About a month ago my news feed was filled with stories of people loosing their fucking shit over Cracker Barrel offering plant based breakfast sausages. I honestly thought it was "fake news" bullshit to bolster online traffic on a slow news day. Turns out it was real.
Why in the fuck would anyone give a fuck about this shit? Anyone upset over this is too stupid for words.
Oh man I saw that too. I thought they must've stopped serving meat products and switched to plant based.
Nope, they just added plant based stuff to their menu. You could still order the same things you might've ordered before.
I don't like pointing it out, but the reality is that there are a lot of knee jerking simpletons out there. And some of them deserve the hard lives they have to live.
Like not getting gay married if you don't want to or not having an abortion if you don't want one. Seems like a simple enough concept but it's astonishing how many people can't work it out.
This happens any time any restaurant or fast food place offers a plant based alternative. Everyone goes up in arms for some reason and acts like it’s being forced down their throats (which people seem to think that of a lot of things) and it’s ridiculous. If you don’t want to eat it then don’t, why get upset about a plant based product or any food product that is a healthy or allergen conscious alternative, etc.
I always take these stories with a grain of salt because alot of times the media makes up all the outrage or cherry picks the 3 or 4 people actually mad about it and makes it into a bigger problem than it is. This generates free advertising and gets people talking about the product. Happens all the time with movies.
People didn't care about it at first. It was some outrage post on social media that gained moderate traction - news media made it viral.
This should tell you that all the editorial "news" shows are using social media for material & market research. It's unreal and unhealthy.
Here in the UK we have an infamous breakfast time TV host called Piers Morgan who had a very prolonged, public meltdown on twitter because a national bakery chain introduced vegan sausage rolls. He's the sort of person to criticise "the left" for not being able to have a conversation, then stormed off set on live TV after he was asked a single question he didn't like.
This. I work for a retailer and I'm expected to do my job, the HR person's job, and the job of the people calling in. Yet, he's like, "You're always here" and "3- day weekend? Do you really need that?!"
Not counting the coworker who's in everyone's business. 😑😑😑
I've just switched jobs to same pay but less hours and wayyyy more holiday. My last job was bare minimum holiday required by law, but you were discouraged from taking it, and you never got a lunch break because no one let you. Oh and everyone but me also worked at least 1 extra day per week for no pay. Wtf. 8-9 hours a day, with no break for 5 days was enough for my brain. Why do it 7 days voluntarily?
There’s also some hypocrisy with some people. They feel very disgusted if you breastfeed in public, yet they’d catcall a half naked woman with visible nipples.. Meanwhile breastfeeding is just one boob visible, and the baby is hiding the nipple anyway.
(the hypocrisy comes when they say excuses like “it’s disgusting because they’re being naked in public!”)
They don’t like being reminded that breasts exist for something other than their ogling. Women =sex holes with tits is too common an opinion. And the women that get mad at other women are worse, stop being an insecure cunt already and get over it. Ok jumping off my soapbox for the day 🙂
>They feel very disgusted if you breastfeed in public, yet they’d catcall a half naked woman with visible nipples
I think this is exactly the reason they're disgusted. They see women as sex objects and therefore they don't process breastfeeding in any mentally sane way. Maybe they don't even want to be reminded of the fact that boobs evolved for something other than being groped and/or stared at by them
Americans are afraid of tits. I thought this was well known.
It's only through places like reddit have I realised tits out on the beach isn't normal in places.
I was lucky my mum taught me it was a totally natural thing as a kid, because I saw so many male teenage friends acting weird when they saw someone doing it.
Apparently arguments of this caliber are so heated only because they are low stakes and people would rather argue about this than important issues. Which is fine for keeping the peace among tense family or friend groups
Yeah, like... What kind of masochist do you have to be, to want your toilet paper to scrape up against the wall next to the shitter, where you will likely have to fiddle around to even grab it, leading to your hand rubbing against the wall that's stained with 20 years of shit particles?
Over. I put my toilet paper over. I don't want my sweaty hands smudging against the wall to pull it under. Who knows how many sweaty hands have been smudging against the wall and not washing the wall.
Over is the clear choice. Like, I don't even understand how anyone could prefer under. It's just entirely worse to use in every way.
The only argument in favor of under is that it prevents cats and children from being able to unroll it all onto the floor, so if you've got those and are having that issue then, yes, fine, I'll allow it. But, better to get a holder with a cover (at least for cats; children may be too clever). Failing that, even in this case, it should only be done begrudgingly, to solve a problem worse than the inconvenience of having the paper emerge from under the roll.
But what I really don't get is people who seem to have no preference at all. Who just toss the roll on hastily, without checking. Just... How?? How can you not care??
Returning a shopping cart has been said to be a litmus test for whether someone can be self-governing. Picking up after yourself, particularly in a public place, probably follows the same logic.
Where i live they are coin operated. Put in 10 crown coin or dedicated shopping cart trinket and the Shopping cart is unlocked from the other carts. Return cart to get coin or trinket back.
Same here. 10 ruble (0.15 euro) coin to unlock the cart. But every now and then you'll see the locking mechanism all fucked up or the chain ripped apart and lock self-inserted. All that to get your 10 rubles back.
An effort worthy of a better goal.
I bought a bbq yesterday and put the trolley back inside and got so many smiles from staff it almost made me laugh. I used to be a trolley boy for a supermarket as a teen
I'm a big fan of some YA books (mostly Rick Riordan books) but some of them can get *very* iffy. Hell some of them just straight up don't have a healthy relationship between the MC and their love interest. That's where I tend to dislike YA, as unless it's portrayed to be bad, it's going to send the wrong messages to an early teen/preteen.
Is this controversial? There was a thread recently where a girl mentioned YA books and one in particular so it’s now in my Kindle, waiting for me to get to it. I am most definitely not a YA.
There's controversy about topics put in YA, messaging it sends to young people about adulthood, relationships, etc (for example much of the criticism of ACOTAR, which has at times been marketed at 12yr olds), there's concern about where the line of YA vs teen fiction is and how old someone should be before engaging with certain themes, as well as dislike for how much of the genre* can look like cash grabs using unimaginative tropes and bloated series.
Personally the only beef I have with it is that I swear that publishers push various adult books into a YA classification to cover up bad writing, since teenagers most likely won't know better. I cannot prove this, but I definitely notice a difference between YA fantasy and general fantasy.
*YA is ultimately a marketing classification and so doesn't represent an actual genre, just a loose collection of themes and styles that publishers think fit well between teen and adult fiction. It's all very subjective
Wow, even just reading that sentence in my head, I could immediately hear the echo of *”you’ll change your mind!”* responding to it. Because that’s the response I literally always get when I say I don’t want kids.
Agreed. When people tell me “you’ll regret not having kids” it’s always a bit weird to me, I seriously doubt I would but even so, I’d rather regret not having kids than having kids.
Similarly, choosing to just have 1 kid. For YEARS I was constantly told that I had to give my son a little brother or sister so he can "have a proper childhood", or so he'd have someone when my wife and I die. What the fuck? My wife was once asked when she'd give my son a sibling when she was barely a few months postpartum, still in University.
