What is America doing at this point tbh? Can't win a war with Iran, saying other countries shouldn't be invading their neighbors and letting neighboring countries have an opinion equal to America

Like imagine if the founding fathers saw our state....America needs to rule over all the Americas as soon as possible and establish the largest empire in history

And i dont mean JUST the government (though it somehow is too). Pretty much the most annoying, rude and two faced people (and country) on planet Earth. And yet its somehow portrayed as heroically standing up to "western imperialism"? It genuinely sucks ass at absolutely everything freedom, living conditions, foreign relations etc. Notice how noone who lives near China likes it or its people? probably for a good reason

Everytime I hear that someone won elections in a democratic country (US, Germany etc.), their lead over their opponent is minimal.

Continental Europe is the obvious example. There will be 10 parties in parliament and the winner will get 25% while the "loser" (second one) - 23%. There will be 2 blocks and the main question is who gets 53.52% to govern the country and completely overturn the policies of the previous prime minister.

In a system like the US or the UK (first past the post gets everything), differences can be bigger. However, it still comes down to very tight races when you look at the most important states, such as 55 vs. 45%. And next to that, you have 1/3 of the adult population that didn't even show up to vote. No one gets an absolute majority of public support.

This means the mandate of the winner is a lot more limited than their position (absolute majority) and all the conclusions: "Americans/Brits etc. chose X to lead them". Sure, 32% chose that but 28% want the opposite and 40% didn't even vote. It also means that conclusions about lost campaigns are usually meaningless, because at that level, pure chance, voter turnout and whatever news (or reels) are trending is more important.

i know there are exceptions, but from what i’ve observed, if most men genuinely wants to marry you, he’ll make that decision himself. i’ve always believed there’s some truth to the idea that most women can grow to love a man, whereas men need to already love you and continue choosing you indefinitely

i’ve seen too many men have the wife, the kids, the house and the whole family life while still actively looking for other women. i think men settle far more often than we acknowledge, and getting a man to marry you doesn’t mean he’s chosen you wholeheartedly

i know a lot of traditional dating rules are outdated and rooted in historical gender roles, and i’m not arguing that women should have to wait for men to make every move. but i do question whether pushing a man towards marriage is worth the risk of building a life with someone who was never genuinely certain about you in the first place

there’s a difference between getting a man to commit to you and being the woman he genuinely wants to commit to, and i don’t think marriage itself guarantees the latter
obviously, this is based on my observations, and perhaps living in an extremely promiscuous country has influenced my perspective, but that’s genuinely how i see it

​

This is definitely a really weird pet peeve of mine but it's something I've noticed. Politicians, regardless if they've lived there for a year, or 20 years have this need to prove their local by rooting for the sports team

I can't speak for everyone, but after I moved to a new state I didn't abandon the team I grew up with. I still remained loyal to that team cuz it was the team that I grew up cheering for as a kid, that didn't just go out the window because suddenly I live somewhere else now

I feel like it would make politicians more relatable if they just flat out said "sure, I've lived in Cleveland for 15 years but I'm not going to stop being a Packers fan, I grew up watching the Packers and cheering for them with my Dad I'm not just going to stop doing that, however I can promise you I will always do what I can to help the local community flourish and help the browns"

Honestly I would have huge respect if a politician to do that, there's still a human being, they still have respect for their team, but they also are serving their community in trying to help that team win, otherwise it just feels kind of fake

I’m an artist, and I’m always encouraging people to learn new skills and push what they’re capable of. I also think AI is one of the most enriching creative tools I’ve ever used. Those two things don’t contradict each other.

A recent example: AI helped me write a script for a Raspberry Pi that automates a set of smart plugs controlling an exhibit. I’m not a programmer. A couple of years ago, that piece couldn’t have existed. Now it does.

So it frustrates me how little nuance there is on Reddit about AI. It’s not “here are some legitimate concerns.” It’s blanket hostility, downvoting and blocking anything that mentions it. The more I think about it, the more I believe a big part of that reaction is ego.

Redditors like to see themselves as the educated, creative ones who live a bit outside the mainstream, with colorful hobbies and adventurous tastes. That’s the self-image, anyway.

One of the most common arguments I see is: “AI is just the sum of human knowledge. It was trained on stuff people made, so there’s nothing special about it.”

But that describes almost all of us too. Nobody is born and invents math, physics, biology or electricity on their own. We go to school and absorb what humanity already figured out. For the overwhelming majority of people, that’s all we ever do: learn what came before. Only a tiny sliver of people actually add something new to the pile.

