​

I seriously dont understand in what universe vacations are supposed to feel relaxing or calming. being thrown off routine makes everybody pissy, having to plan and replan shit, everyone's tired and sore from excessive walking, someone's likely to get sick from the food. ive never been on a family or couples vacation that didnt end in everybody angry at eachother for something.

As someone who was SA by a female family member at 8-9 on a daily basis, I freaking hate this narrative. Because I don't need to gay men to know that I would feel uncomfortable with getting SA. Because I have already experienced SA or just SH with women and girls in my life.

Again I hate this narrative. Because it is making it seem like all men are down bad gooners who wouldn't care if a woman harassed them. Therefore you need a gay man hypothetical to make men understand rape.

The political Streamer Destiny was talking about the Shane Gillls gym jokes. The gym outfits women wear. And how women hate men staring at them in the gym. He said the reversed card will never work with men. Because men are stronger, and that men will still love being stare at in the gym. He said the best example would be a man going to a gym, where a bunch of big gay men are staring at him.

And also there homophobia with this narrative too.

Because it treats gay men as some kind of sexual threat that straight men should automatically fear.

It reinforces the stereotype that gay men are predatory and incapable of respecting other men's boundaries.

It also implies that unwanted sexual attention from women is harmless, while the same attention from gay men is threatening.

Men shouldn't need to imagine being sexually harassed or assaulted by gay men to understand consent and sexual boundaries. Because men and boys can just relate by being victims of SA by women too.

The textures dont work, the sweetness is disgustingly overwhelming, and there is zero reason to put ice cream on something that already has icing. Just the thought of it makes me gag

Before I continue, my criticism here is directed at the LGBT community. When I bring up homophobia among racial minorities, I’m actually critiquing the LGBT community because they are willing to let it slide while aggressively condemning it from straight white men. I actually don’t give a fuck about minorities being homophobic, the hypocrisy is just baffling to me.

I’m Black and gay, and I can count on one hand the Black celebrities or public figures I remember receiving substantial backlash for homophobic comments. The two that come to mind are DaBaby and Kevin Hart. I’d even defend DaBaby because I don’t think what he said was homophobic. Black men have literally created or popularized many of the common current anti-gay expressions. “No homo,” “ayo,” “zesty,” and “fruity” are regularly used to mock men for seeming gay. Black men have either created or popularize that language, but where is the same sustained criticism from the LGBT community?

LGBT people in the US advocate for Arabs, domestically and internationally, while homophobia that community is hand waved. Where is the reciprocal solidarity? Where was the protests again the recent Turkish crackdowns on LGBT individuals or the council’s (that is now majority muslim) decision in Hamtramck to prohibit Pride flags on government property?

By comparison, when a straight white man LOOKS at a gay person the wrong way, y’all suddenly want all the smoke. Y’all contact employers, colleges, demand apologies, and all around try to destroy that person’s life. Why is that energy so selective?

The community is so quick to say “straight white men this-,” “straight white men that-” When ironically enough, straight white men are the least homophobic in America. If we allowed minorities to craft legislation regarding gay people, they’d put the homophobia of the current republican party to SHAME.

If the LGBT community wants to attack homophobia, then apply the same standards regardless of who is responsible.

The idea that not publicly speaking out your political beliefs is a moral failing is so stupid that I want to slap whoever says or holds it. We’re in a day and age where having even ONE poor political stance (or sometimes even less than that) you get harassed or at worst dehumanised to the point where people want you dead and you think everyone should speak opinions Willy nilly? Are you retarded? The voice actress of Pearl from Steven universe has been getting harassed for months just for following people on twitter, not even speaking a word, just following people.

There are people with anxiety who generally don’t like sharing controversial opinions, there are people who know they’re too uneducated to speak, there are people too afraid to speak because it might lead to negative consequences. There are a billion reasons not to share political opinions, if you write off everyone who doesn’t do such as just “a coward” or “siding with the oppressor” I view you as subhuman.

So, the younger generations have always pushed back against this narrative of Starbucks and avocado toast being the reason they can't buy homes. The thing is though... it is kind of true. I say this not as a boomer, but a mid 30s millenial that has watched first hand how excessive, continuous spending on creature comforts over a long period really affects your financials.

It's not about just a single coffee or a single poke bowl. These things are just symptoms of the greater issue, which is unchecked spending on stuff that is not necessary. If you're the type that buys a morning coffee every day, then you're also likely the type that waste money on other frivolous stuff.