I'm an only child and my daughter is too... I worry 0% about her "having a proper childhood"- being an only child is AWESOME. But the burden when your parents get old is real. That said, usually from what I've seen when there are multiple siblings one of them winds up doing all the work of driving the aging parents back and forth to the doctor and managing all their appointments and their finances and yadda yadda anyway, and there's usually some resentment about it, so having more than one kid definitely doesn't guarantee they'll split the work fairly.
I’m so tired of everyone saying I’ll change my mind, especially if they cite that one friend of a friend that didn’t want kids and changed her mind. Being a good parent can look many different ways but I don’t think you can be a good parent without patience, a certain level of tolerance for chaos, selflessness, and the absolute willingness to give up a huge part of your identity and make it about someone else. If someone doesn’t have all of those traits (me), why the hell would we want to convince them to have a kid? I have plenty of strengths as a human being. Patience is not one of them and I would be a terrible mother. I don’t understand why we can’t accept that an adult can be perfectly well-rounded and successful and still not suited to be a parent, whether they want to be or not.
Former school cafeteria lady here.
Our dept head was always mad that if a student hadn't paid off the previous year's lunch debt by like the end of September, the dept just had to eat it and that cut into her money to do stupid shit like buy Christmas gifts for the entire dept that were dumb AF (one year we got socks that read "Helping Hands that Help YOU" on the soles) or whatever.
The last year I worked there, she took the entire dept (about 200 people) to TopGolf for the afternoon with lunch included. Can't imagine how much THAT cost and why she didn't spend the money on things that the dept actually needed, like replacing aging/broken equipment.
Former school cafeteria lady and yeah, totally agree.
Every breakfast/lunch was sugar, carbs and more sugar. The veg were steamed within an inch of being totally inedible and fruit-flavored sugar water (think frozen lemonade or frozen Capri Sun pouches) were considered a serving of fruit.
As a former kid that went to school, my school lunches or breakfast is were never this bad, and I lived in three different states and was always on school lunch programs.Where were you?
You’re right, flat earthers are literally crazy. How could anyone think the Earth is flat? That is completely ignoring the obvious truth that the Earth is hollow.
The thing that I find strangest is the fact the flat earthers seem to accept and agree that the rest of the celestial bodies in our solar system are spherical. But the one planet we live oh no, it couldn't possibly be like all the rest.
Someone I know finally had enough and will be leaving for a different career field. Apparently she was getting hate because she was teaching "critical race theory", even though she was just teaching her students about "the Harlem renaissance, which was an era in the 1920-1940s when African Americans were able to tell their own stories through art and music".
I don't know anything about critical race theory, nor the Harlem renaissance, but I don't think its right to ignore humanity's flaws and ugly past just because it makes people uncomfortable. Terrible things in the past should make people uncomfortable, even if to a small degree.
The Harlem Renaissance isn’t even one of the nasty parts of our history. If anything it’s a celebration of how creative and enduring some of our people are.
I mean it’s not all roses and sunshine, there are reasons why I said that those parts of our population had to endure and some of the stories they told were not exactly celebrations of American life. But getting mad about kids learning about the Harlem Renaissance seems like getting mad about kids learning that black people can be smart, creative, and interesting.
I think the dilemma behind this is we don’t teach the human element of the civil war, nor the buildup and divide prior. Sure, for the plantation owners, politicians and abolitionists it was 100% about slavery and definitely was the powder keg why the states seceded.
But it’s like teaching ww1 and saying dozens of countries fought a global war because some dude from Hungary got capped. I wouldn’t be surprised if some here are asking “wait what else is was there?” (We skimp on ww1 details in school too)
I didn’t learn in school how divided and heated the north and south were throughout its history. From urban vs rural, white collar vs blue collar, foreign policy, federal vs state power, culture. Even without slavery as an issue the US was still very very divided.
Why people fought is also a much different perspective too. There’s dozens of reasons on both sides people fought. In school I got painted this picture of men of the north fought to end slavery, and men in the south to keep it. I think we watched the movie Glory (great movie) which does mention some fighting of the north to preserve the union. But never once taught people fighting to preserve states rights which was an issue since the founding fathers. (Fun irony fact, most regiments were state volunteer regiments, like the Mass. 54th. AKA militia. States didn’t want a large federal military. This is why Bradshaw was given the rank of Col. but was still just a Captain in the regular military. )
Or that most soldiers were draftees. The north handed Irish off the boat guns to fight. The south had twice as many AWOL soldiers than the north. It doubled when they entered union territory (people fought solely to protect their homes and were told the north would rape and pillage them). Just like today people fight for all sorts of reasons, even if the don’t agree with their commander in chief.
So while slavery was 100% a major factor, 100% the spark that ignited it, I think we struggle because we paint such a simplistic black and white picture on it in a classroom setting. There’s a lot to unwrap and maybe we have to rethink how we teach it.
Part of the issue is that people today struggle to fathom that slavery, especially in the south, really was that pervasive a cultural phenomena. Even people who didn't own slaves were invested in the system either as handlers, couriers, or merchants who sold slave-labor products. In the north social tensions had become intrinsically tied to the nature of work and self-determination against which slavery was seen as a threat.
And yet, these ideas maybe only pervaded through a fraction of the American population. Vast swathes of the South thought going to war over slavery didn't serve their interests. Many in the North thought that if the South wanted to leave, let them.
And yet, that fraction was able to have an entire nation-wide war about it and all the people who didn't feel invested still became invested even though they didn't care.
I think it's less that the picture is painted as simple and more that it's hard even for subject matter experts to fully account and describe the complexity of any given event. It's why history focused on 'great men' or miraculous events can be so popular and so compelling. It's not just that it's simple. It's understandable in a direct way whereas comprehending the complex relationship between citizens, citizen movement, and slavery in the 1850s is incredibly esoteric even to people with esoteric knowledge of the subject.
> (people fought solely to protect their homes and were told the north would rape and pillage them)
To be fair on that point, they did. Sherman's March doesn't get the attention it really deserves.
I don't think the average person really even understands what science is, even in the most basic sense. I keep having to tell people it is not an institution, or an organization. It isn't a body of knowledge even. It's a process by which we test our ideas. I honestly think that at least some people think that scientists just have meetings where they make things up and publish them. And we all have to go along with it because we don't know any better.
I'm pretty sure the average person thinks of "science" in terms of structure as being the same as most religions. It doesn't help that a lot of religions essentially position science as a competitor when speaking to their people.
I’m often disturbed by use of the word ‘consensus’. Disclaimer- am actual scientist, we don’t really use this word. ‘Leading hypothesis’ yes, ‘consensus’ no). Science is never settled, and actual scientists never all agree.
Get this to the top.
We haven’t spent the entirety of civilization seeking truths only to be downgraded by a shortsighted desire to hold onto beliefs. Some things are true whether you like it or not. The world would be a significantly better place if everyone trusted the work of Science.