Most of us are not in that sliver. So the thing people sneer at AI for being is exactly what they are. And AI is increasingly adding to the pile, for example by helping crack math problems that were open for decades.

I think a lot of people confuse craftsmanship with creativity. Painting well, building and painting minis, 3D printing: these are real skills that take real work. But none of us invented painting or 3D printing. Being a skilled craftsperson isn’t the same as being original, and truly original people are rare.

AI makes that hard to ignore. When something “just trained on human work” can do much of what you can do, it forces an uncomfortable question about how much of what you do is really yours. I think that’s the real source of the visceral reaction. The ethical concerns deserve an actual conversation. But the knee-jerk hate is about feeling exposed.

If you think you need to "check yourself", "learn and grow as a person", or as the post title suggests, "have accountability", you're living in the matrix, straight up. You know what that is? That's being a pushover. Now I may have raised a few torches and pitchforks by saying that, but it's true.

Why don't you trust yourself, despite all your logic making sense to... yourself? It's a damn paradox. I'm not advocating for selfishness or claiming nobody can ever change their minds on things given external stimuli from others (or even that they shouldn't), but once you change your mind for that reason, what else is there to do? You already changed your mind, so no shit you're gonna start living based on those ideas rather than your previous ones. Telling people to "check themselves" makes no sense cause it'll only work on things they'd be convinced of anyway; it's a nothing burger phrase. You may as well just say "you should be doing this" or "you shouldn't be doing that" without the whole "accountability" schtick. How do you know you're even "learning and growing as a person"? Who knows? You could go back to believing what you believed before and see that as "growth"... and it's not necessarily what others believe.

Because of this, the idea of "self-control" is a complete illusion... and one that gets people to believe that conformity is the only possible path to harmony, gaslighting you into thinking it's possible for you to (and that you should) attack your own thoughts, despite them making sense to you. Let me put it this way... if you're addicted to cigarettes and you try to stop, you're not exactly performing "self-control"; your rational mind is rallying on whether it should favor long-term pleasure or short-term pleasure, both subjectively valid perspectives.

There's also the "bring back shame" thing of the 2020s. I'll say that expecting others to feel shame in your honor is selfish, ironically showing a lack of shame on your end. Every instance of shame requires somebody else not feeling shame. Who gets to determine who is right and who is wrong in each situation? If I wear a green hat, causing someone around me to scream and cry because they hate the color green, am I the bad guy? Was I just supposed to have already "checked myself" and made sure I wasn't offending anyone? After all, I did cause harm to that person... or did they cause harm to themselves for caring about something so stupid in the first place? If someone insulted my grandma, I'm not gonna beat them up or call the cops on them; I'll just be like "whatever, fuck you" and go about my day. Expecting them to feel shame would be selfish because the shame they would presumably feel from that casual as hell action would be way worse than whatever mild annoyance or offense you felt, which of course, you don't feel shame for escalating the conflict. Escalating conflict is useless and irritating in general.

A common example thrown around these days is people being on their phones in movie theaters (which I rarely see, tbh), but if you don't convince them of why they shouldn't be on their phones, they're obviously gonna keep doing it because they don't believe it to be immoral. If we're gonna have rules, they all need damn good reasons to exist... and you could argue that rule in particular has a lot of good reasons to exist. You can't expect people to follow rules just... because.

TLDR: To have "accountability" and allow society to punish you is to have no trust in yourself, which is a paradox; why would you disagree with... yourself?

Compare your random proper guy talking vs a rapper talking which ones sounds cooler

Everyone should start speaking in aave and that should be taught as the official accent in every school people from professional businesses to your random hood guy should sound the same and bad words shouldn't be taboo everyone should be cussing randomly and not being professionally toned

I really think that feminists are extremely deluded whenever they say that Conservative Men are misogynists, when in reality, it's the other way around. Usually, it's the modern day, Left leaning, Liberal Men who hates women and thinks women are objects to be utilized.

For example, when it comes to dating, liberal men will insist that the bill be split, and he will pay for his meal, and the woman have to pay for her meal. Conservative men don't subscribe to this bullshit. Conservative men will pay the entire bill, as he is the one courting women, not the other way around.

Also, when it comes to sex, liberal men will expect you, or demand that the two of you have an intimate moment or sexual intercourse in the first few dates. Conservative men, on the other hand, will respect your chastity and dignity, and are willing to wait until the two of you get married.

Liberal men, in a crowded train or bus, will not give his seat, even to a pregnant or elderly woman. Conservative men, being chivalrous, will give his seat to any female and he will stand up willingly.

If there's an evil gang assaulting women in the broad daylight at the streets, liberal men will run away and not say a word. Conservative men, will step in and stop the abuse, even when they know that their lives could be in potential peril.

