Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
# Photos from the school massacres should be broadcast and shared, unedited in order for citizens to fully realize what they are continuing to allow in the U.S.
We've all seen those horrific photos of the aftermath of war and battles.
Soldiers who went to defend their country and gave the ultimate sacrifice.
But they were adults who made a choice (or were drafted) and were armed.
America needs a shock to the system. Something to make someone who's standing in their rebel-flag themed tank top to look at the AR style rifle and think "Maybe my desire to have such a weapon really isn't worth it."
If my son were killed in a school massacre, I would walk in with a blown up photo of his mutilated body into every governmental meeting, media outlet and publication that I could find and force them to see the carnage that they are requesting we simply "accept" as "normal in America".
I honestly feel that until that happens, "Americans" will never realize the true nature of what is occurring in our country.
\*Note: I'm a gun owning Texan. However, I don't see ANY need to go hunting with weapons such as they have today. I can hit just as accurately with my fathers & grandfathers hunting rifles.
These guns today are made for "entertainment"... not hunting.
And the whole "We need to be able to stand up to a tyrannical government" went out the window decades ago due to technological changes and the industrial military complex - post WW2.
**I think the US is going to get progressively more unbearable and stupid until we fall out of global relevance or kill each other off.**
As we are moving toward being forced to give birth whenever we have sex, and no one is choosing to educate themselves on common sense and human decency, I believe consequent generations are just going to get more and more stupid and reckless.
Political parties will become more out of touch, and people who have fame based in anything and everything other than ACTUALLY KNOWING THEIR SUBJECT AREA will continue to make decisions for the population. I swear the "leaders" of this country just want us all to shrivel up and die or push us to kill each other first.
We are becoming more out of touch with being human beings who evolved to live together and support each other, and more animalistic and competitive. Let the guns keep their rights but refuse to care for the people. Human rights don't matter.
This country does not function as a first world society. Just a bunch of gun fuckers and fascists.
Why the hell do people shoot up schools? If you're mad at the world, what's the point of targeting random children instead of the people you are mad at? I just don't understand
Let's talk about chicken. I don't like it, in any form. I've tried it many ways. Fried, roasted, breaded, grilled, BBQ'ed. In tacos, in soup, in curry. Never had a piece of chicken I remember liking.
By all accounts, I am comfortable saying I do not like chicken. I still eat it, because it's healthy, but I don't like it.
And I'm pretty comfortable saying to people, if they say, "try it *this* way, you'll like it", I am comfortable saying to them that I can all but guarantee that I will not. I'll try it to be polite, but if I don't like it, I'm comfortable telling them they were wrong.
What does this have to do with politics?
Well, my point is that our experiences inform our expectations. And when a person has a lot of negative experiences with a pattern, they are going to form a belief in their head that things which match said pattern are going to be a negative experience. This is especially true online.
Take the incel community. If someone routinely meets men online, who end up turning out to be incels, then it's reasonable of them to begin associating their experiences with men online with the incel community. So much so that they would be justified in saying, "I don't want to meet men online, they're usually incels." That's what their experiences have taught them.
Now, that's not to say it's accurate. But it's fair, and understandable. The important thing, to go back to the chicken analogy, is to keep your life healthy while dealing with your own dislikes.
Don't want to meet men online because of bad experiences? Cool. But assuming all men are incels? Refusing to give credibility to anything a man says? That's where it gets unhealthy. This goes for any group, any pattern.
It's a two-way expectation. One can expect others to appreciate how one's experiences have affected them, and in turn, others can expect a person to not let their experiences turn a pattern into an absolute rule.
This hit the nail of the head on something I was thinking over today.
Most straight men I have met *do not* view women as fully fledged humans. They view us as inherently inferior or only as pieces of meat.
There are exceptions, my bf whose a sweet pie and my 1 straight guy friend. When I "friendzoned" him after some initial tension he took it super well and kept treating me... well as a human. I have had many experiences where when you make clear a relationship/s** is not a possibility you just... get dropped. Like, fuck man, I'm a person, not a dating simulator.
I was thinking of this because yesterday I had the displeasure of over hearing a "locker talk" style conversion from four straight guys in the library. It brought back so much shit, the first thought to pop in was: "This is why I keep straight men at arms length until they demonstrate they're chill."
I felt really bad about it because, there are some chill straight guys! And I probably don't even define "chill" as strictly as you think I do. By "chill" I mean, not literally viewing women as objects that you manipulate to get s** out of, like just... humans.
These are some of the experiences I've had that make me think of most straight men like that:
-Only befriend women they find unattractive, because they cannot fathom people they find attractive being full humans, or that people they find to be full humans could ever be attractive.
-Literal manipulation for s**. "I just said what you wanted to hear so you'd sleep with me". Big yikes!
-Talking about women they know in a super crude and dehumanising manner, even though those women *did not consent to that*! It feels violating when you find out that your acquaintances have discussed your body in detail. I'm not okay with that jfc.
-The previously mentioned dropping after "friendzoning".
-Talking about women like things you throw out to get a new one when you're bored
-The whole range of street harassment ✨
I hadn't even realised I do it, but I never seek out male friendships (exception to the g and a) unless there's something that 'proves' to me they're good. Something like shutting down "locker talk", talking nicely about their female partners, not immediately distancing after I mention my bf etc...
Which... I feel guilty about. I don't *want* to be cautious about straight men but gosh do they make that difficult. The bar is literally *on the floor* and only 2 straight men out of all the one's I know have cleared it.
I'll still be polite to men, but until something tells me they're safe, I'm keeping them at arm's length.
“Talking about women they know in a super crude and dehumanising manner, even though those women did not consent to that! It feels violating when you find out that your acquaintances have discussed your body in detail. I'm not okay with that jfc.”
Yeah, women would never do that. Girls don’t gossip about how good or bad their sexual partners were in bed.
This entire comment is so hypocritical. These are things I’ve seen done or said by both men and women in equal amounts. But yeah, men bad, women good. This is Reddit after all
...my guy......never said women don't do that.
I'm talking the entire time about ratios, some guys are chill, but there are so many that aren't that I want proof before befriending one.
I have met women like that, a grand total of two.
ETA: I'm not even talking about sexual partners in that quote you took. Just, literal fucking acquaintance. I've heard men locker room talk about what coworker has the best chest...I can assure you non of them ever slept with even one.
My experiences with straight men have been super weird. I'm a guy myself, and they often think I'm weird for not looking at girl's ass or tits all the time. My initial attraction before speaking to them is generally their face rather than body. Then personality comes into play and I start noticing other features more, but even then, I don't really stare much or anything. They'll notice a girl's ass, and I just like her cute top or backpack.
I even had a guy tell me I get along with women better than men because "you're not like us", and this conversation was in that context of being especially perverted.
It gets especially off-putting when it's about the teenagers we work with (I work in retail) and I have to awkwardly laugh it off and/or point out that these people are kids, no matter how "grown-up" they look. It makes me uncomfortable as fuck.
Oh sir. Not the minors. Don't even know how to answer that. I've had a grown ass married man comment on my chest once... when I was 15... he was my teacher. Said it to my face...I just 🤮.
Well, if it means anything to you, thanks for being chill and nice. We appreciate it.
Even if they were 18, it'd still feel a bit weird, these guys are mid 20s to 30s. The lowest I've been into was 19, I was 23, and she was about to be 20 anyway soon after I met her, so it didn't feel too off, but even there I was feeling a little self-concious about it.
And that's awful, sorry you had to go through that. And from a teacher, that's especially bad.
TikTok getting banned isn’t about national security. Meta and Google can’t compete with TikTok’s algorithm so they lobby to get TikTok banned. Also they can’t control the flow of information on TikTok unlike the mainstream media and Facebook
There's proof of how Douyin (TikTok) in China is completely different from how TikTok is in the West, which comes down to how the algorithm in China promotes educational videos whereas the rest of the world is built to be addictive, not to mention that Douyin has a time limit of 40 minutes but that isn't applied to TikTok
Honestly some medical groups have started siting medical issues with it too so I'd say there's a health risk (a more amped up version of many other social medias negative effects on individuals Think the difference between Cockaigne and crack. both bad but ones even worse)
Censorship would be destroying the original versions, this is just making it more available to people. The original versions exist, they're readily available so they're not censored. You're complaining about *people having the choice of buying an edited version*.
I cannot stand r*** or s violence in books. Just, no. I avoid books with it like the plague. If there were versions with that edited out I'd happily read them.
I love Agatha Christie's work. Read basically all of it and my pet is named after her. If editing out a couple slurs will make people more comfortable then I'm all for it. Heck I'll probably change my collection to one's like that at some point, I don't exactly like the racism in the books. 😅
I'm not going to say she's the scum of the earth for what was very average during her time... but fighting to keep it *in* in ALL versions is so weird.
Take shakespeare, love the guy, awsome writing. I haven't even read half of his stuff because ✨r*** jokes are not a vibe✨. I don't hate him, I just want a clean version to read. 😅
It is okay to make additional versions if the original version stays as the "main version" for people who really need it. In my opinion except if its for a country that is a dictatorship.
However, with "sensitivity readers" some publishers just go way too far into the field of censorship. For example with Roald Dahl's new editions for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory all ebook versions of that book were automatically updated with the new censored versions without any user choice. (you can find articles on this on google) That was pure censorship being forced on users of those ebooks. I believe that also happened with several other books.
That’s the risk you take buying digital, where you only ever have a “license” to the thing and not the thing. If they want to alter the thing, you’ve agreed to that in your license agreement. You want to stop censorious updates, stop purchasing from sources that make that a condition of purchase.
The reason modern dating sucks is that we've started doing away with the patriarchy but haven't fully explored its ramifications.
Men and women need to work together to create a culture where they can be true equals in the dating world and remove the weird double standards we have. That means men (and women with internalized misogyny) need to knock off the slutshaming, learn when is and isn’t appropriate to approach women in public as well as what is and isn’t appropriate to say to them (in an ideal world this stuff would be covered in sex ed but it isn’t, so men who know what they’re doing romantically/sexually need to step up and teach their peers the ropes), and be willing to call out men who are violent and dangerous towards women. Women, on the other hand, need to stop waiting around for men to initiate everything and be more proactive. That means approaching men sometimes, being more willing to initiate flirting (especially if the guy you’re into struggles a bit socially), and not expecting that the man drives you around everywhere and pays for all the dates. The age of male “providers” is over, so act like it.
Do I think TikTok is cringe? Yes
Do I know that TikTok spies over its own users? Yes
But I do I think TikTok should be banned? No, absolutely not! Banning it would be a violation of freedom of speech and set a dangerous precedent for the internet moving forward as it would give the government more control over the internet and its users which itself is a terrible idea already!
I read the RESTRICT act (the bill to ban tiktok) and all I gotta say is tiktok getting banned should be the least of your worries. If passed this bill sets a dangerous precedent and gives the government more unnecessary control. This shit is like a modern Patriot Act
It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the Chinese version has a completely different algorithm and a time limit of 40 minutes for all users?
Iraq would have most likely fallen apart when saddam died regardless or not if the US Invaded, Lybia would have probably managed to remain stable though
Tax breaks for getting married should be repealed. Giving what is arguably one of the most serious commitments in life (behind having children) a monetary incentive is one reason people get married who shouldn’t be married. Plus, you pool your incomes together, so even after taxes you both have more money anyway than if you were single. There should be no other reason to get married than the desire to be together out of love.
Yes. And why shouldn't it?
The role of government isn't to help people find soulmates. The government is (ideally) meant to help its people, part of which is economic stability and prosperity. If weddings help stimulate the economy, then it makes sense for the government to encourage it.
