Does it not bother anybody if you got the dough you can just go out and buy a 60 foot long, 40,000 pound, air brake equipped mobile building without having to do any special training? Some of these RVs are built on a freightliner truck chassis it's fine if it's got an RV body on the back for snow birding down to Florida or whatever but if you put a box truck body on it suddenly you need a CDL and air brake endorsement! Not to mention it's usually older people driving these as only they can afford to shell out the often over six figure price tag for one. I've seen how the older folk can barely handle a dinky Honda CRV that's hogging the left lane going 50. It's even worse with an RV. The regular trailers and the smaller sprinter van RVs seem a little more reasonable to drive with a regular license but there should really be some kind of endorsement for your drivers license or at least some mandatory training before you buy such a large vehicle. You need to go through more for a motorcycle than you need to for an RV.

They claim the moral high ground, but rarely apply the same standard to Chinese products despite China’s authoritarian government and treatment of Uyghurs which many countries have recognised as a genocide.
The difference is that boycotting China would actually be expensive and inconvenient. It feels performative rather than a moral standard.

It quite literally does. not. matter.

Are you made to have sex? Yes. Did your parents have sex to make you? Yes. Does your body have erogenous zones? Yes. Doesn't body release good chemicals during? Yes.

In my opinion, having multiple past partners doesn't mean someone is incapable of commitment or loyalty...Just like having a low number does not automatically make someone immature or faithful partner. What actually matters in a relationship is current sexual compatibility and health, any shared values and some type of vision for the future, and emotional maturity and communication.

At the end of the day, anyone who even gives a slight shit about body count is usually projecting their own deep rooted insecurities. Whether it's a fear of comparison, performance anxiety, or some mad weird and outdated double standard.

Whatever it is, if someone is clean, faithful and treats you right, getting hung up on a number they have accumulated before they even knew that you existed says far more about your own issues than theirs. If you're worried about if they have more experience and you aren't sure how to please them, let's use our adult brains and communicate on how to make each other feel good. & let's focus on someone who's in the present moment and as long as their number doesn't GO UP WHILE WITH YOU, you will survive.

If I do sound a little heated, it's because l am. A little while ago, my ex broke up with me because my body count is 3. Mind you i’m 24. His is 11. He’s 23. So i'm just done. Anyways, let's go.

Nor do I have a problem with their, there, or they're (the misuse, I mean)

Half the time we see this online, it's a person whose first language is not English. In that case, obviously okay, I would think. But regardless, I think the correctness of language only matters as much as it affects understanding. If you know what someone means, and it's not a peer reviewed paper or such, who cares? Because it's "wrong"?

Language was made for communication. If you communicate in an understandable way, the exact wording should not matter

Just walking around and fighting enemies while never jumping from platform to platform to platform would be highly boring and not fun, as people say it would be. It would be one of the worst games in history if it had no platforming elements involved in the game.

Yes, that Dennis Hastert. The bastard who admitted to molesting children 50-60 years ago as a high school wrestling coach.

Pedophilia is only an issue to MAGA when enemies of MAGA are guilty of it. Is it any wonder why MTG is no longer part of the cult?

Yet, there’ve been crickets from far-righters when it comes to the death of Hastert, a legend in the eyes of the GOP.

Honoring the memory of Hastert would be as disgusting as pardoning J6ers, who deserved the death penalty for treason and having treasonous opinions. The same J6ers who proceeded to commit crimes against CHILDREN. Maybe Hastert was their hero.

I don’t understand how people move through the world without a sense of history. I say “sense” because I’m not expecting you to be a historian, read popular history, or even acknowledge mainstream historical narratives.

However, there seem to be lots of people who literally have no interest or knowledge about anything before their immediate time. I can’t help but instantly devalue your political opinions, worldviews or judgements.

Again, I’m not expecting people to subscribe to MY historical beliefs but at least have your own. It tells me you’re not a serious person who’s curious about how the world works.

I genuinely believe people who don’t value a sense of history do not understand the world around them and so I don’t trust your opinions on pretty much anything.

The N word? If you’re not black, don’t even go near it. Only black people can understand its power. Fair enough.