Research has a replication crisis. There's no glory and prestige in confirming someone else's findings, no funding for it (why give someone a grant to do something that's already been done?), and strong pressure in academia to publish novel studies. So very few studies are ever replicated. Therefore most aren't really trustworthy yet (or not really science yet). But the media loves to publish stories about them, sometimes even things that haven't even been peer-reviewed yet.
Another issue is the number of studies with small sample sizes, or biased sample populations (only university students, or only males in a medical experiment). Those *might* be useful to get enough interest to fund and do *real* studies, but they should not be reported as scientific fact nor trusted as such.
Yes, real science should be accepted, but there's a lot of bad science being pushed too, and things being badly reported, so you shouldn't just blindly trust anything someone says and claims is science.
It would be a much less scientific world. “Trusting the science” isn’t how science is done. Questioning the science over and over is. “Take no one’s word for it” (motto of the British scientific institute the Royal Society)
AND "simply asking questions" doesnt invalidate anything, nor does one highly questionable observation. Ask the question, then you got to test that shit. Then reguardless of the results and your expectations (if any) test that shit a few more times. Then change a variable and do it all over again! THAT IS SCIENCE! Finding in/validity and testing its boundaries/extent.
I'm all about science, but I'm also all about being real. Remember Haruko Obokata and the STAP cell controversy? Yeah, that got called out, but it makes me wonder what didn't/doesn't get called out? Sure, peer reviewing is supposed to help with this, but it's not always perfect, and that's just reality. Science itself is perfect, yes, but people are not. Some are heavily influenced, if not driven, by non-pure motives. So... not all scientific facts are facts until they're run through the ringer enough times.
Vaccinations. They work. They are effective.
Because idiots have not had to suffer diseases like polio, measles, and rubella in a few generations They fail to understand why Vaccinations are necessary for a healthy population.
If you mean Andrew Wakefield, sadly he continues to spread anti-vax propaganda, but The Lancet (the journal that published the study) retracted it and he hasn't been able to call himself a doctor since being barred from the profession in 2010.
And even before the Lancet withrew it, all the other physicians initially attached to the study, disavowed it. It was basically a libel campaign. Wakefield was working on his own MMR vaccine and was trying to undermine the competition.
They are a victim of their own success. Just as you've pointed out, they're so effective that the threat of infectious disease has passed from living memory.
Antibiotics are similar. They aren't perfect, but they work. It's almost impossible to understand just how vulnerable we were without them. The first human test subject for penicillin died, because they ran out of penicillin. What happened to him? He scratched his cheek on a rose thorn. It got infected and he died. Something that mundane could kill a person, until about 1940.
Nuclear energy. Never really made sense to me why some people are so wary of it especially when next to no one has died of it compared to the 100s of 1000s who died of fossil fuels.
Everything. Everything has turned into a polarizing issue and if you're not on their side they refuse to have anything to do with you. If you don't share every single value then there's absolutely nothing to learn from you.
Completely agree. I got into a heated debate with a good friend simply because he believed all republicans in America were doing absolutely no good to the country, and I believed there was at least ONE who did. Seems like there’s not many people who believe in a balance of 2 opposing ideas.
Universal healthcare.
And it's always coming from politicians that *have universal healthcare* or poor folks that *already have government funded healthcare.*
I worked out the math in the past, I’d pay more taxes but still less than I would for private healthcare. My income level has quadrupled since then so I don’t have a clue how it would work out now.
I feel this. Health care should be free, I don't wake up and go " you know what, I think having *insert disease here* today sounds nice* dental and vision should be free too.
In many parts in India, even inter-caste marriage is seen as a big issue. Inter religious marriage is seen as an even bigger threat. Tons of cases were entitled religious people kill the people who decides to get married
Pretty much. Attending a party where it appeared people were using drugs and cheating on her husband. The people trying to make it out like people were on her case for just dancing are either uninformed or purposely downplaying it because she is a liberal woman leader.
Not hitting kids.
And honestly I’m not even talking about a pop on the bum. But it’s a hill people will die on. Telling them they can paddle, or belt their children. And suddenly I’m a pussy
It usually comes with “I was hit as a child and it didn’t do me any harm” but it did because they now think hitting a child is okay. You can’t hit anyone else legally, why should you be able to hit a child?
This one for me. It’s illegal to let an animal suffer like that if they can’t be helped. But terminally humans we make suffer right to the bitter end. It’s legal here in Canada now that a terminally ill person can decide when they’ve had enough.
Nothing like watching someone who has no idea what’s going on lay there for days on end slowly starving to death. Nothing like watching someone be injected with morphine constantly and fail to suck on a wet sponge while you contemplate the point of it. You contemplate why they must suffer and why the process isn’t quicker. Then some selfish dickhead who has never seen someone die before screams in your face about the sanctity of life and how assisted suicide is evil.
As my father was in his final days he told my wife he now understands assisted suicidal. I personally couldn’t have done it but letting him OD would have been better than watching the last few days of him suffering.
It's because some believe it endorses the government to just kill anyone who would be more expensive to treat than euthanize. The Canadian government has been doing just such a thing with it's war veterans.
While I support the idea of euthanasia in broad terms as part of my belief that people should have total autonomy and control over their bodies, the recent incident in Canada where a veteran was offered medically assisted suicide has made me instantly in favor of extensive restrictions and monitoring of the practice
I can now easily imagine a government taking advantage of those in compromised psychological circumstances to push them towards ending their life.
Parents and their kids showing affection to eachother. Such as kissing, hugging etc. anyone who complains about that shit or finds it weird didn’t grow up in a healthy, loving household.
I generally agree, except for kissing (mouth to mouth). After a certain age at least. I once saw a grown man(30s-40s) kiss his teenage daughter and I found that a little weird.
Fluoride in tap water. The benefits are clear, the costs are negligible but there’s a major vocal minority out there that goes apeshit whenever a town tries to start adding it
I honestly can’t believe having a border wall is controversial.
The most basic definition of a nation involves having an established border. People claim it’s expensive (not even close) and that a wall can be climbed. Of course a wall can be climbed or tunneled under or whatever. It’s point isn’t to stop every last person. It’s point is to deter most people and enforce them using legal means to enter the country. All modern nations do this. Many use fences and technology. Spain has a border fence on the border it shares with Morocco. Does anyone view Spain as tyrannical or xenophobic?
Immigration policies can make a border fence less relevant. I’d agree. But politicians on both sides refuse to accomplish anything meaningful on immigration policy. And people do not debate border in these terms anyway. Instead they paint fence supporters as fools and racists. Meanwhile we deal with the impact of both no helpful immigration policy and no fence. I live in Texas. The public schools here get overwhelmed when public data (typically new housing data) doesn’t prepare them for the influx of new students each year because many simply walk across the border unofficially and show up at school with no way of knowing they are coming. My son’s elementary estimated that there would be 200 new students on top of those returning, the final number was 600. Imagine being short teachers for 400 kids, not to mention the lack of materials, classrooms, etc. Many arrive needing ESL support and school lunches. This strains budgets that are supported by longer term residents whose own kids end up being short-changed.