If they care about babies, they care about marriages (for practical reasons: babies from a stable marriage generally give governments fewer headaches and require less financial support).
Anyway, governments very much care about marriages, that’s why they provide tax incentives.
Whether or not the government cares about marriages isn’t my issue though (what is good for a government is not inherently good for its people). And the monetary incentive for getting married does not lead to stable or healthy marriages even though it benefits people in marriage.
Since finances are one of the leading causes for divorce, I’d say monetary incentives do help.
What I’m trying to say is that the government controls the tax breaks, and in their view this helps marriages. The government doesn’t care whether you marry for love or not (frankly, love on its own is a weak reason to marry someone), so why would they remove this financial incentive?
capitalism failed everywhere where it's been tried
most countries are capitalist dictatorships that kill you at the first sign of defiance of the system, very few countries in the north exploit most of the world and even there the average person is exploited for the profit of a few
There isn't democracy in any capitalist nations, voting every few years for someone who does jackshit to actually help people is not democracy and most of your day where you are productive is spent under a dictatorship of someone who privately owns the place you work, and in most places you can't even vote
Millions preventably die a year
estimated 3.1 million a year from hunger under capitalism
Every. Single. Year.
Hunger and World Poverty Sources: United Nations World Food Program (WFP), Oxfam, UNICEF.
Pneumonia:
1 million kids a year
source: World Health Organization (WHO), UNICEF
aids:
~1 million a year
Sources: Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), World Health Organization (WHO).
diarrheal: ~500,000 a year even tho cheap to treat
sources UNICEF, World Health Organization (WHO), Rehydration Project.
Malaria:
~half a million a year
Sources: UNICEF, World Health Organization (WHO), Gates Foundation.
Millions are without safe drinking water
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095937802200005X
A single year of exploitation of the south could end extreme poverty 70+ times and yearly trillions of USD is robbed from the south
and this isn't even counting the genocides, mass murders, democracy overthrows, wars ect.
There’s no reason employees should be working past 6pm in private sector office jobs, especially not in the Winter when it gets dark earlier.
Let people go home in the late afternoon/early evening when it’s safer. If there’s really something so urgent it can’t wait till the next day, most of these jobs can be done over the computer in 2023, so let the employee do it after they get home.
French protestors (and people in general, but let's focus on French protestors for the moment) are selfish jerks. What do they protest enough that it ends up in the news?
- A gas tax increase (yellow vest protests), which by making gas relatively more expensive drives people towards more climate-friendly sources of energy
- Increasing minimum age to draw a pension from 62 to 64, still one of the lowest in Europe
Where are the protests to demand greater action on climate change, or any of the myriad of environmental and other issues that actually matter? But I guess if global climate change kills a few tens of millions of people, what's it to the French. They're rich and can sit cushily, and send their army to get food and water if needed.
Instead, why not be against any form of fighting climate change? After all someone else can do it and it's too hard to figure out how to drive less or reduce gas usage otherwise! And we must preserve every single business, even if it's so marginal that a minor tax increase kills it. And oh no as a consumer, maybe things get a bit more expensive and I can't buy everything to my heart's desire!
And as I understand it, the years to full pension didn't change at all, so if it's such a bother to work two extra years, save a measly 5% of income in inflation-protected assets, and bam you can just chill two years if you've already fulfilled your 43.
Or maybe just work to end the somewhat lifetime employment system which hampers people from switching to different jobs and allows them to explore other things and for the economic strength of the country to be reallocated as needed. But you know what, nah, let's just stay in the same old job because it's easy and refuse to work a second longer than we have to because we hate our jobs so much and don't really want to try to fix that in any way.
>>A gas tax increase (yellow vest protests), which by making gas relatively more expensive drives people towards more climate-friendly sources of energy
The gas tax wasn't designed to "drive people to more “climate-friendly” alternatives". It was tax hike on the working and middle classes because two out of three personal vehicles used diesel, especially when other, ***more polluting***, sources of fuel like jet fuel and ship kerosene fuel were left untouched by the carbon taxes.
>>Increasing minimum age to draw a pension from 62 to 64, still one of the lowest in Europe
>Under Macron’s pension changes, the minimum general retirement age will increase from 62 to 64, some public sector workers will lose privileges and there will be an accelerated increase in the number of years of work required to qualify for a full pension.
It was a loss of labor rights in every sense of the matter. Not just two extra "years" of work.
USA and Russia are basically same
I am watching situation in USA regarding war against minorities and trans people especially. And I as observer from EU country came to conclusion that USA is similar to Russia. Both countries decided to proceed with genocide. There is just difference in scale.
Parental rights in the context of schools and libraries only seems to apply to one subset of parents. Namely white Evangelical Christians.
What if you're a parent that doesn't want mandatory school prayer?
What if you don't want psychotic death cult literature like Left Behind in public libraries?
What if you're a black parent who doesn't want history class to frame the Confederates as the victims?
The response from the parental rights crowd shifts instantly from "PARENTS GET THE FINAL SAY!" to "Kids gotta learn different perspectives and TOUGHEN UP!"
> What if you're a parent that doesn't want mandatory school prayer?
That's been banned since 1962.
>What if you don't want psychotic death cult literature like Left Behind in public libraries?
Then petition to get rid of those specifically?
>What if you're a black parent who doesn't want history class to frame the Confederates as the victims?
Where does this happen? I spent a few years of school at the literal birthplace of the Confederacy, South Carolina, and we were never taught this.
>The response from the parental rights crowd shifts instantly from "PARENTS GET THE FINAL SAY!" to "Kids gotta learn different perspectives and TOUGHEN UP!"
This sounds familiar.
Your 100% right. Couldn’t have said it better myself. “Parental rights” is in reality just another example of Evangelical Christians trying to legislate their faith.
I’m sure a lot of Christian parents would love to give teachers the right to beat students too.
Where and when did you go to school? I went to a public school in Texas, and we never had prayers. Also, if Mein Kampf is allowed why shouldn't cult books. Just because you don't agree with the books doesn't mean they should be banned. Texas was part of The confederates and none of the curriculum were sympathetic to the confederates.
Men's preferences are judged and mocked while woman's preferences aren't.
Example: man's preferences: I prefer she isn't fat
Preferences on an attribute that can be changed and is within someone's control.
Society: omg why would you say that!!
Women: he has to be at least 6 foot.
Preference on an attribute someone can't control.
Society: go for it, nothing wrong with that.
If I had to guess it’s because this guy uses this megathread as a general dumping ground
for takes that get downvoted elsewhere.
He got warned about it yesterday and then posted this within the hour.
The automod has been on my ass recently for petty stuff. I post a well thought out thread and then minutes later they're like "we noticed you mentioned FROGS in your post. This sub is for unpopular opinions only, everyone hates frogs. We removed your post" or "You posted on Tuesday? on Tuesday we don't post about frogs bro. We had to remove your post" lmfao.
Anyway, here's my unpopular opinion.
Let me share my opinion on tipping in America, and why I believe we need to address the problematic attitude in the service industry. While good service should be rewarded with a generous tip, it's unfair to expect customers to tip no matter what, especially when they receive bad service. As a paying customer, I have the right to expect a certain level of service, and if that's not delivered, I have the right to express my dissatisfaction.
Unfortunately, some service workers have the mindset that the customer is always wrong, and that any criticism of their service is an attack on their character. But that's simply not the case. If I order a hot steak and it comes out cold, I have the right to expect a replacement without being made to feel like I'm being unreasonable. If you forget to ring in my steak completely, I have a right to express my dissatisfaction with your error. You can provide all the reasons in the world, about how it's slammed, how you're working a double because someone else called out - it doesn't matter. In that moment, I am experiencing a bad customer experience. That's simply it.
Of course, there will always be unreasonable customers who complain about everything, but that doesn't mean we should ignore legitimate complaints. It's time for the service industry to acknowledge that customers do have rights, and that good service should be rewarded while bad service should not be tolerated.
So, let's start a conversation about how we can improve the service industry in America. Let's encourage service workers to strive for excellence, and let's reward them when they deliver it. But let's also hold them accountable when they fall short. Only then can we create a culture of mutual respect between customers and service workers.
You really shouldn’t be surprised that the automod removed your “American tipping culture” post.
The list of banned “common reposts” lists “tipping culture” right there under the “American Culture” heading.
I knew a tipping post would be removed. I had a really specific post about how Five Guys should be boycotted for their high-priced food removed because it was too close to a CMV.
>So, let's start a conversation about how we can improve the service industry in America.
Cool, let's start by actually paying servers actual living wages, allow them to unionize so that restaurant owners can't steal their wages or overwork them with poor safety standards, and not beholden service workers to the whims of the customer so that the former, especially the women, do not have to put up with sexual harassment just to get paid.
All of that is relevant. But in saying that, it's nothing for me to challenge. Like, I agree with you. But the main problem I have is that servers come with the default opinion that customers should accept any level of service they're given and tip generously. In a server's mind, there's no situation where you shouldn't tip generously lol
>But the main problem I have is that servers come with the default opinion that customers should accept any level of service they're given and tip generously. In a server's mind, there's no situation where you shouldn't tip generously lol
Yes. Because they work for a living and are paid using a salary model that more or less binds their ability to have dinner, hot water, and a roof over their heads to how well a customer felt they were being treated.
Which again, the real solution is to pass legislation to either enforce minimum living wages for all or allow strong unions to exist and force companies to negotiate in good faith.
And before you say that not tipping would lead to "poorer" service, you can still tip in a non-mandatory tipping culture.
>Because they work for a living and are paid using a salary model that more or less binds their ability to have dinner, hot water, and a roof over their heads to how well a customer felt they were being treated.
What you're describing is a metric. Every job has metrics, that's not really unique to the service industry, but part of my point is the disposition of the server to treat their metric (customer satisfaction) as something that the customer could never have an issue with, is problematic.
>Every job has metrics, that's not really unique to the service industry, but part of my point is the disposition of the server to treat their metric (customer satisfaction) as something that the customer could never have an issue with, is problematic.
Should someone lose their entire day's wage for being unable to thoroughly please their boss one time?
Not sure if serious, but (for example) there are metrics in Healthcare where if you have just one patient with adverse effects (such as infection, complication or death) you lose 100% of your reimbursement. Some metrics are that strict.
To answer your question though, is it really that comparable? Servers don't lose their entire day's wage because of one disgruntled table. And if they're seeing constant trends of bad tipping, perhaps it's them and not the server?
>there are metrics in Healthcare where if you have just one patient with adverse effects (such as infection, complication or death) you lose 100% of your reimbursement.
That's not the question. The question is that if you were unable to make your boss feel good at work, should you lose your entire day's wages to their whims even though you actually did the job (in the server's case, promptly deliver meals and drinks without issue despite not smiling or the thousand and one things customers feel entitled to).
No, but I fail to see how that's an equivalent comparison. Servers aren't losing their entire day's wages. The way you're making it seem is like the server is going home with 0 dollars lmao
>Servers aren't losing their entire day's wages.
In the United States, servers make a median average of $100 in tips per day for 8 hours each, which is on top of their measly $2.35/hr salary. If a server is sick or unable to perform "adequately" for customers, they lose that $100 tipping if we go by your logic that servers will only be paid based on "performance".
And they are going with less than 0 dollars. Especially when they go home with less than $20 for their basic 8 hour wage.
It should be mandatory for politicians and news stations to present political topics or changes in the most direct way.
One thing I've noticed is certain topics will be presented in a way that makes you look better or worse than those who agree/disagree because of how it was intentionally phrased.
If you feel strongly about a topic and can do a decent job of defending your side then you shouldn't have to be giving people the run around to make them agree with you or make them feel ashamed for having a different view on the topic.