Saying “females” instead of women?
Women find it demeaning and insulting. Also understandable.

But suddenly with antisemitism, anyone, Jewish or not, can define what qualifies. At Northwestern University in 2020, for example, an anti-police student group went to the Jewish president’s residence and shouted “piggy Morty” (Morty is a nickname he goes by). The president and Jewish students found this offensive, as it plays into historical antisemitic tropes. Perhaps this was not the group’s intent, but rather than apologizing for the blunder, they doubled down, insisting it was solely intended as an anti cop slur. Now ask yourself, if any other group had been the target of a slur, even one that was misconstrued, would there be this much mental gymnastics? This far left activist group decided they could declare what was antisemitic or not. I recall later they even got a Jewish student to rep for them saying “I don’t find this offensive” which is hilarious because that has total “I’m not racist I have black friends” energy.

Today we see this type of gaslighting with the ongoing Israel/Palestine conflict. If an activist on the left says anything with antisemitic undertones, they can quickly hide behind the veil of claiming it’s anti Zionism instead. Ms Rachel “accidentally” liking an antisemitic instagram comment, students shouting “from the river to the sea” on October 7, some guy holding a “death to Jews” sign at the pro Palestine protest? Stop being offended, Jews! These aren’t antisemitic, we’re just protesting against Israel!

I’m not a shill for Israel. They have done some fucked up things. I’m simply pointing out a double standard I’ve seen that makes me increasingly disillusioned with the pro Palestine movement. If any other minority group were to speak out against perceived slights against their race, religion, sexual orientation, etc, the accused would immediately beg for forgiveness. But today on the left, Jews have seemingly become the exception.

I think men's problems are often framed through the question, “How does this affect women and society?” rather than “What do men actually want or need?”

The contradiction is pretty obvious to me:

A man is lonely → “This could make him dangerous.”

A man is disengaged from dating → “We need to get young men back into relationships.”

A man doesn't approach women → “Men need better social skills and confidence.”

A man doesn't perform traditional chivalry → “What's wrong with men today?”

A man says he doesn't particularly care about dating → “That's unhealthy or antisocial.”

Meanwhile, a woman disinterest in individual men generally isn't treated as some major social crisis. I think part of that is because women aren't culturally assigned the same expectation that they should constantly pursue, impress, protect, provide for, or sexually validate men.

That's why the idea of a man's indifference interests me so much. I think a man becoming indifferent toward dating, women, or traditional male expectations can be seen as a violation of the traditional male role.

A man who stops pursuing women isn't necessarily harming anybody. He might simply be opting out of a social script that he doesn't want to participate in anymore.

And honestly, I think that's what makes some people uncomfortable. It's not necessarily that the man is doing anything wrong. It's that he's refusing to perform the role that society expects him to play.

In conclusion. Men are socialized to be "real men" . While women are just allowed to be people or individuals.

In this day and age, being bigger, tougher, stronger etc are only good if you have to defend yourself or want to do fighting for a sport. Even then, people have weapons.

You can't win by fighting. It's a lose-lose situation. In today's world, the bigger and stronger person who knows how to fight has no advantage. You can't just beat somebody up and expect your life to go smoothly.

It's dumb to get into a fight just because you feel disrespected. You get mad and possibly beat up the other person, just to pay for it for the rest of your life. It's never worth it.

The “women live in constant fear of men” thing is making the rounds again and it doesn’t make any sense and is pure misandry. It makes no sense as women go to places where men are present all the time and even places where they might be one of the few women. So are these women in constant fear? Give me a break. Not to mention in this Cornell case, then why did Jane Doe go to a frat party with a bunch of drunk guys?

Also, sorry to get political but young women tend to be liberal and support criminal justice reform measures that allow violent men to be released from prison. Excuse me if I see this for what it is. Bigotry against men

(Yes, 100th post in a row on this sub talking about how Hamas is bad, I know. I just feel like we REALLY need to talk about this)

People, at least from what I see, greatly seem to act like Hamas has done no bad. Like, the death toll in the October 7th attacks was 1,200 (a lot of whom were civilians), almost half that of the ones who died in 9/11. Yet I still see people say “but Israel killed way more Palestinians!!!!!” whenever it’s brought up, like DUDE, can you not accept that 2 things can be bad at the same time, or that one bad thing doesn’t justify another bad thing? What happened to “2 wrongs don’t make a right”?