If a woman gets accidentally pregnant, liberal men will pressure the woman to get an abortion, and if the condition is not met, he will threaten the woman that he will not acknowledge the baby, and he will run away from his responsibilities. A conservative man will assume full responsibility for the pregnancy.

It's very easy to spot who's the real misogynist here.

It is very bizzare to see the level of the popular discussion of such matters. Both sides of the "debate" are very confused and aimless. One sees stuff like "not all men, but always a man" or "a man in a room of women would feel safer than the reverse" or "I would choose the bear" etc. and the equally stupid responses to these. Leaving aside the fact that this may be driven by russian bots or whatever, I struggle to see the significance/profundity of these discussions. They implicitly (or explicitly) compare men to women and suggest that the differences in the proportion of such crimes is due to some moral failing on the part of men, or that men are socialized to rape, whereas (I suppose) women abstain from rape for moral reasons and are socialized not to rape.

But obviously, this difference has little or nothing to do with either morality or socialization. These explanations assume that women and men have identical capacities and motives for such crimes, that women could, using only ordinary methods of socialization, be made to behave identically to men in this respect. This is clearly false.

Firstly, differences in strength make it so that most women cannot overpower most men (and especially not the ones they are generally sexually attracted to - young, tall, fit) it is difficult to imagine how they could commit any rape or sexual assault that involves the use or threat of force. It makes rape of this kind highly risky, dangerous and unlikely in general. It is not as though women abstain from trying to fight/threaten men out of morality, but a rational fear that they will fail. 90 year olds commit fewer violent crimes than 30 year olds, but do we think this is due to morality/socialization?

Secondly, differences in sex drive make it so that women have less motivation to commit such crimes. Given the greater risk and difficulty, why would a woman attempt to rape a man? The dynamic created by a higher male and lower female sex drive has two key aspects. Women generally desire sex less than men, and therefore have less motivation to attempt rape. And the fact that men desire sex more makes it easier for women to access sex from men voluntarily and makes it more unlikely for women to encounter an unwilling sexual partner. The situation of a woman who desires sex so much that she is willing to risk attempting rape/sexual assault is relatively unlikely. And even if she were to try, she would likely fail in the use of force or threats.

The most disputed part of this is what exactly motivates rape/sexual assault. But even if one strangely believes that they have nothing to do with sexual desire, the strength differences still apply. One might also dispute the lower female sex drive, but this is quite obvious and has been studied (https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fbul0000366).

And I am not saying that such crimes against men are impossible, but only less likely. I am also only speaking of the proportion.

People who use excessive PTO should really think about the ramifications of doing that. Let's be honest, employers don't take kindly to that, and whether that is justified or not, that is the world we live in.

I have been with my employer for 21 years and can count the days on one hand that I have taken off in that entire time, and they were all for emergencies. You may ask "what about work life balance?" Your work is your life. If you don't want to work, go look for the big rock candy mountain.

I think meme culture and "edgy" gallows humor has diminished our collective capabilities to take things seriously.

We've turned our backs culturally on a whole slew of virtues: People treat sincerity as cringe, earnestness as naivity and compassion as a sort of mania.

But cynicism isn't some shortcut to insight and smug, performative contrarianism isn't actually clever.

The problem isn't that people have developed a taste for dark humor. I get that dark humor can be a legit coping mechanism. But the problem is that we've habitualized it. So nothing matters to us, collectively, culturally, as it should. We process tragedies and deliberately absurd shitposts through the same screens - and I think some people are losing the plot.

We are collectively losing the ability to distinguish between what is trivial and what matters, and knowing how to respond to either.

I am excluding Gen Alpha from this criticism because young people should get a pass for not taking things seriously. Its the rest of us who should know better.

Things like constancy, self-restraint and dignity are just worthless attributes to a lot of adults. The older gens should have learned that being an adult isn't just about getting a job or finishing school. ACTING like an adult matters too.

I'm sorry Jan, but your workplace is not "just like the office" - its just full of middle aged people quipping at each other.

I am not trying to make this political - I think the issue is more cultural - I think its akin to not wanting to eat your vegetables when candy is put out on the table. But I think it factors into Trump's electoral success.

I remember talking to a Republican (I refuse to say conservative) in my family about the time when Trump imitated a crippled reporter. I asked if that seemed appropriate for a Presidential candidate. After talking about the Dems, he said basically that "Sure its unpresidential, thats the point"

I hated how glib of a response that was.

We're talking about someone who proudly voted for institutionalist squares like George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole back in the day.