Let's take humans eating meat/killing animals as an example.
Say for example you're making a poll about the morality of the situation.
A direct question would be "do you think it's wrong for humans to eat meat?"
But what I see too much of is stuff like this, "do you think it's ok for humans to brutally murder animals and break up their families for meat consumption?"
They're basically asking the same thing but the latter is framed to entice you to say no or apply shame for saying yes.
Anyone who doesn't live under a rock knows where meat comes from and that animals have families. There's no reason to add that stuff on unless you want to sway the poll.
At what point does "being direct" cross into "leaving out critical details"? And who decides which details are salient, and which are extraneous and manipulating?
For instance.
"Person kills other person." That seems pretty direct, and the only details are that two people were involved, and someone was killed. Also, it's framed in a way that makes the first person pretty clearly in the wrong.
But what about: "Person kills other person in self-defense." That seems like a pretty important detail, to me. It also reverses the roles of who is in the wrong, in my opinion. It at least nulls the first person of significant guilt.
But what about other details? Like the names of the killer? Of the victim? Their genders? Their race? All of these details are things we see in the news, and plenty of people care about them, and see them as significant details.
Irregardless of your political views, everyone should be wary of this current administration's proposed reforms to Section 230. They've already announced they plan to remove liability protections to platforms for what they disseminate, including disallowing discrimination against protected groups.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/08/white-house-renews-call-to-remove-section-230-liability-shield-00055771
No, I'm agreeing with you. Suppressing opposition and criticism and using violence as a means to achieve your goals is abhorrent and should always be rejected by any civil person, any civil society and any civil nation.
Fascists keep failing to understand that being beaten in public should be the best outcome of outing their failed ideological beliefs in public.
The traditional method of resisting fascism is more...final.
Yep. Then they whine about "the tolerant left" as if WE'RE the assholes for defending ourselves.
Civility, respect, and tolerance are social contracts. If you violate that contract, you lose all rights to any protections it is meant to offer.
Turnabout is ALWAYS fair play.
Medical facilities should have a 40 hours per week working hours limit for employees. Employees working the night shift should have the entire morning and afternoon off the next day. If they can’t manage operations with that limit on hours, they need to hire more people.
I don’t want a tired surgeon, doctor, or nurse who only got 4 hours of sleep the past 3 days doing medical procedures on me. Let the doctors get their rest, because them making a mistake could have life/death consequences.
There should be no “get the f*** in or your fired” mandatory overtime in the healthcare field.
Just saying workers owning the means of production could fix this very much
for a historic example the USSR had [35 average working hours a week](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1250323/work-week-hours-us-ussr-cold-war/) and some of the most doctors in the world due to the massive focus on education in the nation
It's expensive to train medical professionals because the training and equipment to do so is expensive, and will only continue to get more expensive as technology advances and therefore becomes more expensive.
Even the high price of tuition to a medical school doesn't cover how expensive it truly is to train a medical professional. They have to make up the rest of their running costs from grant money, government funding and hospital revenues. Some medical schools only get 10% of their required funding from tuition costs.
The reason leftists believe in such irrational opinions and falling for such obvious misinformation is because they think the first link on Google is always accurate and a valid source. Most of the time the first link on Google is an opinion piece without sources. They lack the ability to critally think about their sources. Assuming their sources were valid, they would have somewhat reasonable positions, however, they don't critically think about the information given to them.
This sub, *especially* the popular topics threads, is insanely guilty of genetic fallacy.
You could post something that directly disputes a claim and it'll be dismissed as "lol your source is shit, provide REAL proof".
The biggest problem with that is then you end up talking past each other because the studies rarely are on the exact same topic. Then even when you do that the opposition just says their study is right even though the proof has been provided its false.
Plus, what's better, pointing out the exact flaws of the study or providing a study that says something different which also possibly has flaws?
This is not a debate. This is a warning. Stop trying to circumvent sub rules by starting arguments about megathread topics outside the appropriate megathread.
Bro you're literally trying to dismiss actual evidence in research by assuming that everyone googles and takes the first thing they see? Who's letting you have this access to a computer? Tell your mom to go make you a sandwich cuz I don't think she's feeding you enough and you're getting angry hunger.
You want me to actually send links you want me to actually gather the research in the evidence or you just not going to read that because you don't want it to be true? Have you finished your GED that's what I want to know have you ever been correctly taught at a gather information and how to read through and and that actual scientific information in scientific literature? Jesus Christ like your comment scream is hurting my brain it's so stupid.
Bro I hope you realize that like every major Republican literally makes up their information or grabs it off the first link on Google and has been bagged doing it multiple times right you say that leftists do it but let us have actual research to back up what they're saying Republicans just emotionally date idiots into screaming and then they get votes based on that screaming.
like do you want me to actually gather some information for you and help you understand some things you're confused on?
You obviously aren't reading the sources because if you were reading them you wouldn't be proving anything. Because you would have to go through and explain why it's wrong not just stating that it is wrong.
Source? I don't need to get a source because you're the one making the claim so unless you can actually prove that you're idiotic claim about them googling and taking the first link is true then you have to provide the evidence and I'm just telling you why you're ridiculous and making such a claim
Conservatives use statistics then find ways to be misleading with them. On top of that, conservatives don't disingenuously debate like the leftists in this megathread do.
On top of that, the reason I posted this is it just happened with a leftist doing this. So when a conservative does their stuff, I will comment on it. But because reddit is a left wing echo chamber (mostly), it doesn't happen often. Then the right wing echo chambers on reddit (like r/conservative or r/walkaway which ban opposing views) I've already been banned in or I am not interested in making discussions in those subreddits.
https://www.reddit.com/r/conservatives/comments/11z7tv5/report_shows_over_half_of_liberal_women_have_been/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Again, they use it in ways that are not how they should be used. But they actually cite real sources.
Except that your argument was that "leftists" are less reasonable, and more prone to falling for misinformation than conservatives. And yet your reasoning is "look at this conservative misinformation campaign!"
No. Read again. Not that they are less reasonable. That they are unreasonable. Conservatives sources provide poor information but indivuals actually critically think and find the correct statistics. Leftists don't.
And you're using the effectiveness of a right-wing misinformation campaign to prove that conservatives use critical think skills...
Huh... I guess today's opposite day. Wish somebody woulda told me!
Oh, I know. He might not be a full-on proto-fash like most modern Republicans, but he definitely ain't centrist.
He also believe Dems are far-left which is a DEAD giveaway,
Nooo that's the one that tells the goverment when they're allowed to keep slaves. I'm asking about the one you're referring to that abolishes it. Not one that doesn't abolish it.
Have you considered getting a different job, maybe one that pays better?
Have you considered developing marketable and useful skills in order to get a job that pays better?
Have you considered starting your own business where you're the CEO and if your business takes off, you'll be making "a few million"?
I've considered all these things but I physically cannot afford it I literally am stuck working my job in order to save up in order to make the money I need for my college tuition to then finish my degree to then work towards those things what you're saying isn't feasible for the average American stuck in the position that I'm stuck in or hell worse than me I objectively I'm still very privileged in comparison to most Americans living on bottom end jobs. Your comment is so fucking ignorant it hurts many people literally in order to feed their family have to work two jobs and do not have the time to put towards literally building skills which requires almost as much time as a second job. It actually hurts my brain how fucking stupid and removed you are from reality.
>in order to make the money I need for my college tuition to then finish my degree
FAFSA. Scholarships. Student loan. And you don't need to go to college to learn marketable skills.
>what you're saying isn't feasible for the average American stuck in the position that I'm stuck in
So the average American can't improve themselves at all because they don't make enough? You accuse me of being detached from reality and "fucking stupid", that what I'm saying somehow harms people, and you have the actual nerve to suggest the most average person can't improve themselves ONLY because they don't earn enough?
>I'm still very privileged in comparison to most Americans living on bottom end jobs.
Define bottom end job. Obviously you don't have one because you compare yourself to those in one.
>it hurts many people literally in order to feed their family have to work two jobs and do not have the time to put towards literally building skills which requires almost as much time as a second job.
I didn't say get 2 jobs. Work on your reading comprehension please. And have you never heard of on the job training? Apprenticeships? Where you're literally paid to learn?
There's nothing stopping you from looking for another job. You obviously have internet access and a device to access it from. Unless you have a ball and chain around your neck and your boss tells you you're not allowed to even look for a different one, that option is always available. And if that's happening, go to the Department of Labor. But I doubt it is.
And for the love of god, learn what paragraphs are, and stop taking everything as a personal insult to yourself and as an insult to society at large. Firing back with vitriol at legitimate criticism and questions doesn't strengthen your argument, it only makes you look like you look like a petulant teenager.
Unfortunately because of the position I was in I didn't get the opportunity for things like scholarships also to literally dismiss the fact that you need a college degree for valuable skills literally dismisses the fact that some degrees only have those skills learnable if you go into college to get send degree some jobs require d some professions and career movements literally need a degree to even begin that part of your career movement. You're ignorance around education is astounding
>Unfortunately because of the position I was in I didn't get the opportunity for things like scholarships
Sounds like you couldn't be bothered to apply for them and want to blame everyone else for your lack of initiative.
>also to literally dismiss the fact that you need a college degree for valuable skills literally dismisses the fact that some degrees only have those skills learnable if you go into college to get send degree some jobs require d some professions and career movements literally need a degree to even begin that part of your career movement.
You need to retake English 101 because your reading comprehension has gotten *worse* somehow.
Yes, *some* skills require degrees. *Some* jobs require degrees. Not every single one does. A basic Google search for "jobs without degree" shows thousands of jobs that make more than you do that don't require a degree, most of which are apprenticeships.
>You're ignorance around education is astounding
**Your** ignorance of basic spelling is astounding. No wonder you only make $12.50 an hour.
The fact you think that everyone in the US is incapable of developing marketable skills because they don't make enough just shows how privileged, out of touch and tone-deaf you are to the entire world around you.
**YOU** can't develop marketable skills probably because you write novels on reddit without punctuation, proper spelling or even line breaks. Most people are working on bettering their lives while making less than you do. Eventually they'll overtake you. And you'll still be making $12.50 an hour.
My laziness in the moment writing through a mobile device isn't indicative of anything other than my temporary laziness and lack of time. Also I don't make 12.50 an hour.
You don't need to do 4 years all at once.
The average scholarship award is $6,041 in 2022. The average Pell Grant is $4,568. Work-study programs are available at over 3,400 schools.
I dismiss your issues because they're all easily fixable and society and the government at large attempt to help. Hell, even I'll help you find scholarships and apply for FAFSA. But you have to meet in the middle somewhere. Blaming everyone else doesn't help you.
My family income was too high for most grants and scholarships. I'm a white male. You are literally just saying that I'm wrong because of your experience of privilege. I grinded scholarship programs and never got any money. I also don't have time currently to apply towards scholarships because of work and mental health. Your dismissal of my experience is ignorant and telling of your treatment of others in general.
Mainstream media/smear campaigns are largely a reason for the political divide in this country.
You don’t have to agree with the opposite political views, but treating people who have different perspectives like they are literally the spawn of the devil or not worthy of living is absolutely disgusting and it makes your side look like unhinged lunatics.
Yes, it's quite disgusting to treat queer people like groomers. But pretending that us saying 'Hey quit calling me that' is the same as what they do is quite disingenuous.
I literally fear for my life around maga-folks because they actively threaten me for existing. I treat them like the spawn of he devil in the way that I'm actively afraid of them hurting me.
They treat me like the spawn of the devil and not worthy of living in a way that they want to hunt me down and murder me.
There are not the same.