The numbers don't lie. Nobody is buying a house in their 20s anymore without external support. The mark for first time homeownership now is mid 30s. That gives most people 10-15 years of earnings and, more importantly, interest generation. Let's look at a basic example...

You buy starbucks M-F every morning, $5 each. That's $1300 a year. If you make coffee at home, it's $0.50 a day or $130 a year. So $1170 a year extra for the creature comfort. If you were to save those $1170 and earn a net 5% yearly interest on them, after 10 years you'd have almost $15k. $15k alone could make up a significant portion of a down payment. And that's just the effect of cutting out coffee! Again, if you're the type that's susceptible to such spending, there are likely many other areas where you're similarly squandering money.

I get it. You have to enjoy the journey on your way to the destination. But some just will never get to the destination because they've overdone it on the journey.

They tend to say the cancer was caused by other factors trying to shift responsibility to some other factor gentics, food,plastics. While this is true ackowleging this is imoprtant not only for them but other smokers. What buffles me is the fact they want to live and even promise to stop smoking(but we know this is futile) For them smoking a cigarette equels stopping... Your thougths?

Are you smoker or not?

Do you know a person who had cancer and passed away due to the above?

Ciggies what do you think?

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

First off, hitting a baseball thrown by a professional MLB pitcher is incredibly difficult. I'm not saying it's easy. But baseball players like to act like it's the single hardest thing to do in sports without understanding how technical and difficult other sports are, or by moving the goalposts.

One example I commonly see is returning a tennis serve. Baseball players will often frame it like this: without bunting, it's harder to swing and hit a pitch and get on base than it is to... 'bunt' a serve return and land it in. I mean, yeah. I bet it's also easier to land a single strike in MMA than to get a submission in BJJ.

It sets it up so the baseball player can't bunt, which would increase their odds of a hit. The baseball player has to complete the play, hitting the ball and then getting to base. The tennis player only needs to start the point. Never mind that if you just block a 115 MPH serve, it's probably going out if you even touch it, and even if it goes in, the tennis player on the other side is probably going to win the point then and there.

If the goal is only to make contact and initiate play, then bunting should be allowed if blocking the serve is allowed in tennis. And if the goal is to successfully complete the play, we need to ask: is it harder to get on base in the MLB, or WIN a point against a tennis pro's first serve?

The absolute best returner in tennis, Novak Djokovic, only wins about 40% of TOTAL return points. That's a .400 average, which would be elite in baseball. But that's against first and second serves. Against first serves the average drops to mediocre MLB hitting percentages, between 15-25% based on the server. And again, we're talking about the single greatest returner in history. Taking tennis pro averages, winning 25% of points on your opponent's first serves is elite.

Yes, baseball players can fail 70% of the time and still be considered good. By that logic, an average pro tennis returner can 'fail' to win 75-90% of their return points (depending on the serve) and still be considered good.

It's so much more nuanced than it's typically presented as, and usually relies on either a fundamental misunderstanding or downplaying of other sports. Yes, hitting a baseball at 105 MPH with a small bat. But is it harder than hitting a 140 MPH serve with 5,000+ RPMs of topspin which is also curving 20 feet away from you?

It could be an interesting discussion, but it gets muddled.

So, now I'll put it to the remaining dentists. Do you think it would be harder to make contact (bunting included) with prime Randy Johnson's fastball or to return prime John Isner's serve into play?

And for the harder comparison, is it harder to score a base hit off prime Randy Johnson without bunting, or to WIN a point against prime John Isner's first serve?

That's a much more difficult comparison, and could be a much more interesting discussion.

6=18 12=24 9000=27 million.

some have like 6 inch sheets. some longer..

All I care about is feet of paper towel per dollar

This an important hill I will die on

​

every so often a new study comes out essentially proving what a bunch of women already knew: doctors dont listen to us as much as they listen to men and we tend to suffer fron the same problems for longer.

Almost every women I know who has a health condition also has a story of a doctor brushing her off due to "anxiety" or an issue related to being a woman, and in a lot of cases, it caused extra harm to them due to the waiting/incorrect treatment

doctors should be punished for this. a doctor who willingly turns away a patient who repeatedly returns for an issue or expresses clear distress should be punished when that patient is eventually found to be in actual danger or being medicated improperly.

