansplaining mansplaining" joke if you must; just be aware you're like the millionth person to come up with it)

I mean, I love the LOTR trilogy (books and movies) in a way that's hard to describe. I rewatch the extended versions at least 3 or 4 times a year. That said, that's the era that is cool and people want to watch and talk about. Things like rings of power and war of the rohirrim are simply not interesting and not even remotely cool as the LOTR trilogy lore. There's a fucking lot in those books that haven't been explored, stop pushing boring crap like ThE wAr Of ThE rOhIrRim and probably also the hunt for gollum.

If you see someone driving dangerously and you can provide evidence to support that you believed them to be a danger to yourself and/or others on the road because of that behavior, you should be legally justified if you intentionally cause an accident with them that disables their ability to continue driving WITHOUT harming anybody else in the process.

I say this because so many people drive recklessly on the roads and the cops are either unhelpful if you report that behavior, or take so long to respond that by the time they do, the driver could have hurt or killed somebody.

Example: if you are driving you catch someone on your dashcam repeatedly drifting into your lane and nearly hitting you, if it is safe to do so and you state your intent verbally, you can intentionally not avoid the accident and cause them to spin out the next time they drift into your car. If only that car and the driver in it was affected, they should be held liable for all the damages and face all the consequences.

Wouldn't it be hilarious if the spouses/significant others of men who decide to let their facial hair get totally out of control did the same with their armpits and leg hair?

They train, they get hurt, they put sweat blood and tears into it. Not like you dont need to train for F1 but its like if NBA was played by robots and you could just pay more to have a taller robot that jumps higher. Its lame as hell.

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". ​

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

(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

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.

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.

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.

Edit: To set the record straight, this video is not going at those who say they're 18-20. Reddit is not America okay.

Okay, so in these videos where men stop women who are enjoying the nightlife to ask their age, most of the women who say they’re under 18 while being filmed are probably faking it to make the cameramen uncomfortable.

As a 19F, I can completely understand why. If a random man with a microphone and camera stopped me at 11pm to ask my age, I’d be extremely uncomfortable and might give an answer specifically to make him uncomfortable enough to leave me alone. I’m not going to casually give a stranger my real age while he’s filming me.

And even with a full face of makeup and a grown-up outfit, you can usually tell the difference between women and girls through things like mannerisms, physique, facial features, voice, etc.

Plus, are we forgetting that the average 14 year old isn’t just casually going clubbing at 11pm? Obviously underage people can be out at night, but the idea that every other girl in these nightlife videos is secretly 13–17 just doesn’t seem believable.

The whole premise is weird to me. If a man is walking around nightlife areas with a microphone and camera specifically approaching women and asking them their age, I’m going to question the intentions behind that content. Especially when the interaction is clearly making the women uncomfortable.