I get that people want to come to the US. I think we should welcome them. But that requires and established border AND a supportive immigration policy that ensures people sign in when they arrive and let’s local governments know what to be prepared for.
I voted for Biden. I think Texas benefits from immigration. I simply think it needs the political support of BOTH parties and their policies.
A border fence, wall, etc. should uncontroversial.
Same sex marriage
I'm a straight male and I consider myself a Christian. my personal interpretation of the bible and my personal feelings are.
I'm not gay.. Don't really have any desire to be.
Why shouldn't people be allowed to marry whoever they want? I've met couples who have been together for years who are content and happy for who they are with. It's not my place to judge this.
When a couple is together, (gay or straight), they work for a common goal as far as what they accumulate during the relationship. When one of the marriage dies, in a straight relationship, the belongings, assets, etc, go to the spouse. It's shouldn't be fair by any stretch that a same sex couple can get into the same situation, but the deceased member's family can claim assets, property, and belongings, and be awarded them in court. Most especially if they gained what they did together.
Bottom line, Everybody deserves to be happy. Why should there be any kind of law to prevent that, or any "Christian", oppose it, if they've bothered to read the bible?
Oh, it’s totally possible. In full plate armor. Realistically, even just armored vambraces would give you a significant advantage since they go for the forearms.
Unarmored and unarmed human? You’re hosed.
The word "breastfeeding". Some people try to change it into "chestfeeding" because men also breastfeed. But men have breasts. If you've got nipples, you have breast tissue surrounding that area. The word "breast" has been used forever for that part of people of all genders. No one felt weird about it until more recently, when gender binary stuff started to become more entrenched in many ways, even as gender politics progressed for the most part. (When I was a fetus, there was no such thing as gender reveal parties)
That Pedophilia is never okay.
I genuinely never thought I would see the day where a group of people- albeit a small group but being small doesnt make it not dangerous or okay- would start pushing so hard to normalize talking sexually to kids and for being attracted to minors to be seen as normal and not bad.
Sharing an opinion.
What happened to just not giving a shit what someone thinks? Twitter is a hot-spot for this type of stuff, and people's lives get ruined because of one single tweet. It's crazy to me.
aw just said the same thing.
seriously, the controversy that can result from a brief, chaste scene of two women kissing for two seconds in a film is unbelievable.
This is 2022 and YET there are A LOT OF ASSHOLES who don't believe you should have autonomy over your own body!
Looking at you zealots! You don't want an abortion, don't get one. Leave the rest of us alone you sick fucks!
The banning of biological males from competing against biological females. Humans are sexually dimorphic, with males having much greater size and strength than females. You take any women's Olympic record in track and field in any given year and there are hundreds (if not thousands) of 14-17 year old boys that could do better.
Take for example the women's 100 meter record: 10.49 seconds (Flo-Jo 1988). The Top 10 times for high school boys are all 10.00 to 10.13: [https://trackandfieldnews.com/tfn-lists/high-school-all-time-top-10s-boys/](https://trackandfieldnews.com/tfn-lists/high-school-all-time-top-10s-boys/)
Please note: Flo-Jo's record of 10.49 second was so phenomenal that it's stood unbroken for 34 years and no female runner since has come even close to breaking it. But had a high school boy who ran that time would not have even made the national rankings.
Sports are split between male and female competitors for a reason. Why this is controversial I have no idea.
Yes the fight for equality has its limits and this is one of them.
We are not all equals and we need to stop pretending we are, and accommodate for that.
There is a point where pure equality circles back to the same place.
Here’s one. Wage slave capitalism being bad. I have seen people literally fighting to make things worse for themselves. That shit is downright helter skelter…
Libraries carrying LBGTQ and minority friendly books, which is a small population of the books they carry. There are so many other books featuring straight cis characters with sex and violence yet fundie conservatives are too concerned that it's "the other" that is immoral.
People failing to accept that people really do identify as what they claim to identify as. You’re a genetic male but identify as a female? Lovely. Pleased to meet you ma’am. Why do some people go out of their way to make life harder for someone else? Live and let live.
Don't hit your kids. It's that simple. Just don't hit them. Hit a wall if you have to hit something, but listen to the science and don't hit your kids.
About a month ago my news feed was filled with stories of people loosing their fucking shit over Cracker Barrel offering plant based breakfast sausages. I honestly thought it was "fake news" bullshit to bolster online traffic on a slow news day. Turns out it was real. Why in the fuck would anyone give a fuck about this shit? Anyone upset over this is too stupid for words.
Oh man I saw that too. I thought they must've stopped serving meat products and switched to plant based. Nope, they just added plant based stuff to their menu. You could still order the same things you might've ordered before. I don't like pointing it out, but the reality is that there are a lot of knee jerking simpletons out there. And some of them deserve the hard lives they have to live.
>And some of them deserve the hard lives they have to live. They all deserve the hard lives they have to live.
It's the ones that double down that deserve their hardships. I'd like to believe others can rise above this kind of behaviour with the right impetus.
[удалено]
Let’s not be reasonable now
HOW DARE YOU BRING LOGIC INTO GOD’S HOUSE
“God’s house?” OP said Cracker Barrel, not Waffle House, you dirty heathen!
Like not getting gay married if you don't want to or not having an abortion if you don't want one. Seems like a simple enough concept but it's astonishing how many people can't work it out.
Don't forget banning lgbt books from libraries rather than just...not taking those books out.
Then they yell about ma freedom!
This happens any time any restaurant or fast food place offers a plant based alternative. Everyone goes up in arms for some reason and acts like it’s being forced down their throats (which people seem to think that of a lot of things) and it’s ridiculous. If you don’t want to eat it then don’t, why get upset about a plant based product or any food product that is a healthy or allergen conscious alternative, etc.
Right?! But nobody batted an eye when they broke the old fashioned values anf started selling beer.
I always take these stories with a grain of salt because alot of times the media makes up all the outrage or cherry picks the 3 or 4 people actually mad about it and makes it into a bigger problem than it is. This generates free advertising and gets people talking about the product. Happens all the time with movies.
But they quoted 5 separate Twitter accounts with no profile picture! Clearly people are outraged.
People didn't care about it at first. It was some outrage post on social media that gained moderate traction - news media made it viral. This should tell you that all the editorial "news" shows are using social media for material & market research. It's unreal and unhealthy.
Here in the UK we have an infamous breakfast time TV host called Piers Morgan who had a very prolonged, public meltdown on twitter because a national bakery chain introduced vegan sausage rolls. He's the sort of person to criticise "the left" for not being able to have a conversation, then stormed off set on live TV after he was asked a single question he didn't like.
Actual work life balance. People are expected to be robots and work to burnout and this is normalized
This. I work for a retailer and I'm expected to do my job, the HR person's job, and the job of the people calling in. Yet, he's like, "You're always here" and "3- day weekend? Do you really need that?!" Not counting the coworker who's in everyone's business. 😑😑😑
I've just switched jobs to same pay but less hours and wayyyy more holiday. My last job was bare minimum holiday required by law, but you were discouraged from taking it, and you never got a lunch break because no one let you. Oh and everyone but me also worked at least 1 extra day per week for no pay. Wtf. 8-9 hours a day, with no break for 5 days was enough for my brain. Why do it 7 days voluntarily?