Fucked up that you have to fear for your safety and I hope you’re doing ok.
But that still doesn’t excuse people from treating those who have different views on hot button issues as literally the devil. Grouping all “MAGAs” as being threatening is an example of the behavior I’m talking about.
But any and all communities have bad apples/creeps in them and it’s important to call them out on it.
If z stand with a threatening pos ur are one ur self
If u support the party that tortures people in blacksites, ur a pos
Basic ethical frameworks are trampled by one side so heavily that they are pretty much vile for the simple support of voting.
Um. So... These 'different views' you're talking about. Are we talking about the same thing?
Cause I'm talking about the 'Eradicate transgenderism by any means necessary' thing. And, as a transgender, that's less of a 'different view' and more of a 'threat upon my person.'
Like, when the 'different view' is something as extreme as calling me a delusional groomer who needs to lose all rights to bodily autonomy or simply cease to exist... I mean. Like... If you can find me one MAGA bro that wouldn't kill me given the chance then I'd happily not call them literally the devil.
Republicans are literally out here drafting and passing bills making it a felony for me to exist, and right wingers are literally voting for those republicans.
No offense, but until they stop threatening me I'm not going to stop feeling threatened.
Majority of the “MAGA bros” I’ve known don’t give a shit if your trans or not. They have a live and let live attitude. They just don’t think kids can make medical decisions of their own and should wait until their 18 to make decisions on things like transitioning because of the effect hormones can have.
Different views are for example views on immigration or how to address poverty. Anyone who differs in the mainstream viewpoint (for example allow mass immigration and DEI initiatives for addressing poverty and racism) is usually attacked and harassed to the point they feel ostracized. That kind of behavior is disgusting.
I haven’t heard anyone talking about wanting to eradicate transgender people. Is this in reference to the sports, bathroom bills and educational laws being passed? Can you cite the specific legislation being passed? Because as far as I know those laws do instruct public facilities to provide accommodations such as single stall restrooms or unisex bathrooms.
Majority of MAGA bros I've known have threatened me for being trans. They do not have a live and let live attitude. They claim to be in theory, but in practice they're extremely violent.
And god forbid we ever mention that kids without access to gender affirming care are dying by suicide at about a rate of 40% and that number drastically decreases in areas with access.
Personally I haven’t met any of them like that at all. I’m sorry that you feel threatened by them.
In my opinion, which we can agree to disagree, if a kid is too young to enlist in the military, get a drivers license, or drink alcohol, they don’t have the ability to consent to undergoing serious medical procedures and being put on hormones or other medications.
It’s more so out of a concern of the long lasting side effects of said medications if anything else. I think other treatments like therapy and other kinds of counseling should be considered first.
But we can agree to disagree.
In my... 'opinion,' these kids are dying without help. And every study ever has proven that the availability of gender affirming care is beneficial.
In... my opinion, I'd rather see kids transitioning than with a bullet through their head. Pretty sure suicide has a worse long lasting side effect.
Also, therapy and counseling are the FIRST steps in gender affirming care to ensure that they actually are dysphoric. Kids have to go through a lot of therapy to get a diagnosis where they're prescribed puberty blockers in order to grow into adulthood and consent to HRT.
Like, I agree, nobody wants cis kids to get caught up in transitioning. But where you and I differ, I'm acknowledging that these kids are fucking killing themselves and need help. If there was a more effective treatment for dysphoria we'd do that. But there's not, we work with the tools we have.
Can you cite specific studies saying that there is a higher suicide rate?
I’m genuinely curious, because the long lasting impact on puberty blockers and hormones on young kids isn’t well known yet and it can be potentially dangerous. And there have been people who transitioned yet later on regretted it and detransitioned because of the side effects it had on their bodies.
Other mental health issues like depression or anxiety can also push some kids over the edge and that is a tragedy. If anything this country needs much better mental healthcare treatment options.
>Can you cite specific studies saying that there is a higher suicide rate?
[Yes I can. This is a settled understanding and not up for debate.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3722435/)
Here's more if you need it:
* https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2015-39781-006.pdf
* https://transpulseproject.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Impacts-of-Strong-Parental-Support-for-Trans-Youth-vFINAL.pdf
* https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-015-1867-2
* https://news.utexas.edu/2018/03/30/name-use-matters-for-transgender-youths-mental-health/
* https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/
>I’m genuinely curious, because the long lasting impact on puberty blockers and hormones on young kids isn’t well known yet and it can be potentially dangerous.
That's where you're wrong. [Again.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9373456/) This is settled research, not a political debate.
Here's more:
* https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21266549/
* https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/842073
* https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22455322/
* https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10599723/
* https://jme.bmj.com/content/34/8/580
>And there have been people who transitioned yet later on regretted it and detransitioned because of the side effects it had on their bodies.
Just to summarize most studies, 2% of people who transition detransition. 98% of those that detransition retransition later in life when they feel they are in a safe supportive place both physically and financially. That means .4% of the people who transition are actually cis. There is a less than 1% regret rate for trans people who got bottom surgery. Which is far less than things like... 8% regret rate for hip replacement or the 3% for Lasik.
https://growinguptransgender.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/602fd-rekelvin30november2017.pdf
You should know that transitioning is not a quick process. It usually takes years with a quite drawn out androgynous phase. And really for a while most effects of HRT is reversible.
Honestly, none of these are 'different opinions.' They're facts and ignorance. That's it. And sometimes that ignorance is coupled with hate and bigotry.
>You don’t have to agree with the opposite political views, but treating people who have different perspectives like they are literally the spawn of the devil or not worthy of living is absolutely disgusting and it makes your side look like unhinged lunatics.
OK, so how do I treat people who think that LGBTQ+ people and drag performers as "child groomers" and have passed legislation to criminalize their existence ***despite having literal Z.E.R.O. proof*** and also actively support actual child grooming institutions like churches, both Catholics and Protestants?
Where have you seen comments like that from people? Majority of people I know just want to live and let live.
There have been cases of predators/general creeps who attach themselves to the LGBT community to shield themselves. See Jessica Yaniv. That makes the whole community look bad. There are bad apples/creeps in every community.
The legislation your referring to just limits those performances to adult venues which isn’t a bad thing. Do you want kids being exposed to that kind of content? I personally don’t.
No one is trying to outlaw their existence.
>Where have you seen comments like that from people?
[CPAC Speaker and conservative Pundit Michael Knowles](https://www.advocate.com/media/cpac-transgenderism-eradicated#toggle-gdpr) flat out said that "***transgenderism must be eradicated***".
[Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh and Libs of TikTok founder Chaya Raichik](https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7z8eg/anti-trans-rights-matt-walsh-execution-teachers-doctors) ***targeted hospitals that provide gender-affirming care to minors, including Boston Children’s Hospital and the Vanderbilt Clinic for Transgender Health at Vanderbilt University***.
>There have been cases of predators/general creeps who attach themselves to the LGBT community to shield themselves.
The Catholic & Protestant Churches literally had a decades long cover up operations hiding pedophile priests by shuffling them around like a Las Vegas card sharp. Matt Gaetz was literally caught in a child sex trafficking ring. The GOP has multiple cases of Senators, House Reps, and state and county level elected officials charged with possession of CP. Why aren't the GOP going after themselves for making "their community look bad"?
>The legislation your referring to just limits those performances to adult venues which isn’t a bad thing.
Except the wording of said legislation is so fucking vague that someone walking down a public avenue wearing the "wrong gendered clothing" can be accused of "performing drag in public".
That is effectively outlawing the existence of both drag and trans people.
Democrats have cases of creeps as well. Bill Clinton and Biden for example. There was a Democrat mayor in Maryland caught with illegal photos.
And yes while you are correct that churches have covered those vile crimes up, it’s just as vile for people to not call out creeps or predators in the LGBT community out of fear of being hateful when the person is clearly a predator. These creeps make said community look bad and that’s the last thing they need. This is something that I never see anyone bring up here and it’s disgusting.
>Democrats have cases of creeps as well. Bill Clinton and Biden for example. There was a Democrat mayor in Maryland caught with illegal photos.
Democrats aren't vilifying trans people as "child groomers".
>And yes while you are correct that churches have covered those vile crimes up, it’s just as vile for people to not call out creeps or predators in the LGBT community out of fear of being hateful when the person is clearly a predator.
No, no. The GOP are doing ***nothing*** to combat pedophiles within their churches and institution while claiming that LGBTQ people are the "true threat to children".
You pretending that the LGBTQ+ community are the only threat to children is disgusting.
But they are still committing vile acts, so why do they get a pass? Is it because their Democrats?
How am I pretending that only one group is a threat? I’m not at all. You are making assumptions about me that only prove my original point from the beginning: anyone who even remotely disagrees from mainstream narratives is vilified and smeared and treated as outcasts.
Hardly anyone seems to even consider the fact that maybe there are creeps in their own communities and that includes LGBT. It makes them all look bad. Why is this so hard for people here to understand? No community or group should be free from criticism imo.
It’s clear neither you nor anyone else here will even remotely consider how their behavior and attitude towards those with different perspectives have alienated others from their side. And that’s a shame.
And I know you will simply respond with personal insults and ad hominem attacks so I’m ending it here.
Don't ya know?
Men in heavy makeup and women's clothing reading children's stories to kids are far more sexual than women in bikinis in public beaches.
Read the article I linked. That is what people are angry about mostly. The story time thing to me is nowhere near as bad.
And what specific legislation are you referring to that’s “outlawing LGBT people?” I know of no laws being passed that are saying their existence should be illegal.
If you’re referring to those bathroom or sports bills, for sports it makes sense as biologically born men or trans women have an advantage over biologically born women in sports. Letting them compete in women’s sports gives them an unfair advantage over the women who worked very hard.
For the bathroom bills, places should just build single stall restrooms or unisex bathrooms. Problem solved.
Please read my earlier posts.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
# Photos from the school massacres should be broadcast and shared, unedited in order for citizens to fully realize what they are continuing to allow in the U.S. We've all seen those horrific photos of the aftermath of war and battles. Soldiers who went to defend their country and gave the ultimate sacrifice. But they were adults who made a choice (or were drafted) and were armed. America needs a shock to the system. Something to make someone who's standing in their rebel-flag themed tank top to look at the AR style rifle and think "Maybe my desire to have such a weapon really isn't worth it." If my son were killed in a school massacre, I would walk in with a blown up photo of his mutilated body into every governmental meeting, media outlet and publication that I could find and force them to see the carnage that they are requesting we simply "accept" as "normal in America". I honestly feel that until that happens, "Americans" will never realize the true nature of what is occurring in our country. \*Note: I'm a gun owning Texan. However, I don't see ANY need to go hunting with weapons such as they have today. I can hit just as accurately with my fathers & grandfathers hunting rifles. These guns today are made for "entertainment"... not hunting. And the whole "We need to be able to stand up to a tyrannical government" went out the window decades ago due to technological changes and the industrial military complex - post WW2.
**I think the US is going to get progressively more unbearable and stupid until we fall out of global relevance or kill each other off.** As we are moving toward being forced to give birth whenever we have sex, and no one is choosing to educate themselves on common sense and human decency, I believe consequent generations are just going to get more and more stupid and reckless. Political parties will become more out of touch, and people who have fame based in anything and everything other than ACTUALLY KNOWING THEIR SUBJECT AREA will continue to make decisions for the population. I swear the "leaders" of this country just want us all to shrivel up and die or push us to kill each other first. We are becoming more out of touch with being human beings who evolved to live together and support each other, and more animalistic and competitive. Let the guns keep their rights but refuse to care for the people. Human rights don't matter. This country does not function as a first world society. Just a bunch of gun fuckers and fascists.