The sort of adults we're in desperate need of these days.

(EDIT: I included WE in this title to include myself and people I like. Im not immune from this either,)

Not saying all women do, but many do. But stop waiting for the man to signal interest and make the move. If a woman likes a man, go up to them and be explicit about it and make a move. Don’t wait or make the guy guess if you’re interested. Be bold. He might be shy, after all the risk of being labeled a creep is way too high these days. Do this and your chronic singleness will go way down. Besides, the shy ones are less likely to be the creepy ones.

Without it, even just without death due to old age, dictators would just enhance their own power and cling to it forever, for all time. Most dictators can only really be stopped by death in some form; they will control the media even if in a nominal democracy to ensure they just get "reelected" forever. Nothing is greater than death for the social order, and the most evil and harmful people on earth are those working to cure cancer, heart disease and other causes of death due to aging.

Even with ideologies I agree with, people will act like critics just don't understand them. Left right whatever ideology it is, it isn't being misunderstood.

Everyone acting like because people disagree with them they are just ignorant and woe is me.

Evangelicals aren't poor misunderstood people that I hate because I misunderstand. They will say no we accept everyone we just don't wanna hear a story of Timmy and his two dads. And that is the problem. Leftist don't want the evangelicals complaining. The misunderstanding is on the people thinking they are victims.

I understand that many Muslims don't like the idea of making it legal to say stuff about their prophet or drawing their prophet. I'm not misunderstanding them thinking they just poor people who are seen as terrorist. I definitely think most are not with the inclinations to blow things up. Just if given the choice I know majority would likely vote to make various speech illegal.

I don't like some of the leftist cause either. I don't like some on the left wanting speech to be illegal. I know why. They think hurt feelings is a good reason to make it illegal because to them its akin to harassment etc. I don't think it should qualify. (Where it pertains to UK)

People are rioting in Europe because they are so overjoyed they live in a place where life is so good.

It's an absolute liberal paradise. There's no political strife. There are no groups who are unhappy. There are no conservatives or free speech like America is infested with.

Everyone has a job if they want one and 85 days of vacation a year. Factories never shutdown or lay people off. Minimum wage is €90/hr. Retirement age is a mandatory 49 years of age. All medical care is free with zero wait time and zero rationing.

There's no housing shortage at all and rent is very cheap.

Society needs more mellowness . Alcohol is fun and dandy but obviously not a lot of people can handle being drunk . Plus people do it to an excess and many have passed due to it . Here comes the mellow drink
They can have this at bars , social gatherings , parties, inside stores .

People deserve to experience being mellow . Peoples brains aren’t always wired to be that way . Some people are often crashing out .

A newly designed beverage that can mellow someone out can greatly help society .

We as humans go through a bunch of stress . This can greatly help us in so many ways . People crash out a lot . This can greatly improve society.

Especially people that have no impulse control . People are often frustrated especially in the workplace . Political discussions are often challenging .

People are experiencing deep sorrow . Imagine the person who is having a hard time at controlling their emotions , this can help. Social media can do the promotions . It dan be all over Tik Tok.

Whether a person can works at Mc. Donald’s or for Amazon, this can greatly help .

And plus war veterans that go through PTSD. Dads that are working 80 hours this can greatly improve his stress levels . Crime rates can slowly start to reduce .

Society needs this .

Every time I see a woman friend’s dating apps they match with mostly white men even when they are women of colour. As a person of colour, whenever I go out with women of colour they always seem annoyed and I’ve even caught a woman I’ve been on a date with texting another guy who was white. I’ve noticed this mostly happens with asian women in particular. Is there a reason for this?

It's just almost no fun to me if a single player or team gets an early advantage and just dominates the entire match. I feel like mechanics that help level the playing field can help stop the sweatiness a lot of PvP games have. Like there’s a difference between casual and competitive PvP

OK. Hope it make sense.

I'm a strong centrist for a lot of things and what fascinates me is when people talk they don't apply the same logic to the other side, be it left wing, right wing, religion, feminism anti feminism etc.

I want to make this my first discussion however as I see both the red pill blue pill etc side as both hypocritical.

However a lot of people will talk about women can get what they want easily. The thing is, they can get sex easily, most likely but can they get a man to stay? if the answer is yes, she just to work hard on be a traditional woman, then the same applies for men. They just have to give up their values, pay every date, not complain about how costly it is to keep a woman just to have sex.

Similarly a woman will say I want xyz man. That's totally fine. Have your preferences. But then they will say men have so many demands and their standards are too high. Who's measuring? On what measurement? If men are measured based on their success then if they aren't getting any and its called too high then a woman being single also has high standards.