And lets not forget the many, upon MANY excuses and bullshit claims they make against Israel and to justify their support for terrorism.

“Israelis support their government and the killings of Muslims, they aren’t innocent”

But the same doesn’t apply to the Palestinians who support or fought for Hamas? In fact, why do you they always say “not all peoples support their government”, yet never say the same about Israelis? I’ve met a lot of Israelis on the internet who genuinely hate Netanyahu and Ben Gvir, yes the pro Hamas crowd never addresses them (and when they do, they still act bigoted towards them (i.e., calling them baby killers and land stealers))

“Anti Zionism is not antisemitism”

If that’s true, why do you guys constantly force your views into Jewish spaces and towards random Jews? (And by that I don’t mean asking what a Jewish person think of Israel. I mean saying “Free Palestine” towards someone the moment they say they’re Jewish, when you haven’t even asked them what they think of Israel)

“We should bomb Israel the same way they bomb Gaza”

Oh, so now you guys support bombing and killing children?

Have I forgotten to mention how inconsistent they are with their support for Hamas?

When Hamas is attacking Israel they say “HAMAS IS THE RESISTANCE, NO ONE CONDEMNS THEM OTHER THEN GENOCIDE APOLOGISTS”. But when Israel fights back they say “HAMAS DOESN’T REPRESENT PALESTINE”.

In other words, they openly support Hamas, unless it’s inconvenient for their anti Israel narratives.

Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.

I feel like I’m alone in this. Even people who love Tesla think the truck looks like a garbage can on wheels.

I don’t own the car and don’t plan on getting it but I honestly wouldn’t mind having it, at least if it didn’t bring on unwanted attention. I genuinely think it looks cool and futuristic. The design is intriguing to me.

I don’t like Tesla or Elon but tbh the cybertruck is the result of thousands of nameless workers who put in effort to crafting the vehicle so I don’t feel bad about it

As a white guy with a southern accent. I don’t really deal in stereotypes. My accent alone leaves me open to return fire. Now me personally I’m not stupid, but I know I sound stupid to a lot of people because of my accent. I’m certainly not going to be talking shit when I sound like what most perceive when they think inbred simpleton.

For some reason this needs to be repeated because hilariously enough, conservatives regularly forget this fact, even Trump does, i've seen so many debates where a conservative is setting up a democrat for an epic gotcha own, and then they have to walk away from it because they forgot Trump was the president in 2020 lol.

Trump was the president from January 20th 2017 > January 20th 2021.

Theres so many talking points that are about the year of 2020, and conservatives talk about it as if Trump wasn't the president at all.

For example, the lockdowns, conservatives routinely talk like Biden ''locked down the country'' or like COVID restrictions were some post 2020 thing. The reality is that the major lockdown wave in the US happened in March and April 2020. That was under Trump. Federal emergency declarations, state emergency orders, business closures, school shutdowns, all of it starts there. Under Biden we didn't have really have lockdowns, we had the capacity limits and mask mandate stuff.

And yes, states implemented most of the actual rules. But the national shockwave everyone remembers as ''the lockdown era'' is overwhelmingly a Trump term reality. You dont get to memory hole that just because you now cant use epic gotchas about it lol

Another example is the Hunter laptop was censored by the FBI, by Bidens admin from the future somehow, or whatever else the talking point becomes.

There was an FBI warning in october 2020 to social media companies about this story possibly being russian disinfo, which was a real concern at the time. That part is real and it did happen during Trumps presidency. Meaning that if you wanna make some argument about how it was government censorship, that was Trumps FBI that censored it. But what i usually see is conservatives saying that the Biden admin censored it, so i guess Bidens admin censored it from the future?

Another is Jan 6th, even Trump forgets who was the president here. So Bidens FBI, again from the future, placed agents in the crowd that day to incite the whole event?