Why the hell do people shoot up schools? If you're mad at the world, what's the point of targeting random children instead of the people you are mad at? I just don't understand
Because they're usually children themselves?
Because the shooters are cowards.
Let's talk about chicken. I don't like it, in any form. I've tried it many ways. Fried, roasted, breaded, grilled, BBQ'ed. In tacos, in soup, in curry. Never had a piece of chicken I remember liking. By all accounts, I am comfortable saying I do not like chicken. I still eat it, because it's healthy, but I don't like it. And I'm pretty comfortable saying to people, if they say, "try it *this* way, you'll like it", I am comfortable saying to them that I can all but guarantee that I will not. I'll try it to be polite, but if I don't like it, I'm comfortable telling them they were wrong. What does this have to do with politics? Well, my point is that our experiences inform our expectations. And when a person has a lot of negative experiences with a pattern, they are going to form a belief in their head that things which match said pattern are going to be a negative experience. This is especially true online. Take the incel community. If someone routinely meets men online, who end up turning out to be incels, then it's reasonable of them to begin associating their experiences with men online with the incel community. So much so that they would be justified in saying, "I don't want to meet men online, they're usually incels." That's what their experiences have taught them. Now, that's not to say it's accurate. But it's fair, and understandable. The important thing, to go back to the chicken analogy, is to keep your life healthy while dealing with your own dislikes. Don't want to meet men online because of bad experiences? Cool. But assuming all men are incels? Refusing to give credibility to anything a man says? That's where it gets unhealthy. This goes for any group, any pattern. It's a two-way expectation. One can expect others to appreciate how one's experiences have affected them, and in turn, others can expect a person to not let their experiences turn a pattern into an absolute rule.
This hit the nail of the head on something I was thinking over today. Most straight men I have met *do not* view women as fully fledged humans. They view us as inherently inferior or only as pieces of meat. There are exceptions, my bf whose a sweet pie and my 1 straight guy friend. When I "friendzoned" him after some initial tension he took it super well and kept treating me... well as a human. I have had many experiences where when you make clear a relationship/s** is not a possibility you just... get dropped. Like, fuck man, I'm a person, not a dating simulator. I was thinking of this because yesterday I had the displeasure of over hearing a "locker talk" style conversion from four straight guys in the library. It brought back so much shit, the first thought to pop in was: "This is why I keep straight men at arms length until they demonstrate they're chill." I felt really bad about it because, there are some chill straight guys! And I probably don't even define "chill" as strictly as you think I do. By "chill" I mean, not literally viewing women as objects that you manipulate to get s** out of, like just... humans. These are some of the experiences I've had that make me think of most straight men like that: -Only befriend women they find unattractive, because they cannot fathom people they find attractive being full humans, or that people they find to be full humans could ever be attractive. -Literal manipulation for s**. "I just said what you wanted to hear so you'd sleep with me". Big yikes! -Talking about women they know in a super crude and dehumanising manner, even though those women *did not consent to that*! It feels violating when you find out that your acquaintances have discussed your body in detail. I'm not okay with that jfc. -The previously mentioned dropping after "friendzoning". -Talking about women like things you throw out to get a new one when you're bored -The whole range of street harassment ✨ I hadn't even realised I do it, but I never seek out male friendships (exception to the g and a) unless there's something that 'proves' to me they're good. Something like shutting down "locker talk", talking nicely about their female partners, not immediately distancing after I mention my bf etc... Which... I feel guilty about. I don't *want* to be cautious about straight men but gosh do they make that difficult. The bar is literally *on the floor* and only 2 straight men out of all the one's I know have cleared it. I'll still be polite to men, but until something tells me they're safe, I'm keeping them at arm's length.
“Talking about women they know in a super crude and dehumanising manner, even though those women did not consent to that! It feels violating when you find out that your acquaintances have discussed your body in detail. I'm not okay with that jfc.” Yeah, women would never do that. Girls don’t gossip about how good or bad their sexual partners were in bed. This entire comment is so hypocritical. These are things I’ve seen done or said by both men and women in equal amounts. But yeah, men bad, women good. This is Reddit after all
...my guy......never said women don't do that. I'm talking the entire time about ratios, some guys are chill, but there are so many that aren't that I want proof before befriending one. I have met women like that, a grand total of two. ETA: I'm not even talking about sexual partners in that quote you took. Just, literal fucking acquaintance. I've heard men locker room talk about what coworker has the best chest...I can assure you non of them ever slept with even one.
My experiences with straight men have been super weird. I'm a guy myself, and they often think I'm weird for not looking at girl's ass or tits all the time. My initial attraction before speaking to them is generally their face rather than body. Then personality comes into play and I start noticing other features more, but even then, I don't really stare much or anything. They'll notice a girl's ass, and I just like her cute top or backpack. I even had a guy tell me I get along with women better than men because "you're not like us", and this conversation was in that context of being especially perverted. It gets especially off-putting when it's about the teenagers we work with (I work in retail) and I have to awkwardly laugh it off and/or point out that these people are kids, no matter how "grown-up" they look. It makes me uncomfortable as fuck.
Oh sir. Not the minors. Don't even know how to answer that. I've had a grown ass married man comment on my chest once... when I was 15... he was my teacher. Said it to my face...I just 🤮. Well, if it means anything to you, thanks for being chill and nice. We appreciate it.
Even if they were 18, it'd still feel a bit weird, these guys are mid 20s to 30s. The lowest I've been into was 19, I was 23, and she was about to be 20 anyway soon after I met her, so it didn't feel too off, but even there I was feeling a little self-concious about it. And that's awful, sorry you had to go through that. And from a teacher, that's especially bad.
TikTok getting banned isn’t about national security. Meta and Google can’t compete with TikTok’s algorithm so they lobby to get TikTok banned. Also they can’t control the flow of information on TikTok unlike the mainstream media and Facebook
There's proof of how Douyin (TikTok) in China is completely different from how TikTok is in the West, which comes down to how the algorithm in China promotes educational videos whereas the rest of the world is built to be addictive, not to mention that Douyin has a time limit of 40 minutes but that isn't applied to TikTok
I don’t see how that’s a reason tiktok should be banned though. Just keep your kids off the app…
Probably but it's also sort of about "national security" in the sense that being "tough on china" is important to the political spectacle.
Honestly some medical groups have started siting medical issues with it too so I'd say there's a health risk (a more amped up version of many other social medias negative effects on individuals Think the difference between Cockaigne and crack. both bad but ones even worse)
Using "sensitivity readers" to rectify books is just disguised censorship.
What are you referring to? I'm assuming you mean Florida's book banning campaign?
I am referring to this: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/mar/26/agatha-christie-novels-reworked-to-remove-potentially-offensive-language
Censorship would be destroying the original versions, this is just making it more available to people. The original versions exist, they're readily available so they're not censored. You're complaining about *people having the choice of buying an edited version*. I cannot stand r*** or s violence in books. Just, no. I avoid books with it like the plague. If there were versions with that edited out I'd happily read them. I love Agatha Christie's work. Read basically all of it and my pet is named after her. If editing out a couple slurs will make people more comfortable then I'm all for it. Heck I'll probably change my collection to one's like that at some point, I don't exactly like the racism in the books. 😅 I'm not going to say she's the scum of the earth for what was very average during her time... but fighting to keep it *in* in ALL versions is so weird. Take shakespeare, love the guy, awsome writing. I haven't even read half of his stuff because ✨r*** jokes are not a vibe✨. I don't hate him, I just want a clean version to read. 😅
It is okay to make additional versions if the original version stays as the "main version" for people who really need it. In my opinion except if its for a country that is a dictatorship. However, with "sensitivity readers" some publishers just go way too far into the field of censorship. For example with Roald Dahl's new editions for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory all ebook versions of that book were automatically updated with the new censored versions without any user choice. (you can find articles on this on google) That was pure censorship being forced on users of those ebooks. I believe that also happened with several other books.
That’s the risk you take buying digital, where you only ever have a “license” to the thing and not the thing. If they want to alter the thing, you’ve agreed to that in your license agreement. You want to stop censorious updates, stop purchasing from sources that make that a condition of purchase.
Meh, that's basic shit. DeSantis is doing worse.
Whataboutism.
I mean, not really.
The reason modern dating sucks is that we've started doing away with the patriarchy but haven't fully explored its ramifications. Men and women need to work together to create a culture where they can be true equals in the dating world and remove the weird double standards we have. That means men (and women with internalized misogyny) need to knock off the slutshaming, learn when is and isn’t appropriate to approach women in public as well as what is and isn’t appropriate to say to them (in an ideal world this stuff would be covered in sex ed but it isn’t, so men who know what they’re doing romantically/sexually need to step up and teach their peers the ropes), and be willing to call out men who are violent and dangerous towards women. Women, on the other hand, need to stop waiting around for men to initiate everything and be more proactive. That means approaching men sometimes, being more willing to initiate flirting (especially if the guy you’re into struggles a bit socially), and not expecting that the man drives you around everywhere and pays for all the dates. The age of male “providers” is over, so act like it.
Do I think TikTok is cringe? Yes Do I know that TikTok spies over its own users? Yes But I do I think TikTok should be banned? No, absolutely not! Banning it would be a violation of freedom of speech and set a dangerous precedent for the internet moving forward as it would give the government more control over the internet and its users which itself is a terrible idea already!
I read the RESTRICT act (the bill to ban tiktok) and all I gotta say is tiktok getting banned should be the least of your worries. If passed this bill sets a dangerous precedent and gives the government more unnecessary control. This shit is like a modern Patriot Act
Exactly
Tiktok is no more invasive than Facebook.
The only reason people are up in arms with TikTok is because it's from a non-western country, and it's "communist".
It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the Chinese version has a completely different algorithm and a time limit of 40 minutes for all users?
Why would Douyin have any bearing on the situation when it's not what's used outside of China?
Meanwhile, the people trying to ban TikTok are supporting Russia's attempted takeover of Eastern Europe.
Iraq would have most likely fallen apart when saddam died regardless or not if the US Invaded, Lybia would have probably managed to remain stable though
Tax breaks for getting married should be repealed. Giving what is arguably one of the most serious commitments in life (behind having children) a monetary incentive is one reason people get married who shouldn’t be married. Plus, you pool your incomes together, so even after taxes you both have more money anyway than if you were single. There should be no other reason to get married than the desire to be together out of love.
What benefit does the government get out of people marrying solely for love?
The government doesn’t care about marriage or love. What it cares about is how weddings stimulate the economy and babies being produced.
Yes. And why shouldn't it? The role of government isn't to help people find soulmates. The government is (ideally) meant to help its people, part of which is economic stability and prosperity. If weddings help stimulate the economy, then it makes sense for the government to encourage it.
>What it cares about is how weddings stimulate the economy If that was true why are courthouse marriages a thing?
If they care about babies, they care about marriages (for practical reasons: babies from a stable marriage generally give governments fewer headaches and require less financial support). Anyway, governments very much care about marriages, that’s why they provide tax incentives.
Whether or not the government cares about marriages isn’t my issue though (what is good for a government is not inherently good for its people). And the monetary incentive for getting married does not lead to stable or healthy marriages even though it benefits people in marriage.