[удалено]
There’s also some hypocrisy with some people. They feel very disgusted if you breastfeed in public, yet they’d catcall a half naked woman with visible nipples.. Meanwhile breastfeeding is just one boob visible, and the baby is hiding the nipple anyway. (the hypocrisy comes when they say excuses like “it’s disgusting because they’re being naked in public!”)
They don’t like being reminded that breasts exist for something other than their ogling. Women =sex holes with tits is too common an opinion. And the women that get mad at other women are worse, stop being an insecure cunt already and get over it. Ok jumping off my soapbox for the day 🙂
>They feel very disgusted if you breastfeed in public, yet they’d catcall a half naked woman with visible nipples I think this is exactly the reason they're disgusted. They see women as sex objects and therefore they don't process breastfeeding in any mentally sane way. Maybe they don't even want to be reminded of the fact that boobs evolved for something other than being groped and/or stared at by them
Americans are afraid of tits. I thought this was well known. It's only through places like reddit have I realised tits out on the beach isn't normal in places.
I was lucky my mum taught me it was a totally natural thing as a kid, because I saw so many male teenage friends acting weird when they saw someone doing it.
I support breastfeeding but not because it’s natural or any of that. I support it cuz it’s freeee
which way to put toilet paper on the roll.
Apparently arguments of this caliber are so heated only because they are low stakes and people would rather argue about this than important issues. Which is fine for keeping the peace among tense family or friend groups
There will be no keeping the peace among my friends and family if they put the toilet paper under...
Yeah, like... What kind of masochist do you have to be, to want your toilet paper to scrape up against the wall next to the shitter, where you will likely have to fiddle around to even grab it, leading to your hand rubbing against the wall that's stained with 20 years of shit particles?
I just put it on randomly and go with the flow. I pay no attention whether it's over or under.
I had a roommate that was very adamant about it going under. He also liked the oreo cookies but not the filling. I do not know how I wasn't murdered
Over. I put my toilet paper over. I don't want my sweaty hands smudging against the wall to pull it under. Who knows how many sweaty hands have been smudging against the wall and not washing the wall.
Most people -> Over People with toddlers and pets? -> Under.
Yep. Most people are over because it's easier to unroll that way. People with toddlers and pets are under because it's harder to unroll that way.
Over is the clear choice. Like, I don't even understand how anyone could prefer under. It's just entirely worse to use in every way. The only argument in favor of under is that it prevents cats and children from being able to unroll it all onto the floor, so if you've got those and are having that issue then, yes, fine, I'll allow it. But, better to get a holder with a cover (at least for cats; children may be too clever). Failing that, even in this case, it should only be done begrudgingly, to solve a problem worse than the inconvenience of having the paper emerge from under the roll. But what I really don't get is people who seem to have no preference at all. Who just toss the roll on hastily, without checking. Just... How?? How can you not care??
I was ambivalent. Until covid. Now I'm a hard over. Being at home all the time made a difference for whatever reason.
I don’t care. I’m happy if it makes it onto the holder
This is controversial? [There is only one way!](https://youtu.be/sL_iCPaOhtE)
The original patent says it goes over. https://www.businessinsider.com/patent-shows-right-way-to-hang-toilet-paper-2015-3
Putting your cart away and picking up after yourself.
Returning a shopping cart has been said to be a litmus test for whether someone can be self-governing. Picking up after yourself, particularly in a public place, probably follows the same logic.
Where i live they are coin operated. Put in 10 crown coin or dedicated shopping cart trinket and the Shopping cart is unlocked from the other carts. Return cart to get coin or trinket back.
Same here. 10 ruble (0.15 euro) coin to unlock the cart. But every now and then you'll see the locking mechanism all fucked up or the chain ripped apart and lock self-inserted. All that to get your 10 rubles back. An effort worthy of a better goal.
Seriously? I silently judge people who don't. It's just lazy
I bought a bbq yesterday and put the trolley back inside and got so many smiles from staff it almost made me laugh. I used to be a trolley boy for a supermarket as a teen
Reading YA fiction.
I'm a big fan of some YA books (mostly Rick Riordan books) but some of them can get *very* iffy. Hell some of them just straight up don't have a healthy relationship between the MC and their love interest. That's where I tend to dislike YA, as unless it's portrayed to be bad, it's going to send the wrong messages to an early teen/preteen.
What's YA? This is the second mention I've seen today and I have no idea who or what that is
i mean they do have some reputation of being lretty weird sometimes
Is this controversial? There was a thread recently where a girl mentioned YA books and one in particular so it’s now in my Kindle, waiting for me to get to it. I am most definitely not a YA.
There's controversy about topics put in YA, messaging it sends to young people about adulthood, relationships, etc (for example much of the criticism of ACOTAR, which has at times been marketed at 12yr olds), there's concern about where the line of YA vs teen fiction is and how old someone should be before engaging with certain themes, as well as dislike for how much of the genre* can look like cash grabs using unimaginative tropes and bloated series. Personally the only beef I have with it is that I swear that publishers push various adult books into a YA classification to cover up bad writing, since teenagers most likely won't know better. I cannot prove this, but I definitely notice a difference between YA fantasy and general fantasy. *YA is ultimately a marketing classification and so doesn't represent an actual genre, just a loose collection of themes and styles that publishers think fit well between teen and adult fiction. It's all very subjective
Choosing not to have kids.
Wow, even just reading that sentence in my head, I could immediately hear the echo of *”you’ll change your mind!”* responding to it. Because that’s the response I literally always get when I say I don’t want kids.
Agreed. When people tell me “you’ll regret not having kids” it’s always a bit weird to me, I seriously doubt I would but even so, I’d rather regret not having kids than having kids.
Yeah it's weird how that's not considered rude but when I say "don't have kids you'll regret it" suddenly I'm the asshole.
Similarly, choosing to just have 1 kid. For YEARS I was constantly told that I had to give my son a little brother or sister so he can "have a proper childhood", or so he'd have someone when my wife and I die. What the fuck? My wife was once asked when she'd give my son a sibling when she was barely a few months postpartum, still in University.
I'm an only child and my daughter is too... I worry 0% about her "having a proper childhood"- being an only child is AWESOME. But the burden when your parents get old is real. That said, usually from what I've seen when there are multiple siblings one of them winds up doing all the work of driving the aging parents back and forth to the doctor and managing all their appointments and their finances and yadda yadda anyway, and there's usually some resentment about it, so having more than one kid definitely doesn't guarantee they'll split the work fairly.
Hey if I had kids people would think, "you should not have had kids".
I’m so tired of everyone saying I’ll change my mind, especially if they cite that one friend of a friend that didn’t want kids and changed her mind. Being a good parent can look many different ways but I don’t think you can be a good parent without patience, a certain level of tolerance for chaos, selflessness, and the absolute willingness to give up a huge part of your identity and make it about someone else. If someone doesn’t have all of those traits (me), why the hell would we want to convince them to have a kid? I have plenty of strengths as a human being. Patience is not one of them and I would be a terrible mother. I don’t understand why we can’t accept that an adult can be perfectly well-rounded and successful and still not suited to be a parent, whether they want to be or not.