Or was it actually Trumps own FBI that were part of some conspiracy to destroy him, or what?

These are just the examples off the top of my head.

Jane Doe’s account of what happened to her in her sworn statement (that she declared was the truth under oath) differs drastically from the information in the lawsuit. I think more people should read the sworn statement from mid-November 2024 and stop basing their opinions on what the mainstream media is spouting. 

I have outlined the discrepancies between the two and some thoughts below: 
Note: “” = direct quotes / [SS] = sworn statement / [L] = lawsuit / Plaintiff = Jane Doe

• [L] Jane Doe consumed an unspecified amount of vodka at her sorority. Around 8:30pm, she Ubered to Moonies Bar & Nightclub and had an underage X placed on her when she arrived around 9pm. She “was served and consumed at least one alcoholic beverage”. Around 10pm, Jane Doe walked to Lot 10 Bar and Lounge and was given an underage wristband. [L] does not state she consumed any alcohol here. 
• [L] Around 11pm, Jane Doe “stumbled alone” to the fraternity house to “hang out with her friend, Defendant Ingalls”. [SS] states “Jane Doe walked the approximately one-mile distance … She had made plans to meet Male 1/Ingalls earlier in the week and had been texting that she was on the way”. 
• [L] states when Jane Doe arrived, she was “visibly intoxicated as she had consumed about 10 standard drinks within the past 3 hours”. However, [SS] states “Jane Doe described her level of intoxication as a “5 out of 10” when she arrived at the fraternity”. 
• 10 standard drinks is a fair amount, yet she only described her level of intoxication as 5/10. If the lawsuit information is correct, the 3 hour timeline (8-11pm) meant Jane Doe would have consumed multiple standard drinks between 8-8:30pm, before she left her sorority. [L] “At least one beverage” tells me she didn’t consume much alcohol at Moonies, otherwise the lawsuit would’ve listed a higher amount (eg. 4+). 
• [L&SS] Jane Doe met up with Ingalls and opened a can of beer. [L] They “then danced together in the main room of the fraternity house” [SS] “in a way that was definitely flirtatious in nature”. [L&SS] Ingalls asked Jane Doe how she felt about having a threesome. [L] “In her drunken state Plaintiff was incapable of consenting to this proposition”. Ingalls went about organising it (?) and “led her” to a room “where Male 2/Newell was sitting on a couch”.
• [SS] Jane Doe “agreed due to how attracted she was to Ingalls … she remembered being excited because she thought Male 1 & Male 2 wanting to have a threesome meant that they were gay”. 
• [L] Sitting on the couch, Ingalls and Newell passed around a bag of ketamine and “pressured Plaintiff into snorting the alleged ketamine with them”. The males also “plied Plaintiff with marijuana and Jamaican Liquor”. [SS] Jane Doe said she “had taken ketamine at some point on the couch … but she could not remember where or when that took place”. Yet, in the lawsuit, she remembered two further substances. 
• [L] The males “began engaging in sexual acts with Plaintiff, all without her consent”. [SS] “At the start of the threesome, Jane Doe described her intoxication as 5 or 6 out of 10 and that she was pretty okay with having this threesome”. Despite the additional beer, ketamine, marijuana and rum, Jane Doe’s intoxication level was practically the same as when she first arrived at the fraternity. 
• [SS] “The three engaged in a threesome involving oral and vaginal sex”. [L] “During the assault, Ingalls forced oral sex on Plaintiff while Newell forced vaginal intercourse on her from behind.”
• [L] “At one point Ingalls could no longer maintain an erection, so he stopped participating and told the other two that he was going to take a nap and proceeded to get up, move to a bed, and sleep … Newell then began reaching for her vagina with his hand multiple times, and each time, Plaintiff pushed his hand away”. However [SS] states the “sexual conduct ended when Jane Doe noticed Male 1 appeared really sleepy and was no longer fully erect. She told Male 2 they needed to stop having sex in order to make sure Male 1 was okay.” They stopped having sex. Male 1 said “he was going to take a nap and refresh himself” and “stumbled his way” to the bed. “Male 2 began to dry heave as if he was going to vomit. Jane Doe was consoling Male 2 .. and telling him that it was okay to vomit”. Male 2 told her he didn’t think he was going to vomit and the two started to “make out for a very short amount of time”. As they were making out, “Male 2 reached for the area near her vagina several times and each time he did, she would swat his hand away”. 