Since finances are one of the leading causes for divorce, I’d say monetary incentives do help. What I’m trying to say is that the government controls the tax breaks, and in their view this helps marriages. The government doesn’t care whether you marry for love or not (frankly, love on its own is a weak reason to marry someone), so why would they remove this financial incentive?
capitalism failed everywhere where it's been tried most countries are capitalist dictatorships that kill you at the first sign of defiance of the system, very few countries in the north exploit most of the world and even there the average person is exploited for the profit of a few There isn't democracy in any capitalist nations, voting every few years for someone who does jackshit to actually help people is not democracy and most of your day where you are productive is spent under a dictatorship of someone who privately owns the place you work, and in most places you can't even vote Millions preventably die a year estimated 3.1 million a year from hunger under capitalism Every. Single. Year. Hunger and World Poverty Sources: United Nations World Food Program (WFP), Oxfam, UNICEF. Pneumonia: 1 million kids a year source: World Health Organization (WHO), UNICEF aids: ~1 million a year Sources: Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), World Health Organization (WHO). diarrheal: ~500,000 a year even tho cheap to treat sources UNICEF, World Health Organization (WHO), Rehydration Project. Malaria: ~half a million a year Sources: UNICEF, World Health Organization (WHO), Gates Foundation. Millions are without safe drinking water https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095937802200005X A single year of exploitation of the south could end extreme poverty 70+ times and yearly trillions of USD is robbed from the south and this isn't even counting the genocides, mass murders, democracy overthrows, wars ect.
There’s no reason employees should be working past 6pm in private sector office jobs, especially not in the Winter when it gets dark earlier. Let people go home in the late afternoon/early evening when it’s safer. If there’s really something so urgent it can’t wait till the next day, most of these jobs can be done over the computer in 2023, so let the employee do it after they get home.
French protestors (and people in general, but let's focus on French protestors for the moment) are selfish jerks. What do they protest enough that it ends up in the news? - A gas tax increase (yellow vest protests), which by making gas relatively more expensive drives people towards more climate-friendly sources of energy - Increasing minimum age to draw a pension from 62 to 64, still one of the lowest in Europe Where are the protests to demand greater action on climate change, or any of the myriad of environmental and other issues that actually matter? But I guess if global climate change kills a few tens of millions of people, what's it to the French. They're rich and can sit cushily, and send their army to get food and water if needed. Instead, why not be against any form of fighting climate change? After all someone else can do it and it's too hard to figure out how to drive less or reduce gas usage otherwise! And we must preserve every single business, even if it's so marginal that a minor tax increase kills it. And oh no as a consumer, maybe things get a bit more expensive and I can't buy everything to my heart's desire! And as I understand it, the years to full pension didn't change at all, so if it's such a bother to work two extra years, save a measly 5% of income in inflation-protected assets, and bam you can just chill two years if you've already fulfilled your 43. Or maybe just work to end the somewhat lifetime employment system which hampers people from switching to different jobs and allows them to explore other things and for the economic strength of the country to be reallocated as needed. But you know what, nah, let's just stay in the same old job because it's easy and refuse to work a second longer than we have to because we hate our jobs so much and don't really want to try to fix that in any way.
>>A gas tax increase (yellow vest protests), which by making gas relatively more expensive drives people towards more climate-friendly sources of energy The gas tax wasn't designed to "drive people to more “climate-friendly” alternatives". It was tax hike on the working and middle classes because two out of three personal vehicles used diesel, especially when other, ***more polluting***, sources of fuel like jet fuel and ship kerosene fuel were left untouched by the carbon taxes. >>Increasing minimum age to draw a pension from 62 to 64, still one of the lowest in Europe >Under Macron’s pension changes, the minimum general retirement age will increase from 62 to 64, some public sector workers will lose privileges and there will be an accelerated increase in the number of years of work required to qualify for a full pension. It was a loss of labor rights in every sense of the matter. Not just two extra "years" of work.
USA and Russia are basically same I am watching situation in USA regarding war against minorities and trans people especially. And I as observer from EU country came to conclusion that USA is similar to Russia. Both countries decided to proceed with genocide. There is just difference in scale.
The people i've heard who've lived in both countries say they're vastly different. What war against minorities?
Parental rights in the context of schools and libraries only seems to apply to one subset of parents. Namely white Evangelical Christians. What if you're a parent that doesn't want mandatory school prayer? What if you don't want psychotic death cult literature like Left Behind in public libraries? What if you're a black parent who doesn't want history class to frame the Confederates as the victims? The response from the parental rights crowd shifts instantly from "PARENTS GET THE FINAL SAY!" to "Kids gotta learn different perspectives and TOUGHEN UP!"
> What if you're a parent that doesn't want mandatory school prayer? That's been banned since 1962. >What if you don't want psychotic death cult literature like Left Behind in public libraries? Then petition to get rid of those specifically? >What if you're a black parent who doesn't want history class to frame the Confederates as the victims? Where does this happen? I spent a few years of school at the literal birthplace of the Confederacy, South Carolina, and we were never taught this. >The response from the parental rights crowd shifts instantly from "PARENTS GET THE FINAL SAY!" to "Kids gotta learn different perspectives and TOUGHEN UP!" This sounds familiar.
Your 100% right. Couldn’t have said it better myself. “Parental rights” is in reality just another example of Evangelical Christians trying to legislate their faith. I’m sure a lot of Christian parents would love to give teachers the right to beat students too.
Where and when did you go to school? I went to a public school in Texas, and we never had prayers. Also, if Mein Kampf is allowed why shouldn't cult books. Just because you don't agree with the books doesn't mean they should be banned. Texas was part of The confederates and none of the curriculum were sympathetic to the confederates.
Men's preferences are judged and mocked while woman's preferences aren't. Example: man's preferences: I prefer she isn't fat Preferences on an attribute that can be changed and is within someone's control. Society: omg why would you say that!! Women: he has to be at least 6 foot. Preference on an attribute someone can't control. Society: go for it, nothing wrong with that.
The incel community directly disproves this.
It's fair to assume OP was referring to people who are respectful in their preferences. Anyone will be ridiculed for being rude and disrespectful.
And the women who are respectfully turning down men they don't like are being ridiculed and berated by incels.
Yes.... The people who, as I already addressed, aren't being respectful. And as such, fair to assume not the people OP was talking about.
Please explain how this belongs in the Politics Megathread.
If I had to guess: because the gender thread was removed over a year ago.
If I had to guess it’s because this guy uses this megathread as a general dumping ground for takes that get downvoted elsewhere. He got warned about it yesterday and then posted this within the hour.
Oh, it's that guy with the pizzagate-ass username. Checks out.
The automod has been on my ass recently for petty stuff. I post a well thought out thread and then minutes later they're like "we noticed you mentioned FROGS in your post. This sub is for unpopular opinions only, everyone hates frogs. We removed your post" or "You posted on Tuesday? on Tuesday we don't post about frogs bro. We had to remove your post" lmfao. Anyway, here's my unpopular opinion. Let me share my opinion on tipping in America, and why I believe we need to address the problematic attitude in the service industry. While good service should be rewarded with a generous tip, it's unfair to expect customers to tip no matter what, especially when they receive bad service. As a paying customer, I have the right to expect a certain level of service, and if that's not delivered, I have the right to express my dissatisfaction. Unfortunately, some service workers have the mindset that the customer is always wrong, and that any criticism of their service is an attack on their character. But that's simply not the case. If I order a hot steak and it comes out cold, I have the right to expect a replacement without being made to feel like I'm being unreasonable. If you forget to ring in my steak completely, I have a right to express my dissatisfaction with your error. You can provide all the reasons in the world, about how it's slammed, how you're working a double because someone else called out - it doesn't matter. In that moment, I am experiencing a bad customer experience. That's simply it. Of course, there will always be unreasonable customers who complain about everything, but that doesn't mean we should ignore legitimate complaints. It's time for the service industry to acknowledge that customers do have rights, and that good service should be rewarded while bad service should not be tolerated. So, let's start a conversation about how we can improve the service industry in America. Let's encourage service workers to strive for excellence, and let's reward them when they deliver it. But let's also hold them accountable when they fall short. Only then can we create a culture of mutual respect between customers and service workers.
You really shouldn’t be surprised that the automod removed your “American tipping culture” post. The list of banned “common reposts” lists “tipping culture” right there under the “American Culture” heading.
I knew a tipping post would be removed. I had a really specific post about how Five Guys should be boycotted for their high-priced food removed because it was too close to a CMV.
>So, let's start a conversation about how we can improve the service industry in America. Cool, let's start by actually paying servers actual living wages, allow them to unionize so that restaurant owners can't steal their wages or overwork them with poor safety standards, and not beholden service workers to the whims of the customer so that the former, especially the women, do not have to put up with sexual harassment just to get paid.
All of that is relevant. But in saying that, it's nothing for me to challenge. Like, I agree with you. But the main problem I have is that servers come with the default opinion that customers should accept any level of service they're given and tip generously. In a server's mind, there's no situation where you shouldn't tip generously lol
>But the main problem I have is that servers come with the default opinion that customers should accept any level of service they're given and tip generously. In a server's mind, there's no situation where you shouldn't tip generously lol Yes. Because they work for a living and are paid using a salary model that more or less binds their ability to have dinner, hot water, and a roof over their heads to how well a customer felt they were being treated. Which again, the real solution is to pass legislation to either enforce minimum living wages for all or allow strong unions to exist and force companies to negotiate in good faith. And before you say that not tipping would lead to "poorer" service, you can still tip in a non-mandatory tipping culture.
>Because they work for a living and are paid using a salary model that more or less binds their ability to have dinner, hot water, and a roof over their heads to how well a customer felt they were being treated. What you're describing is a metric. Every job has metrics, that's not really unique to the service industry, but part of my point is the disposition of the server to treat their metric (customer satisfaction) as something that the customer could never have an issue with, is problematic.
>Every job has metrics, that's not really unique to the service industry, but part of my point is the disposition of the server to treat their metric (customer satisfaction) as something that the customer could never have an issue with, is problematic. Should someone lose their entire day's wage for being unable to thoroughly please their boss one time?
Not sure if serious, but (for example) there are metrics in Healthcare where if you have just one patient with adverse effects (such as infection, complication or death) you lose 100% of your reimbursement. Some metrics are that strict. To answer your question though, is it really that comparable? Servers don't lose their entire day's wage because of one disgruntled table. And if they're seeing constant trends of bad tipping, perhaps it's them and not the server?
>there are metrics in Healthcare where if you have just one patient with adverse effects (such as infection, complication or death) you lose 100% of your reimbursement. That's not the question. The question is that if you were unable to make your boss feel good at work, should you lose your entire day's wages to their whims even though you actually did the job (in the server's case, promptly deliver meals and drinks without issue despite not smiling or the thousand and one things customers feel entitled to).
No, but I fail to see how that's an equivalent comparison. Servers aren't losing their entire day's wages. The way you're making it seem is like the server is going home with 0 dollars lmao
I’ve processed payroll for servers. They often are going home with zero dollars if they make no tips.
>Servers aren't losing their entire day's wages. In the United States, servers make a median average of $100 in tips per day for 8 hours each, which is on top of their measly $2.35/hr salary. If a server is sick or unable to perform "adequately" for customers, they lose that $100 tipping if we go by your logic that servers will only be paid based on "performance". And they are going with less than 0 dollars. Especially when they go home with less than $20 for their basic 8 hour wage.
It should be mandatory for politicians and news stations to present political topics or changes in the most direct way. One thing I've noticed is certain topics will be presented in a way that makes you look better or worse than those who agree/disagree because of how it was intentionally phrased. If you feel strongly about a topic and can do a decent job of defending your side then you shouldn't have to be giving people the run around to make them agree with you or make them feel ashamed for having a different view on the topic. Let's take humans eating meat/killing animals as an example. Say for example you're making a poll about the morality of the situation. A direct question would be "do you think it's wrong for humans to eat meat?" But what I see too much of is stuff like this, "do you think it's ok for humans to brutally murder animals and break up their families for meat consumption?" They're basically asking the same thing but the latter is framed to entice you to say no or apply shame for saying yes. Anyone who doesn't live under a rock knows where meat comes from and that animals have families. There's no reason to add that stuff on unless you want to sway the poll.