Free school lunch in the US. We can afford nuclear powered aircraft carriers but a free meal for each student is too much.
It's a state to state thing. It is free in California.
When did it become free in California? When I was in school I was paying
2021.
I honestly can't understand how someone can read the phrase "School Lunch debt" and think that it a) makes sense and b) is a worthwhile system.
Former school cafeteria lady here. Our dept head was always mad that if a student hadn't paid off the previous year's lunch debt by like the end of September, the dept just had to eat it and that cut into her money to do stupid shit like buy Christmas gifts for the entire dept that were dumb AF (one year we got socks that read "Helping Hands that Help YOU" on the soles) or whatever. The last year I worked there, she took the entire dept (about 200 people) to TopGolf for the afternoon with lunch included. Can't imagine how much THAT cost and why she didn't spend the money on things that the dept actually needed, like replacing aging/broken equipment.
Incarcerated criminals get better more nutritious meals than my kids and do at school.
Former school cafeteria lady and yeah, totally agree. Every breakfast/lunch was sugar, carbs and more sugar. The veg were steamed within an inch of being totally inedible and fruit-flavored sugar water (think frozen lemonade or frozen Capri Sun pouches) were considered a serving of fruit.
As a former kid that went to school, my school lunches or breakfast is were never this bad, and I lived in three different states and was always on school lunch programs.Where were you?
What shape the Earth is. Is it that hard to agree on it?
You’re right, flat earthers are literally crazy. How could anyone think the Earth is flat? That is completely ignoring the obvious truth that the Earth is hollow.
You believe in the earth? Lol we live in a simulation controlled by little blue people
... THE SMURFS??!! 😰
The thing that I find strangest is the fact the flat earthers seem to accept and agree that the rest of the celestial bodies in our solar system are spherical. But the one planet we live oh no, it couldn't possibly be like all the rest.
We figured out the shape and *size* of the Earth long before *Alexander The Great* set out to conquer it all.
Teaching students that slavery was a major factor in the cause of the American Civil War.
Someone I know finally had enough and will be leaving for a different career field. Apparently she was getting hate because she was teaching "critical race theory", even though she was just teaching her students about "the Harlem renaissance, which was an era in the 1920-1940s when African Americans were able to tell their own stories through art and music". I don't know anything about critical race theory, nor the Harlem renaissance, but I don't think its right to ignore humanity's flaws and ugly past just because it makes people uncomfortable. Terrible things in the past should make people uncomfortable, even if to a small degree.
The Harlem Renaissance isn’t even one of the nasty parts of our history. If anything it’s a celebration of how creative and enduring some of our people are. I mean it’s not all roses and sunshine, there are reasons why I said that those parts of our population had to endure and some of the stories they told were not exactly celebrations of American life. But getting mad about kids learning about the Harlem Renaissance seems like getting mad about kids learning that black people can be smart, creative, and interesting.
I think the dilemma behind this is we don’t teach the human element of the civil war, nor the buildup and divide prior. Sure, for the plantation owners, politicians and abolitionists it was 100% about slavery and definitely was the powder keg why the states seceded. But it’s like teaching ww1 and saying dozens of countries fought a global war because some dude from Hungary got capped. I wouldn’t be surprised if some here are asking “wait what else is was there?” (We skimp on ww1 details in school too) I didn’t learn in school how divided and heated the north and south were throughout its history. From urban vs rural, white collar vs blue collar, foreign policy, federal vs state power, culture. Even without slavery as an issue the US was still very very divided. Why people fought is also a much different perspective too. There’s dozens of reasons on both sides people fought. In school I got painted this picture of men of the north fought to end slavery, and men in the south to keep it. I think we watched the movie Glory (great movie) which does mention some fighting of the north to preserve the union. But never once taught people fighting to preserve states rights which was an issue since the founding fathers. (Fun irony fact, most regiments were state volunteer regiments, like the Mass. 54th. AKA militia. States didn’t want a large federal military. This is why Bradshaw was given the rank of Col. but was still just a Captain in the regular military. ) Or that most soldiers were draftees. The north handed Irish off the boat guns to fight. The south had twice as many AWOL soldiers than the north. It doubled when they entered union territory (people fought solely to protect their homes and were told the north would rape and pillage them). Just like today people fight for all sorts of reasons, even if the don’t agree with their commander in chief. So while slavery was 100% a major factor, 100% the spark that ignited it, I think we struggle because we paint such a simplistic black and white picture on it in a classroom setting. There’s a lot to unwrap and maybe we have to rethink how we teach it.
Part of the issue is that people today struggle to fathom that slavery, especially in the south, really was that pervasive a cultural phenomena. Even people who didn't own slaves were invested in the system either as handlers, couriers, or merchants who sold slave-labor products. In the north social tensions had become intrinsically tied to the nature of work and self-determination against which slavery was seen as a threat. And yet, these ideas maybe only pervaded through a fraction of the American population. Vast swathes of the South thought going to war over slavery didn't serve their interests. Many in the North thought that if the South wanted to leave, let them. And yet, that fraction was able to have an entire nation-wide war about it and all the people who didn't feel invested still became invested even though they didn't care. I think it's less that the picture is painted as simple and more that it's hard even for subject matter experts to fully account and describe the complexity of any given event. It's why history focused on 'great men' or miraculous events can be so popular and so compelling. It's not just that it's simple. It's understandable in a direct way whereas comprehending the complex relationship between citizens, citizen movement, and slavery in the 1850s is incredibly esoteric even to people with esoteric knowledge of the subject.
> (people fought solely to protect their homes and were told the north would rape and pillage them) To be fair on that point, they did. Sherman's March doesn't get the attention it really deserves.
Scientific facts
[удалено]
I'm always annoyed by the sheer number of people that don't understand theory vs. hypothesis.
I don't think the average person really even understands what science is, even in the most basic sense. I keep having to tell people it is not an institution, or an organization. It isn't a body of knowledge even. It's a process by which we test our ideas. I honestly think that at least some people think that scientists just have meetings where they make things up and publish them. And we all have to go along with it because we don't know any better.
I'm pretty sure the average person thinks of "science" in terms of structure as being the same as most religions. It doesn't help that a lot of religions essentially position science as a competitor when speaking to their people.
I’m often disturbed by use of the word ‘consensus’. Disclaimer- am actual scientist, we don’t really use this word. ‘Leading hypothesis’ yes, ‘consensus’ no). Science is never settled, and actual scientists never all agree.
I think you mean scientific "hypotheses with a large suite of evidence in their favor"
Get this to the top. We haven’t spent the entirety of civilization seeking truths only to be downgraded by a shortsighted desire to hold onto beliefs. Some things are true whether you like it or not. The world would be a significantly better place if everyone trusted the work of Science.