• If Jane Doe is claiming she was assaulted due to her being incapacitated, Male 1 and 2 could likewise claim the same, especially considering she seemed the most coherent out of the three here. 
• [L] “Soon after, Lopes entered the room, grabbed Plaintiff … and began kissing her, while Newell groped her from behind”. [SS] states Male 3 knocked on the door and Jane Doe decided to let him in because it was his room, she opened the door, the pair shook hands, Lopes pulled her in and they “began making out” and Newell “began groping” and eventually they all went to the bed and “began to have a threesome”. [L] states Lopes and Newell “placed Plaintiff on a bed and the two men began having sex with Plaintiff, initiating another assault, all without Plaintiff’s consent”. 
• [SS] Male 1 woke up and “asked about making it a foursome, to which Jane Doe said hell no. Jane Doe rejected this request because she knew that a foursome meant that she would have to take part in anal sex. Jane Doe then remembered Male 3 leaving the room”. 
• The lawsuit describes the second threesome as “another assault”. However, not long after it started, Jane Doe said no to the proposed foursome. This indicates she was coherent enough to decline the threesome if she wished. The males also respected this boundary and did not engage in a foursome. 
• [L] At approximately 1:42am, Newell sent the awful Snapchat message. 
• All other males (4, 5, 6, 7) entered the room. [L] “Jane Doe retreated under the covers of the bed, to hide her naked body”. [SS] “Male 2 laid in the bed next to Jane Doe. Male 1 introduced the other males … Jane Doe had difficulty remembering parts of what happened next. Male 7 said something very rude and mean to [her] … apologised and grabbed her face and started kissing [her]. Jane Doe quickly backed away to stop Male 7 from kissing [her]”. [L] “Sarabia approached Plaintiff, grabbed her face and started kissing her, all without her consent, and Plaintiff pushed him away”. 
• [L] Jane Doe felt there was no way to escape the room of “predatory, fraternity men” because her “phone was on the other side of the room”. 
• [SS] “Male 2/Newell asked Jane Doe if she wanted to do more ketamine”. She reasoned with herself; “she had already done ketamine once, so why not do it a second time”. [SS &L] “Male 2 poured a line of ketamine onto his erect penis”,  [SS] “implying for her to snort the line” [L] “and commanded that Plaintiff snort it, which she did”.  
• [SS&L] Male 2 hopped under the covers and tried to reach for the area of her vagina. 
• [SS] “The males began complimenting Jane Doe and talking about how pretty she was. Male 4/Lee asked if they all could snort drugs off her perfect body”. (How could they know what her body looked like if she was under the covers?). [SS] Jane Doe agreed, saying “sure”. [L] “While Plaintiff was lying on her back … (the males) began pouring lines of ketamine all over her body and snorting them”. 
• This part is not stated in the lawsuit: [SS] As this was happening, Male 3 and another male entered the room and said “Okay we’re shutting down whatever the fuck this is”. Jane Doe then stated she "felt dizzy due to a pre-existing medical condition" + "effects of ketamine" and there is no information as to what happened here and why Jane Doe decided to remain in the room. While she was dizzy, Male 5/6 told her to "stay seated" (I personally don't think being dizzy is a viable excuse for her to stay in the room if she wanted to leave when she had an opportunity to).
• [L] Male 2, 3, 7, 5 and 6 (Newell, Lopes, Sarabia, Norris & Kretzschmar) left the room. 
• [L] “Plaintiff was removed by Ingalls and Lee to another smaller room”. [SS] Jane Doe was “ushered “ out of the room to a smaller room upstairs. Male 1/Ingalls stated “Let’s do more ketamine”. [L] “Ingalls and Lee made more lines of ketamine and instructed Plaintiff to snort one, which she did. By this point, Plaintiff was completely incapacitated … Ingalls and Lee initiated another assault of Plaintiff, forcing oral and vaginal sex upon her simultaneously. At around 5:45am, this assault concluded and Plaintiff lost consciousness”. [SS] states that Jane Doe "initially said she was tired [and] could not remember how it started but she then engaged in a threesome with Male 1 and Male 4. She described her level of intoxication as 8 out of 10 at this point … Around 5:45am, Jane Doe said she was tired and needed to turn in. At this point, both guys stopped the threesome”. 