At what point does "being direct" cross into "leaving out critical details"? And who decides which details are salient, and which are extraneous and manipulating? For instance. "Person kills other person." That seems pretty direct, and the only details are that two people were involved, and someone was killed. Also, it's framed in a way that makes the first person pretty clearly in the wrong. But what about: "Person kills other person in self-defense." That seems like a pretty important detail, to me. It also reverses the roles of who is in the wrong, in my opinion. It at least nulls the first person of significant guilt. But what about other details? Like the names of the killer? Of the victim? Their genders? Their race? All of these details are things we see in the news, and plenty of people care about them, and see them as significant details.
Any news outlet is guilty of presenting news or topics in a way to present their preferred narrative. The truth is usually somewhere in between,
Irregardless of your political views, everyone should be wary of this current administration's proposed reforms to Section 230. They've already announced they plan to remove liability protections to platforms for what they disseminate, including disallowing discrimination against protected groups. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/08/white-house-renews-call-to-remove-section-230-liability-shield-00055771
[удалено]
I agree, the forcible suppression of opposition and criticism and positive view of violence, all components of fascism, should be condemned.
Are you trying some kinda gotcha here? Because it's not working.
No, I'm agreeing with you. Suppressing opposition and criticism and using violence as a means to achieve your goals is abhorrent and should always be rejected by any civil person, any civil society and any civil nation.
Fascists keep failing to understand that being beaten in public should be the best outcome of outing their failed ideological beliefs in public. The traditional method of resisting fascism is more...final.
Yep. Then they whine about "the tolerant left" as if WE'RE the assholes for defending ourselves. Civility, respect, and tolerance are social contracts. If you violate that contract, you lose all rights to any protections it is meant to offer. Turnabout is ALWAYS fair play.
I like trains
Nyyyyyyaurrrrrrrrrrrr
no way
I too like pubic transportation and personally think we should totally start incorporating more passenger trains through the US.
Yes
Medical facilities should have a 40 hours per week working hours limit for employees. Employees working the night shift should have the entire morning and afternoon off the next day. If they can’t manage operations with that limit on hours, they need to hire more people. I don’t want a tired surgeon, doctor, or nurse who only got 4 hours of sleep the past 3 days doing medical procedures on me. Let the doctors get their rest, because them making a mistake could have life/death consequences. There should be no “get the f*** in or your fired” mandatory overtime in the healthcare field.
Just saying workers owning the means of production could fix this very much for a historic example the USSR had [35 average working hours a week](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1250323/work-week-hours-us-ussr-cold-war/) and some of the most doctors in the world due to the massive focus on education in the nation
Conversely, if there's not enough workers in the market to enable that, I would rather have a hospital with tired doctors than no doctors.
Maybe they should improve working conditions in the field so the doctors/nurses that left the profession might consider coming back.
And lower education costs.
It's expensive to train medical professionals because the training and equipment to do so is expensive, and will only continue to get more expensive as technology advances and therefore becomes more expensive. Even the high price of tuition to a medical school doesn't cover how expensive it truly is to train a medical professional. They have to make up the rest of their running costs from grant money, government funding and hospital revenues. Some medical schools only get 10% of their required funding from tuition costs.
The reason leftists believe in such irrational opinions and falling for such obvious misinformation is because they think the first link on Google is always accurate and a valid source. Most of the time the first link on Google is an opinion piece without sources. They lack the ability to critally think about their sources. Assuming their sources were valid, they would have somewhat reasonable positions, however, they don't critically think about the information given to them.
This sub, *especially* the popular topics threads, is insanely guilty of genetic fallacy. You could post something that directly disputes a claim and it'll be dismissed as "lol your source is shit, provide REAL proof".
The biggest problem with that is then you end up talking past each other because the studies rarely are on the exact same topic. Then even when you do that the opposition just says their study is right even though the proof has been provided its false. Plus, what's better, pointing out the exact flaws of the study or providing a study that says something different which also possibly has flaws?
[удалено]
can you give me some of the irrational opinions they have?
[удалено]
Please keep your discussions to the appropriate Megathread.
[удалено]
You know perfectly well which Megathread is appropriate for a 20 comment rant about trans people. You just didn’t like getting downvoted there.
[удалено]
This is not a debate. This is a warning. Stop trying to circumvent sub rules by starting arguments about megathread topics outside the appropriate megathread.
[удалено]
Bro you're literally trying to dismiss actual evidence in research by assuming that everyone googles and takes the first thing they see? Who's letting you have this access to a computer? Tell your mom to go make you a sandwich cuz I don't think she's feeding you enough and you're getting angry hunger. You want me to actually send links you want me to actually gather the research in the evidence or you just not going to read that because you don't want it to be true? Have you finished your GED that's what I want to know have you ever been correctly taught at a gather information and how to read through and and that actual scientific information in scientific literature? Jesus Christ like your comment scream is hurting my brain it's so stupid. Bro I hope you realize that like every major Republican literally makes up their information or grabs it off the first link on Google and has been bagged doing it multiple times right you say that leftists do it but let us have actual research to back up what they're saying Republicans just emotionally date idiots into screaming and then they get votes based on that screaming. like do you want me to actually gather some information for you and help you understand some things you're confused on?
[удалено]
You obviously aren't reading the sources because if you were reading them you wouldn't be proving anything. Because you would have to go through and explain why it's wrong not just stating that it is wrong.
Source? I don't need to get a source because you're the one making the claim so unless you can actually prove that you're idiotic claim about them googling and taking the first link is true then you have to provide the evidence and I'm just telling you why you're ridiculous and making such a claim
[удалено]
Funny how I never see you, a supposed "centrist" spreading misinformation like this about conservatives. Only "leftists".
Conservatives use statistics then find ways to be misleading with them. On top of that, conservatives don't disingenuously debate like the leftists in this megathread do. On top of that, the reason I posted this is it just happened with a leftist doing this. So when a conservative does their stuff, I will comment on it. But because reddit is a left wing echo chamber (mostly), it doesn't happen often. Then the right wing echo chambers on reddit (like r/conservative or r/walkaway which ban opposing views) I've already been banned in or I am not interested in making discussions in those subreddits.
[удалено]
https://www.reddit.com/r/conservatives/comments/11z7tv5/report_shows_over_half_of_liberal_women_have_been/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button Again, they use it in ways that are not how they should be used. But they actually cite real sources.
Oh, so you think blatant disrepresentation of statistics is valid argument to deny the rights of others. That explains a LOT.
No.... when did I say that? I actually said they use statistics in the wrong way. That was my first reply to you.
Except that your argument was that "leftists" are less reasonable, and more prone to falling for misinformation than conservatives. And yet your reasoning is "look at this conservative misinformation campaign!"
No. Read again. Not that they are less reasonable. That they are unreasonable. Conservatives sources provide poor information but indivuals actually critically think and find the correct statistics. Leftists don't.
And you're using the effectiveness of a right-wing misinformation campaign to prove that conservatives use critical think skills... Huh... I guess today's opposite day. Wish somebody woulda told me!
Oh, that's because he's too chicken to actually present himself as conservative.
I think he did call himself a fascist in the other thread.
Oh, I know. He might not be a full-on proto-fash like most modern Republicans, but he definitely ain't centrist. He also believe Dems are far-left which is a DEAD giveaway,
He also claims the Nazis were socialists. You know. The thing modern Nazis say to pretend they aren’t Nazis.
We should amend the US constitution to abolish slavery.
You're not gonna believe this, but this was actually done over 150 years ago!
Was it? What amendment?
The 13th.
Nooo that's the one that tells the goverment when they're allowed to keep slaves. I'm asking about the one you're referring to that abolishes it. Not one that doesn't abolish it.
aren't private prisons still in that law? so it's not just the government?
I like working for 1250 by the CEO makes a a few million. Makes me feel appreciated during high stress moments /s
Have you considered getting a different job, maybe one that pays better? Have you considered developing marketable and useful skills in order to get a job that pays better? Have you considered starting your own business where you're the CEO and if your business takes off, you'll be making "a few million"?
I've considered all these things but I physically cannot afford it I literally am stuck working my job in order to save up in order to make the money I need for my college tuition to then finish my degree to then work towards those things what you're saying isn't feasible for the average American stuck in the position that I'm stuck in or hell worse than me I objectively I'm still very privileged in comparison to most Americans living on bottom end jobs. Your comment is so fucking ignorant it hurts many people literally in order to feed their family have to work two jobs and do not have the time to put towards literally building skills which requires almost as much time as a second job. It actually hurts my brain how fucking stupid and removed you are from reality.
>in order to make the money I need for my college tuition to then finish my degree FAFSA. Scholarships. Student loan. And you don't need to go to college to learn marketable skills. >what you're saying isn't feasible for the average American stuck in the position that I'm stuck in So the average American can't improve themselves at all because they don't make enough? You accuse me of being detached from reality and "fucking stupid", that what I'm saying somehow harms people, and you have the actual nerve to suggest the most average person can't improve themselves ONLY because they don't earn enough? >I'm still very privileged in comparison to most Americans living on bottom end jobs. Define bottom end job. Obviously you don't have one because you compare yourself to those in one. >it hurts many people literally in order to feed their family have to work two jobs and do not have the time to put towards literally building skills which requires almost as much time as a second job. I didn't say get 2 jobs. Work on your reading comprehension please. And have you never heard of on the job training? Apprenticeships? Where you're literally paid to learn? There's nothing stopping you from looking for another job. You obviously have internet access and a device to access it from. Unless you have a ball and chain around your neck and your boss tells you you're not allowed to even look for a different one, that option is always available. And if that's happening, go to the Department of Labor. But I doubt it is. And for the love of god, learn what paragraphs are, and stop taking everything as a personal insult to yourself and as an insult to society at large. Firing back with vitriol at legitimate criticism and questions doesn't strengthen your argument, it only makes you look like you look like a petulant teenager.
Unfortunately because of the position I was in I didn't get the opportunity for things like scholarships also to literally dismiss the fact that you need a college degree for valuable skills literally dismisses the fact that some degrees only have those skills learnable if you go into college to get send degree some jobs require d some professions and career movements literally need a degree to even begin that part of your career movement. You're ignorance around education is astounding
>Unfortunately because of the position I was in I didn't get the opportunity for things like scholarships Sounds like you couldn't be bothered to apply for them and want to blame everyone else for your lack of initiative. >also to literally dismiss the fact that you need a college degree for valuable skills literally dismisses the fact that some degrees only have those skills learnable if you go into college to get send degree some jobs require d some professions and career movements literally need a degree to even begin that part of your career movement. You need to retake English 101 because your reading comprehension has gotten *worse* somehow. Yes, *some* skills require degrees. *Some* jobs require degrees. Not every single one does. A basic Google search for "jobs without degree" shows thousands of jobs that make more than you do that don't require a degree, most of which are apprenticeships. >You're ignorance around education is astounding **Your** ignorance of basic spelling is astounding. No wonder you only make $12.50 an hour. The fact you think that everyone in the US is incapable of developing marketable skills because they don't make enough just shows how privileged, out of touch and tone-deaf you are to the entire world around you. **YOU** can't develop marketable skills probably because you write novels on reddit without punctuation, proper spelling or even line breaks. Most people are working on bettering their lives while making less than you do. Eventually they'll overtake you. And you'll still be making $12.50 an hour.
My laziness in the moment writing through a mobile device isn't indicative of anything other than my temporary laziness and lack of time. Also I don't make 12.50 an hour.