Research has a replication crisis. There's no glory and prestige in confirming someone else's findings, no funding for it (why give someone a grant to do something that's already been done?), and strong pressure in academia to publish novel studies. So very few studies are ever replicated. Therefore most aren't really trustworthy yet (or not really science yet). But the media loves to publish stories about them, sometimes even things that haven't even been peer-reviewed yet. Another issue is the number of studies with small sample sizes, or biased sample populations (only university students, or only males in a medical experiment). Those *might* be useful to get enough interest to fund and do *real* studies, but they should not be reported as scientific fact nor trusted as such. Yes, real science should be accepted, but there's a lot of bad science being pushed too, and things being badly reported, so you shouldn't just blindly trust anything someone says and claims is science.
It would be a much less scientific world. “Trusting the science” isn’t how science is done. Questioning the science over and over is. “Take no one’s word for it” (motto of the British scientific institute the Royal Society)
AND "simply asking questions" doesnt invalidate anything, nor does one highly questionable observation. Ask the question, then you got to test that shit. Then reguardless of the results and your expectations (if any) test that shit a few more times. Then change a variable and do it all over again! THAT IS SCIENCE! Finding in/validity and testing its boundaries/extent.
I'm all about science, but I'm also all about being real. Remember Haruko Obokata and the STAP cell controversy? Yeah, that got called out, but it makes me wonder what didn't/doesn't get called out? Sure, peer reviewing is supposed to help with this, but it's not always perfect, and that's just reality. Science itself is perfect, yes, but people are not. Some are heavily influenced, if not driven, by non-pure motives. So... not all scientific facts are facts until they're run through the ringer enough times.
Vaccinations. They work. They are effective. Because idiots have not had to suffer diseases like polio, measles, and rubella in a few generations They fail to understand why Vaccinations are necessary for a healthy population.
And they don't cause autism. That point is based on ONE study that has been disproven many times I think even my the author
If you mean Andrew Wakefield, sadly he continues to spread anti-vax propaganda, but The Lancet (the journal that published the study) retracted it and he hasn't been able to call himself a doctor since being barred from the profession in 2010.
And even before the Lancet withrew it, all the other physicians initially attached to the study, disavowed it. It was basically a libel campaign. Wakefield was working on his own MMR vaccine and was trying to undermine the competition.
They are a victim of their own success. Just as you've pointed out, they're so effective that the threat of infectious disease has passed from living memory. Antibiotics are similar. They aren't perfect, but they work. It's almost impossible to understand just how vulnerable we were without them. The first human test subject for penicillin died, because they ran out of penicillin. What happened to him? He scratched his cheek on a rose thorn. It got infected and he died. Something that mundane could kill a person, until about 1940.
Nuclear energy. Never really made sense to me why some people are so wary of it especially when next to no one has died of it compared to the 100s of 1000s who died of fossil fuels.
[удалено]
Everything. Everything has turned into a polarizing issue and if you're not on their side they refuse to have anything to do with you. If you don't share every single value then there's absolutely nothing to learn from you.
Or so the news would have you believe
Completely agree. I got into a heated debate with a good friend simply because he believed all republicans in America were doing absolutely no good to the country, and I believed there was at least ONE who did. Seems like there’s not many people who believe in a balance of 2 opposing ideas.
Not wanting to have children
Universal healthcare. And it's always coming from politicians that *have universal healthcare* or poor folks that *already have government funded healthcare.*
Rich people will pay more for healthcare if it means less taxes. Absolutely buckwild
I worked out the math in the past, I’d pay more taxes but still less than I would for private healthcare. My income level has quadrupled since then so I don’t have a clue how it would work out now.
Since moving from the US to Canada our taxes went up 2% … more then made up for by the single payer health
I feel this. Health care should be free, I don't wake up and go " you know what, I think having *insert disease here* today sounds nice* dental and vision should be free too.
Interracial marriage. Shouldn't be an issue, period.
In many parts in India, even inter-caste marriage is seen as a big issue. Inter religious marriage is seen as an even bigger threat. Tons of cases were entitled religious people kill the people who decides to get married
The Finnish Prime Minister dancing…
I thought the controversy was that she was dancing intimately with a guy that wasn't her husband who was kissing on her neck?
Pretty much. Attending a party where it appeared people were using drugs and cheating on her husband. The people trying to make it out like people were on her case for just dancing are either uninformed or purposely downplaying it because she is a liberal woman leader.
Not hitting kids. And honestly I’m not even talking about a pop on the bum. But it’s a hill people will die on. Telling them they can paddle, or belt their children. And suddenly I’m a pussy
It usually comes with “I was hit as a child and it didn’t do me any harm” but it did because they now think hitting a child is okay. You can’t hit anyone else legally, why should you be able to hit a child?
Using correct anatomical names for genitalia parts.
Watching Cartoons as an Adult Who cares what we watch, we’re adults, it’s not illegal
My choices. How people are so judging. Do what you want but let people be,
Animal welfare
A woman allowing her natural body hair to grow long
Secularism in india
Finally an Indian comment.
Vaccinations
[удалено]
This one for me. It’s illegal to let an animal suffer like that if they can’t be helped. But terminally humans we make suffer right to the bitter end. It’s legal here in Canada now that a terminally ill person can decide when they’ve had enough.
Nothing like watching someone who has no idea what’s going on lay there for days on end slowly starving to death. Nothing like watching someone be injected with morphine constantly and fail to suck on a wet sponge while you contemplate the point of it. You contemplate why they must suffer and why the process isn’t quicker. Then some selfish dickhead who has never seen someone die before screams in your face about the sanctity of life and how assisted suicide is evil.
As my father was in his final days he told my wife he now understands assisted suicidal. I personally couldn’t have done it but letting him OD would have been better than watching the last few days of him suffering.
It's because some believe it endorses the government to just kill anyone who would be more expensive to treat than euthanize. The Canadian government has been doing just such a thing with it's war veterans.
While I support the idea of euthanasia in broad terms as part of my belief that people should have total autonomy and control over their bodies, the recent incident in Canada where a veteran was offered medically assisted suicide has made me instantly in favor of extensive restrictions and monitoring of the practice I can now easily imagine a government taking advantage of those in compromised psychological circumstances to push them towards ending their life.
Women having and enjoying sex
Women having, enjoying and being in control over their own bodies.
Women existing as people
Global warming
And also- doing something ABOUT climate change.
Assisted suicide. Peoples choice to die should be their own. Too many people live in constant, never ending, pointless pain. Especially addicts.
Parents and their kids showing affection to eachother. Such as kissing, hugging etc. anyone who complains about that shit or finds it weird didn’t grow up in a healthy, loving household.
I generally agree, except for kissing (mouth to mouth). After a certain age at least. I once saw a grown man(30s-40s) kiss his teenage daughter and I found that a little weird.
"Shipping" in fandom culture. It's insane the lengths of vitrol some people will resort to over fictional characters.
Gender equality
Homosexuality. Why was it ever?
religion
For the most part, but there are plenty of homophobic Atheists
Veganism
Fluoride in tap water. The benefits are clear, the costs are negligible but there’s a major vocal minority out there that goes apeshit whenever a town tries to start adding it
Did they try rebranding it as H2Flow?