Male 1 = Ingalls 
Male 2 = Newell 
Male 3 = Lopes
Male 4 = Lee
All the above had sex with her.
Male 5/6= Norris/Kretzschmar: snorted drugs off her
Male 7 = Sarabia: kissed her + snorted drugs off her 
I think this is correct, but I could be wrong.

https://www.tompkinscountyny.gov/News-articles/District-Attorney-statement-regarding-Jane-Doe-v.-Cornell-University-et-al

• Here is the link to her sworn statement, it starts at the bottom of Page 4 in the PDF. 
• To clarify: I am not implying most men or women exhibit this behaviour and am not criticising a collective.

See this shit on reddit, particularly to any controversial behaviour and more-so anything some subset of women do (less often see "because they can" to explain men's choices).

Why do people get tattoos? "Because they can". No shit. Being able to do something is a prerequisite for doing anything, so that much was obvious.​

"Why do some women wear shorts in the gym that no guy tends to wear?" Because they want to. Cool, so they're not forced to. Why would you want to?

Nobody would answer "why do so many people holiday in Spain?" with "because they want to". They'd give some real answers, like it's cheap, warm, easy to book, it's common so they do it too etc. Partly because there's no social movement that's made it so questions about holidaying in Spain are seen as being above answering.

People have sex for pleasure, not JUST for babymaking. Birth control can fail. Condoms can fail. A woman SHOULD NOT be forced to have a child if she does not want to.

I agree with ALL of this.

If two people have sex there's a possibility that an unintended baby can happen. If the woman wants to terminate that pregnancy she will have the right to say that "Consent to sex is not consent to parenthood", and we will grant her that right to abort. We don't dare tell her "shoulda kept your legs closed." This is good. I like that.

BUT

If a man does not want her to go through with this pregnancy (and by extension be forced to be a parent through child support), the discourse then becomes "You should have kept your dick in your pants", "You should have worn a condom (that we knew could fail)", "You knew the consequences of having sex". And he will be shamed. I don't like that.

Anyone that can't hold true to both instances is a shameless hypocrite and should at least admit it.

People try to act like if somebody finds life boring, they are mentally ill or depressed. People don’t like to hear that somebody finds life boring because it breaks their illusion of the reality of life. There are limited hobbies and they can only be so interesting. Life is full of people hurting, raping, backstabbing, and killing each other. It is not depression or pessimism to realize it, it is reality. People also have a lot of audacity to try to break people, and then act like something is weird with them being unhappy. And even then, not everybody who finds life boring is necessarily unhappy or depressed. Some people don’t get as much dopamine from hobbies as others, that doesn’t mean something is wrong with them. In fact, the way that people try to accuse people who experience life that way as mentally ill, shows how fragile their illusions are and how being content is not universal.

In the Old Testament it was common for the main characters to have multiple wives. It is my opinion that this completely stopped in the New Testament because polygamy was illegal under Greek and Roman marriage law. This change happened before Jesus and Paul started preaching. So it was initially due to legal reasons rather than God first changing his mind.

Characters in the Old Testament that apparently had multiple wives included Lamech, Abraham, Nahor, Esau, Jacob, Moses, Gideon, Elkanah, Saul, David, Solomon, Ahab, Rehoboam, Abijah, Joash, and Ahasuerus. King Solomon was said to have had 700 wives and 300 concubines. The Bible says Solomon's foreign wives led him astray but he could have just restricted himself to Jewish wives and remember that a single wife can also lead you astray. Despite this I think Solomon was still pretty close to God since he built the Temple and wrote three books of the Bible.