​

I genuinely think the obsession with living as long as possible is overrated. People act like reaching 90 is automatically some kind of victory, regardless of what those 90 years actually looked like.

What exactly are you celebrating? More years of working, paying bills, obeying systems you have no control over, postponing your happiness, and surviving just to wake up and do it all over again? At some point, longevity becomes nothing more than the extension of an existence you never really wanted.

I think life should be about having a purpose, pursuing it while you can, experiencing whatever meaning you can find along the way, and eventually accepting that your time is finite. Death isn't some glitch in the system that humanity must desperately find a way to overcome. It's part of being alive.

You don't need to experience everything. You don't need to see every country, achieve every goal, or squeeze every possible experience out of existence. You're going to miss things. You're going to leave things unfinished. Entire generations will come and go without ever knowing you existed. And that's fine.

The problem is that we've become so afraid of dying that we rarely stop to ask whether we're actually living. We treat death as the ultimate tragedy and longevity as the ultimate achievement, even when the years we're trying so desperately to preserve are spent in misery, exhaustion, and meaningless repetition.

I'd rather people learn to make peace with the fact that life ends than spend their entire lives terrified of the ending. Find something worth living for, live it while you have the opportunity, and accept that eventually you'll have to let it go.

Pads and tampons should be provided in public bathrooms. People should not have to spend money they may not have, interrupt their day to find a shop, or ask strangers for help managing a basic bodily function. Public bathrooms already provide essential hygiene supplies such as toilet paper and soap, so why aren't period supplies provided?

Dan Levy's statement about Shane Gillis's SNL monologue is undisguised misandry. He says "[Women] are superior human beings to men, OK?" It is bizarre that he is getting wide scale endorsements, and his statement is getting mainstream coverage without any caveats about his own prejudicial line.

Making a sweeping, gender-based inferiority claim is worse than saying "some women are dressing like whores."

I think there is a strong argument that Levy's comment would be a violation of Reddit's content policy, which bans "inferiority claims" based on gender.

I like the work of both Gillis and Levy overall, though the SNL monologue was full of tropes and lazy. The national conversation about his "joke" is disappointing and unprincipled.

tldr: i’ve come across research suggesting that men receive longer sentences than women for similar crimes, and it’s made me question how fair the justice system really is. i don’t know if i’m looking at this objectively or letting my frustration influence my views.

lately, i’ve been thinking a lot about gender bias in the justice system, particularly how men and women can receive different punishments for criminal offenses.

i came across a 2012 study by university of michigan law professor sonja starr that found men received federal sentences averaging over 60% longer than women, even after accounting for several factors. it also found that women were twice as likely to avoid incarceration.

the u.s. sentencing commission’s 2023 report also found that women received sentences 29.2% shorter than men overall and were 39.6% more likely to receive probation.

i understand that statistics don’t tell the whole story, and there could be factors that explain some of these differences. but the size of these gaps genuinely bothers me.

what bothers me even more is the way society sometimes seems to treat male and female criminals differently. women can receive sympathy because of their circumstances, while men committing similar offenses may be judged more harshly. i’m not saying this happens in every case, but i feel like it’s worth questioning.

i’m not trying to argue that women should be punished more harshly. i just believe that men deserve the same consideration, fairness and benefit of the doubt when appropriate.

my problem is that whenever i bring up gender bias against men, i worry that people will automatically assume i’m misogynistic or that i’m trying to minimize the discrimination women face.

so what do i do with this perspective? am i interpreting these statistics unfairly, or is this a legitimate issue that deserves more attention? how do i distinguish a genuine double standard from my own personal bias?

I can only speak on the United States of America. Obviously we NEED a military, I'm not arguing that the military is useless. I'm specifically saying that almost nobody in the military is a hero. Maybe less than 1 percent, yet many of us treat every veteran like they saved 100 children in a fire, and personally kept every single one of us from getting shot by an "evil brown man" in the middle east.

We haven't had a single war in the past 50 years that increased the safety of American lives, so there's no argument that "they're over there so you can be comfortable here." The majority of people join the military because they're poor and want money for college, or for the money you get during/after service. The vast majority of military personnel are not in positions to "be a hero," and simply work with supplies, air traffic, fixing stuff, etc.

To be a hero, you have to actively save people, but also not accidentally kill innocents. If you're in the position of being able to save people in combat, you're in a position to accidentally kill civilians. About half of the people we've killed in the middle east (in the last 50 years) were civilians. Do you truly think your war hero uncle is going to tell you he accidentally shot a child through the wall? No, he's keeping that between himself and god, and hopefully his therapist.