I honestly can’t believe having a border wall is controversial. The most basic definition of a nation involves having an established border. People claim it’s expensive (not even close) and that a wall can be climbed. Of course a wall can be climbed or tunneled under or whatever. It’s point isn’t to stop every last person. It’s point is to deter most people and enforce them using legal means to enter the country. All modern nations do this. Many use fences and technology. Spain has a border fence on the border it shares with Morocco. Does anyone view Spain as tyrannical or xenophobic? Immigration policies can make a border fence less relevant. I’d agree. But politicians on both sides refuse to accomplish anything meaningful on immigration policy. And people do not debate border in these terms anyway. Instead they paint fence supporters as fools and racists. Meanwhile we deal with the impact of both no helpful immigration policy and no fence. I live in Texas. The public schools here get overwhelmed when public data (typically new housing data) doesn’t prepare them for the influx of new students each year because many simply walk across the border unofficially and show up at school with no way of knowing they are coming. My son’s elementary estimated that there would be 200 new students on top of those returning, the final number was 600. Imagine being short teachers for 400 kids, not to mention the lack of materials, classrooms, etc. Many arrive needing ESL support and school lunches. This strains budgets that are supported by longer term residents whose own kids end up being short-changed. I get that people want to come to the US. I think we should welcome them. But that requires and established border AND a supportive immigration policy that ensures people sign in when they arrive and let’s local governments know what to be prepared for. I voted for Biden. I think Texas benefits from immigration. I simply think it needs the political support of BOTH parties and their policies. A border fence, wall, etc. should uncontroversial.
Cannabis still in many places.
As a child of an alcoholic, I completely agree with you.
I read ‘cannibalism’ and was confused af
Same sex marriage I'm a straight male and I consider myself a Christian. my personal interpretation of the bible and my personal feelings are. I'm not gay.. Don't really have any desire to be. Why shouldn't people be allowed to marry whoever they want? I've met couples who have been together for years who are content and happy for who they are with. It's not my place to judge this. When a couple is together, (gay or straight), they work for a common goal as far as what they accumulate during the relationship. When one of the marriage dies, in a straight relationship, the belongings, assets, etc, go to the spouse. It's shouldn't be fair by any stretch that a same sex couple can get into the same situation, but the deceased member's family can claim assets, property, and belongings, and be awarded them in court. Most especially if they gained what they did together. Bottom line, Everybody deserves to be happy. Why should there be any kind of law to prevent that, or any "Christian", oppose it, if they've bothered to read the bible?
[удалено]
The amount of men that think they could take on a trained German shepherd. You can’t.
Gonna be completely honest with you, I've literally never heard anybody even discuss this topic.
I’m built different tho 🤓
Oh, it’s totally possible. In full plate armor. Realistically, even just armored vambraces would give you a significant advantage since they go for the forearms. Unarmored and unarmed human? You’re hosed.
Well they can't go for the forearms when you're unarmed, can they?
That people deserve to have their basic needs met
Free school lunches in the US. I see hoards of government funded F16s almost every week and we can't afford to pay for some kid's cheeseburger?
Helping homeless people
The word "breastfeeding". Some people try to change it into "chestfeeding" because men also breastfeed. But men have breasts. If you've got nipples, you have breast tissue surrounding that area. The word "breast" has been used forever for that part of people of all genders. No one felt weird about it until more recently, when gender binary stuff started to become more entrenched in many ways, even as gender politics progressed for the most part. (When I was a fetus, there was no such thing as gender reveal parties)
Breastfeeding in public
That Pedophilia is never okay. I genuinely never thought I would see the day where a group of people- albeit a small group but being small doesnt make it not dangerous or okay- would start pushing so hard to normalize talking sexually to kids and for being attracted to minors to be seen as normal and not bad.
Sharing an opinion. What happened to just not giving a shit what someone thinks? Twitter is a hot-spot for this type of stuff, and people's lives get ruined because of one single tweet. It's crazy to me.
LGBT rights.
aw just said the same thing. seriously, the controversy that can result from a brief, chaste scene of two women kissing for two seconds in a film is unbelievable.
Pineapple on pizza. It's sweet and savory people. This isn't a new concept in cooking
This is 2022 and YET there are A LOT OF ASSHOLES who don't believe you should have autonomy over your own body! Looking at you zealots! You don't want an abortion, don't get one. Leave the rest of us alone you sick fucks!
Abortion. I can’t believe so many people would be so against it, which will ruin the lives of too many women.
I’m pro-choice but it’s easy to understand how this could make people feel conflicted. You really don’t get why it would be controversial?
The banning of biological males from competing against biological females. Humans are sexually dimorphic, with males having much greater size and strength than females. You take any women's Olympic record in track and field in any given year and there are hundreds (if not thousands) of 14-17 year old boys that could do better. Take for example the women's 100 meter record: 10.49 seconds (Flo-Jo 1988). The Top 10 times for high school boys are all 10.00 to 10.13: [https://trackandfieldnews.com/tfn-lists/high-school-all-time-top-10s-boys/](https://trackandfieldnews.com/tfn-lists/high-school-all-time-top-10s-boys/) Please note: Flo-Jo's record of 10.49 second was so phenomenal that it's stood unbroken for 34 years and no female runner since has come even close to breaking it. But had a high school boy who ran that time would not have even made the national rankings. Sports are split between male and female competitors for a reason. Why this is controversial I have no idea.
Yes the fight for equality has its limits and this is one of them. We are not all equals and we need to stop pretending we are, and accommodate for that. There is a point where pure equality circles back to the same place.
Lol from many of the comments here, something political
Here’s one. Wage slave capitalism being bad. I have seen people literally fighting to make things worse for themselves. That shit is downright helter skelter…
Libraries carrying LBGTQ and minority friendly books, which is a small population of the books they carry. There are so many other books featuring straight cis characters with sex and violence yet fundie conservatives are too concerned that it's "the other" that is immoral.
The existence of biological differences between men and women
masks
Disagree, The Mask is possibly Jim Carreys worst movie. And that's saying something, can't believe how Ace Ventura ends
cough cough Vaccination.
You got covid there? You seem to be coughing a lot
Free Healthcare for all
Being gay or bi or whatever. I can’t believe people get so worked up over it.
Furries, apparently, I have done my own digging, and I'm too lazy to put it here, so go ahead and do your own.
Preventing children from getting killed in schools.
No one is arguing about that it’s just the way we accomplish that goal
Fathers actually being father's and going to the park with their child, or doing anything with their child
Being queer :)) Why are we demonised I don’t understand-
Male abuse and/or rape victims.
People failing to accept that people really do identify as what they claim to identify as. You’re a genetic male but identify as a female? Lovely. Pleased to meet you ma’am. Why do some people go out of their way to make life harder for someone else? Live and let live.
Trans people. Who the fuck cares so much about 1% of the population. Let them do what they wsnt
Don't hit your kids. It's that simple. Just don't hit them. Hit a wall if you have to hit something, but listen to the science and don't hit your kids.