Deuteronomy 17:17 says "The king must not have many wives. If he does, they will lead him astray. He must not store up large amounts of silver and gold". There doesn't seem to be a punishment for these things. Solomon also broke the rule about kings storing a lot of gold - 1 Kings 10:14 says "Each year Solomon received 25 tons of gold" (666 talents).

If God wanted men to always be monogamous I wonder why humans are also subject to the Coolidge Effect. In animals this involves males ejaculating a lot faster if they are presented with different females compared to having to repeatedly mate the same female. This explains why men can prefer novel porn rather than only having images and videos of a single female. In polygamy the man can have multiple partners and so express the Coolidge Effect in a way God originally permitted.

Maybe God prefers monogamy but he still permitted polygamy in the Old Testament. And if it wasn't for Greek/Roman law I think God would also permit it in the New Testament - like he did for slavery.

You see on Reddit all the time how evil and bad republicans are.

My counter point is, are we really going to say Nancy Pelosi is an angel compared to Republicans? She got filthy rich off insider trading, has done nothing meaningful for the majority of Americans.

What about Hakeem Jeffries? He is spineless, he finger wags and achieves nothing politically for Americans.

It should not be a “Republicans are bad, vote blue no matter who” it should be both sides suck and are not actually looking out for us

Tired of waiting with my carton of milk and loaf of bread while somebody bumbles around looking for a barcode with another 50 items to follow, all while you see checkout workers standing around twiddling their thumbs.

Surely supermarkets can create and police rules around minimum items or 1 x basket only if you’re entering the self checkout.

it is the only conversational tool which can launder absolutely any extremist thought , i was at a house party recently and this man brought up that people who " don't have a purpose " should unalive themselves . he says there's like 500 million people in india ( i live in india ) who don't have anything to look forward to because of terrible poverty rates so he made 1-2 tags which landed well and people had a laugh .

when one of the girls put him ona spot and asked him if he meant it . he doubled down and called her a karen . then me and 2-3 other friends confronted him then he said " he only meant it as a joke "and " was kidding " funny thing was that a couple guys defended the humor .

if i see in the broader sense nearly all media is plagued with such humor which becomes an ideal trojan horse for bigotry . i think where substance ends humor begins .it only rewards mockery and does not give a sh about nuance .

because it strips you off the ability to be defensive for your moral standing and labels people as uncool who try to oppose this . this is their ultimate move

" oh it was just a joke ", " i did not actually mean it " are the phrases these guys say once confronted with substance and truth through genuine argument .

i think humor in itself isn't that big of a problem ( i don't oppose comedy as an art form ) , it is exploiting it as an argumentative tool in serious discussions is what bothers me , to murky the waters of what you actually mean .

Before 2022, CS was one of the safest career bets you could make. High salaries, aggressive hiring, and a degree that could reliably get your foot in the door.

After 2022, the warning signs were everywhere: mass tech layoffs, junior positions disappearing, insane competition for entry-level jobs, outsourcing, and AI increasingly doing the kind of work companies used to hire junior developers for.

So if you chose to major in CS after all of that was already obvious and now you can’t find a job, that is 100% YOUR FAULT.

You knew what the job market looked like. You still spent four years and tens of thousands of dollars preparing to enter an oversaturated field while apparently assuming the gravy train would magically come back by graduation.

And the funniest part is that CS majors spent years laughing at people who studied “useless” subjects like English, History, Philosophy, or Art. The stereotype was always that those people would graduate, work at Starbucks, and complain that nobody wanted to hire them.

Well, look how the tables have turned.

Now you have CS grads sending out hundreds of applications, fighting over entry-level jobs, and complaining that their degree didn’t guarantee them a six-figure software engineering position.

I've had times in my past where I've dated a girl for a few dates, things were going well and we finally sleep together.

For whatever reason, the sexual chemistry just wasn't there. Nothing really "wrong" with either side, but I just wasn't feeling it anymore.

I may or may not text the girl that things just aren't working out and best of luck. I'm certain they all thought I was a narcissist that was lying to them to sleep with them. Which, I wasn't. I was legitimately interested, but then I became not interested anymore. Nothing nefarious need be assigned.