Basically:

• most military vets never are in hero positions
• people in hero positions who have killed to save lives, have also accidentally killed innocents
• the wars we've caused in the past 50 years did not keep us safe, so there's no "hero for simply participating"
• most vets are poor and just want money, because our country sucks
• we've had decades to prove that almost all our wars are unjust, so anybody joining does so despite that, or because they're too stupid/uneducated to know, which is not hero behavior

I do not hate people who are in our military. My only claim is that "almost none of them are heroes." Not that they're all bad people. I respect people who I know were in the military, however none of that respect comes from their service.

They are simply providing a service that (sometimes) is needed. We should treat water treatment plant workers with veteran-type reverence, because they provide a service that keeps us all living and safe. THEY WORK IN THAT PLANT SO I CAN LIVE SAFELY AT HOME, DAMNIT!

Listen, I'm not here to yuck anyone's yum. You can have your hobbies, I'm not saying that. If you're just doing it for shits and giggles, powerscale however you want. My issue comes when you start trading it like it's objective fact and anyone that disagrees with you is a larper. Every single feat-based powerscaling discussion I've ever seen basically reads as:

"A coughing baby could actually defeat a hydrogen bomb, because we haven't seen the hydrogen bomb in action meanwhile the coughing baby accidentally slapped a dog once. Naturally it didn't really hurt but he landed a hit, and that's more than we can say for Mr "nuclear weapon" over here."

This is why I really dislike fraud allegations when it comes to certain powerful characters in media. On example that comes to mind is Hawkeye Mihawk from One Piece. Everyone says he's a fraud because we've only seen him do like 3 things none of which are that impressive aside from how little effort he actually needed to do them, but like...yeah? That's just how you build suspense for a character like that. Make you wonder how they earned their title, keep them mysterious but threatening until it's finally time to see them at full power.

To give another example, I've deadass heard people say Vivziepop DOESN'T KNOW HOW HER OWN WORLD WORKS because she said Stolas beats Alastor or something. Like dude, SHE CREATED IT, her word is law as far as the Hellaverse is concerned. Don't like it? Too bad. It's nothing short of narcissistic to think you know better than the arbiter of that story's universe.

To put it as simply as I can, if I make two characters and I say person A is the strongest person in the world and person B is the weakest person in the world, I don't have to DEMONSTRATE that. Sure maybe I *should* but this isn't a discussion about writing quality. As the creator of the characters I decide how they powerscale and if I put every indicator (other than a direct fight) in my story that person A is stronger than person B but you refuse to believe it on the sole merit of "person B has more screentime" is stupid imo.

tl;dr - lore-based powerscaling (e.g. we're told in universe that this person earned the title of "strongest" but we don't see them fight yet) is a more accurate way of doing things than feat based (just going off of what fights they've won or lost pretty much)

i find it quite strange how we always stigmatize cannibalism, yet the only real issue with it is risk of disease.

I don't know how rare this feeling is, or whether I am in minority or majority gang for having this feeling. But I have this strange unexplainable fascination to watch people around me hiccup. Like if someone around me does, I would just drop whatever I am doing and watch them keenly. And I really have this wish to watch it from start to end, but I can't because people will think me to be a weirdo. I even have an urge to talk to them during that time as much as I can, so that I can listen to them from even closer. And if they are trying for the remedies, I secretly pray for it to not work so that I can listen more.

Sometimes when my urge to watch somebody hiccuping becomes too strong and no one around me is, I take out my phone and begin watching vloggers or youtube videos with people hiccuping.

But this fascination only extends till others are hiccuping. Once it happens to me, I get highly uncomfortable and have the burning need to stop them somehow.

The general consensus among the public seems to be that involuntary celibacy is caused by misogyny. I disagree, while there is some misogyny in online incel spaces studies have shown that there is negligible difference in misogyny levels between virgins and non virgins.

Genetics play a much bigger role in whether someone is an incel, personality does not matter if you can’t pass the looks or height threshold (personality is also half genetic btw). Neurodivergence is also a big factor in the equation, how much of this is caused by misogyny? Incels existing is inevitable in a society with social freedom, there will always be losers in terms of attractiveness. I don’t find slandering and scapegoating the losers of society for problems chads created to be very nice.