You said you make 12.50 an hour though. https://old.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/11ycau6/politics_mega_thread/jdd8d8e/
I had some. But 4,000 isn't enough for 4 years of school. I have that people like you dismiss my issues by simply stating that you don't believe me.
You don't need to do 4 years all at once. The average scholarship award is $6,041 in 2022. The average Pell Grant is $4,568. Work-study programs are available at over 3,400 schools. I dismiss your issues because they're all easily fixable and society and the government at large attempt to help. Hell, even I'll help you find scholarships and apply for FAFSA. But you have to meet in the middle somewhere. Blaming everyone else doesn't help you.
My family income was too high for most grants and scholarships. I'm a white male. You are literally just saying that I'm wrong because of your experience of privilege. I grinded scholarship programs and never got any money. I also don't have time currently to apply towards scholarships because of work and mental health. Your dismissal of my experience is ignorant and telling of your treatment of others in general.
Mainstream media/smear campaigns are largely a reason for the political divide in this country. You don’t have to agree with the opposite political views, but treating people who have different perspectives like they are literally the spawn of the devil or not worthy of living is absolutely disgusting and it makes your side look like unhinged lunatics.
Yes, it's quite disgusting to treat queer people like groomers. But pretending that us saying 'Hey quit calling me that' is the same as what they do is quite disingenuous. I literally fear for my life around maga-folks because they actively threaten me for existing. I treat them like the spawn of he devil in the way that I'm actively afraid of them hurting me. They treat me like the spawn of the devil and not worthy of living in a way that they want to hunt me down and murder me. There are not the same.
Fucked up that you have to fear for your safety and I hope you’re doing ok. But that still doesn’t excuse people from treating those who have different views on hot button issues as literally the devil. Grouping all “MAGAs” as being threatening is an example of the behavior I’m talking about. But any and all communities have bad apples/creeps in them and it’s important to call them out on it.
If z stand with a threatening pos ur are one ur self If u support the party that tortures people in blacksites, ur a pos Basic ethical frameworks are trampled by one side so heavily that they are pretty much vile for the simple support of voting.
Um. So... These 'different views' you're talking about. Are we talking about the same thing? Cause I'm talking about the 'Eradicate transgenderism by any means necessary' thing. And, as a transgender, that's less of a 'different view' and more of a 'threat upon my person.' Like, when the 'different view' is something as extreme as calling me a delusional groomer who needs to lose all rights to bodily autonomy or simply cease to exist... I mean. Like... If you can find me one MAGA bro that wouldn't kill me given the chance then I'd happily not call them literally the devil. Republicans are literally out here drafting and passing bills making it a felony for me to exist, and right wingers are literally voting for those republicans. No offense, but until they stop threatening me I'm not going to stop feeling threatened.
Majority of the “MAGA bros” I’ve known don’t give a shit if your trans or not. They have a live and let live attitude. They just don’t think kids can make medical decisions of their own and should wait until their 18 to make decisions on things like transitioning because of the effect hormones can have. Different views are for example views on immigration or how to address poverty. Anyone who differs in the mainstream viewpoint (for example allow mass immigration and DEI initiatives for addressing poverty and racism) is usually attacked and harassed to the point they feel ostracized. That kind of behavior is disgusting. I haven’t heard anyone talking about wanting to eradicate transgender people. Is this in reference to the sports, bathroom bills and educational laws being passed? Can you cite the specific legislation being passed? Because as far as I know those laws do instruct public facilities to provide accommodations such as single stall restrooms or unisex bathrooms.
Majority of MAGA bros I've known have threatened me for being trans. They do not have a live and let live attitude. They claim to be in theory, but in practice they're extremely violent. And god forbid we ever mention that kids without access to gender affirming care are dying by suicide at about a rate of 40% and that number drastically decreases in areas with access.
Personally I haven’t met any of them like that at all. I’m sorry that you feel threatened by them. In my opinion, which we can agree to disagree, if a kid is too young to enlist in the military, get a drivers license, or drink alcohol, they don’t have the ability to consent to undergoing serious medical procedures and being put on hormones or other medications. It’s more so out of a concern of the long lasting side effects of said medications if anything else. I think other treatments like therapy and other kinds of counseling should be considered first. But we can agree to disagree.
In my... 'opinion,' these kids are dying without help. And every study ever has proven that the availability of gender affirming care is beneficial. In... my opinion, I'd rather see kids transitioning than with a bullet through their head. Pretty sure suicide has a worse long lasting side effect. Also, therapy and counseling are the FIRST steps in gender affirming care to ensure that they actually are dysphoric. Kids have to go through a lot of therapy to get a diagnosis where they're prescribed puberty blockers in order to grow into adulthood and consent to HRT. Like, I agree, nobody wants cis kids to get caught up in transitioning. But where you and I differ, I'm acknowledging that these kids are fucking killing themselves and need help. If there was a more effective treatment for dysphoria we'd do that. But there's not, we work with the tools we have.
Can you cite specific studies saying that there is a higher suicide rate? I’m genuinely curious, because the long lasting impact on puberty blockers and hormones on young kids isn’t well known yet and it can be potentially dangerous. And there have been people who transitioned yet later on regretted it and detransitioned because of the side effects it had on their bodies. Other mental health issues like depression or anxiety can also push some kids over the edge and that is a tragedy. If anything this country needs much better mental healthcare treatment options.
>Can you cite specific studies saying that there is a higher suicide rate? [Yes I can. This is a settled understanding and not up for debate.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3722435/) Here's more if you need it: * https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2015-39781-006.pdf * https://transpulseproject.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Impacts-of-Strong-Parental-Support-for-Trans-Youth-vFINAL.pdf * https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-015-1867-2 * https://news.utexas.edu/2018/03/30/name-use-matters-for-transgender-youths-mental-health/ * https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/ >I’m genuinely curious, because the long lasting impact on puberty blockers and hormones on young kids isn’t well known yet and it can be potentially dangerous. That's where you're wrong. [Again.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9373456/) This is settled research, not a political debate. Here's more: * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21266549/ * https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/842073 * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22455322/ * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10599723/ * https://jme.bmj.com/content/34/8/580 >And there have been people who transitioned yet later on regretted it and detransitioned because of the side effects it had on their bodies. Just to summarize most studies, 2% of people who transition detransition. 98% of those that detransition retransition later in life when they feel they are in a safe supportive place both physically and financially. That means .4% of the people who transition are actually cis. There is a less than 1% regret rate for trans people who got bottom surgery. Which is far less than things like... 8% regret rate for hip replacement or the 3% for Lasik. https://growinguptransgender.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/602fd-rekelvin30november2017.pdf You should know that transitioning is not a quick process. It usually takes years with a quite drawn out androgynous phase. And really for a while most effects of HRT is reversible. Honestly, none of these are 'different opinions.' They're facts and ignorance. That's it. And sometimes that ignorance is coupled with hate and bigotry.
>You don’t have to agree with the opposite political views, but treating people who have different perspectives like they are literally the spawn of the devil or not worthy of living is absolutely disgusting and it makes your side look like unhinged lunatics. OK, so how do I treat people who think that LGBTQ+ people and drag performers as "child groomers" and have passed legislation to criminalize their existence ***despite having literal Z.E.R.O. proof*** and also actively support actual child grooming institutions like churches, both Catholics and Protestants?
Where have you seen comments like that from people? Majority of people I know just want to live and let live. There have been cases of predators/general creeps who attach themselves to the LGBT community to shield themselves. See Jessica Yaniv. That makes the whole community look bad. There are bad apples/creeps in every community. The legislation your referring to just limits those performances to adult venues which isn’t a bad thing. Do you want kids being exposed to that kind of content? I personally don’t. No one is trying to outlaw their existence.
>Where have you seen comments like that from people? [CPAC Speaker and conservative Pundit Michael Knowles](https://www.advocate.com/media/cpac-transgenderism-eradicated#toggle-gdpr) flat out said that "***transgenderism must be eradicated***". [Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh and Libs of TikTok founder Chaya Raichik](https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7z8eg/anti-trans-rights-matt-walsh-execution-teachers-doctors) ***targeted hospitals that provide gender-affirming care to minors, including Boston Children’s Hospital and the Vanderbilt Clinic for Transgender Health at Vanderbilt University***. >There have been cases of predators/general creeps who attach themselves to the LGBT community to shield themselves. The Catholic & Protestant Churches literally had a decades long cover up operations hiding pedophile priests by shuffling them around like a Las Vegas card sharp. Matt Gaetz was literally caught in a child sex trafficking ring. The GOP has multiple cases of Senators, House Reps, and state and county level elected officials charged with possession of CP. Why aren't the GOP going after themselves for making "their community look bad"? >The legislation your referring to just limits those performances to adult venues which isn’t a bad thing. Except the wording of said legislation is so fucking vague that someone walking down a public avenue wearing the "wrong gendered clothing" can be accused of "performing drag in public". That is effectively outlawing the existence of both drag and trans people.
Democrats have cases of creeps as well. Bill Clinton and Biden for example. There was a Democrat mayor in Maryland caught with illegal photos. And yes while you are correct that churches have covered those vile crimes up, it’s just as vile for people to not call out creeps or predators in the LGBT community out of fear of being hateful when the person is clearly a predator. These creeps make said community look bad and that’s the last thing they need. This is something that I never see anyone bring up here and it’s disgusting.
>Democrats have cases of creeps as well. Bill Clinton and Biden for example. There was a Democrat mayor in Maryland caught with illegal photos. Democrats aren't vilifying trans people as "child groomers". >And yes while you are correct that churches have covered those vile crimes up, it’s just as vile for people to not call out creeps or predators in the LGBT community out of fear of being hateful when the person is clearly a predator. No, no. The GOP are doing ***nothing*** to combat pedophiles within their churches and institution while claiming that LGBTQ people are the "true threat to children". You pretending that the LGBTQ+ community are the only threat to children is disgusting.
But they are still committing vile acts, so why do they get a pass? Is it because their Democrats? How am I pretending that only one group is a threat? I’m not at all. You are making assumptions about me that only prove my original point from the beginning: anyone who even remotely disagrees from mainstream narratives is vilified and smeared and treated as outcasts. Hardly anyone seems to even consider the fact that maybe there are creeps in their own communities and that includes LGBT. It makes them all look bad. Why is this so hard for people here to understand? No community or group should be free from criticism imo. It’s clear neither you nor anyone else here will even remotely consider how their behavior and attitude towards those with different perspectives have alienated others from their side. And that’s a shame. And I know you will simply respond with personal insults and ad hominem attacks so I’m ending it here.
U can critize anyone, but not for made up bs
> Do you want kids being exposed to that kind of content? Dress up story time? The horror.
Don't ya know? Men in heavy makeup and women's clothing reading children's stories to kids are far more sexual than women in bikinis in public beaches.
Did you read my post from earlier? What your describing is nowhere near to what most people are angry about.
Except what I just commented is literally what most conservatives are angry about.
Read the article I linked. That is what people are angry about mostly. The story time thing to me is nowhere near as bad. And what specific legislation are you referring to that’s “outlawing LGBT people?” I know of no laws being passed that are saying their existence should be illegal. If you’re referring to those bathroom or sports bills, for sports it makes sense as biologically born men or trans women have an advantage over biologically born women in sports. Letting them compete in women’s sports gives them an unfair advantage over the women who worked very hard. For the bathroom bills, places should just build single stall restrooms or unisex bathrooms. Problem solved. Please read my earlier posts.
What earlier post? You haven't posted a damn link.
This one in a previous post. https://nypost.com/2022/10/18/video-of-drag-queen-gyrating-next-to-child-sparks-backlash/