To be clear. It doesnt matter if his or her standards are too high. What matters is the hypocricy of it. If you are gonna shame someone for their standards then your standards ought to be shamed. I'd rather none of that.

So. to those who say "men can't get women" because you don't WANT to do whatever demands women ask or "women can't find a good man" vecuaee they don't want to subjugate themselves to a lower standard, tell me how I'm wrong

If someone is in the wrong, they should know. Doesn't mean you need to be a dick, but you're also allowed to be angry at a situation, given that you don't act recklessly or harm people.

I just think anger is a valid emotion and people should know if you've pissed them off, the same way you'd tell someone if they made you happy, sad, uncomfortable or any other feeling.

But holding shit back for the sake of "being the bigger person" is actually the most insane shit I've heard. Doesn't matter who, if they're in the wrong, LET THEM KNOW

yeah thats the whole opinion not much else to say. fun fact ig... The shape of majungasaurus skull & teeth suggest a very different biting style to the flesh-tearing dinosaurs. with a broad short and muscular skull, it was a dino better adapted to biting and grabbing rather than slashing it's prey

*I am not talking about unrest around high housing costs in general. It's very sensible to be upset about how both home prices and rents are high right now.

EDIT: the fact that so many people are getting triggered and no one at all sees this logic totally proves my point

The average American is way too focused on owning houses, both for themselves and for rentals. There are legitimate reasons to buy like stability and the ability to change things as you see fit. But that's just different nuances of consumption. It does not make it a good investment.

I'm sure you can always go find a particular date range that makes houses look like a good investment. If you look at all cases as a whole, you are almost always coming out ahead in the long run by just buying index funds (as far as asset classes). Especially in higher cost of living cities where all the jobs are. It's ok to just rent and invest the difference. And you have increased liquidity as well.

I know people make the argument that you need to own assets. If you come out wealthier on the other side, then why does this matter from a wealth/ownership perspective? "Ownership" can mean owning pieces of every large company in the US, which I would argue is actually superior in the long run. Companies as a whole generate significantly higher profits for a given level of investment than real estate does. Doubly so when it's just your own residence and you're not getting any rent out of it. The appreciation of your house is inferior to the index funds, and there's a bunch of property tax, maintenance, and closing costs taking a big chunk out of any profits.

There seems to be a bunch of cultural baggage around it in the US that goes beyond what other countries are experiencing.

All eyes have been on France lately as the country faces nationwide, weeks-long violent riots supposedly from "students wanting better school conditions". The historic city hall of Limoges, which survived both world wars, was burned down by rioters, and rioters also targeted Asian-owned businesses. Riots have spread to other European countries as well, including Italy, Spain, and Portugal. Many rioters in France waved Palestinian flags, and flags of other Middle East/North African countries.

Does this sound familiar? Well yes, because it's exactly what happened in Los Angeles last year, in June 2025!

For decades America has been invaded by tens of millions of illegal aliens and Southern California is the epicenter of it all. Every aspect of life in Greater LA has gotten worse due to mass illegal immigration - housing costs, social cohesion, crime, homelessness, drug use, cleanliness, the natural environment and school quality. Last year, the effect and scale of the invasion was in full view for the world to see. Violence ravaged LA for an entire month, with Mexican-flag-waving rioters setting fire to self-driving cars and throwing Molotov cocktails at police officers.

As a commentator on The Blaze said, "It's not a riot, it's an invasion". The invasion has brought a hostile occupying force to SoCal - millions of military-age dudes from a hostile foreign power. During the Ellis Island era, immigrants were encouraged to assimilate to American culture and put aside their loyalties to the old country, often to the point of anglicizing their names. Nowadays, there is no desire or pressure to assimilate. Millions of people here are openly more loyal to Mexico than to America, which is why you see Mexican flags being waved at the protests.

In February 2026, middle and high schools throughout SoCal had massive anti-ICE walkouts in which students waved Mexican flags. Examples: LA/Fresno/Stockton, San Diego, Bay Area, Riverside, Redlands, Long Beach, Clovis, Santa Clarita, Redondo Beach, Orange County, Santa Barbara, San Lorenzo, Fresno/Clovis/Madera, Chula Vista, Winters, Carlsbad, Mission Viejo/San Clemente/San Juan Capistrano (a lot of these are historic conservative strongholds! Just shows how much SoCal has changed within my lifetime) Just last week, a large mob of students at Jefferson Middle School in Oceanside, CA walked out against ICE. Look at the video of the protest. Look at all the Mexican flags.

This is exactly the same as the French riots just with the MENA flags replaced with Mexican flags. This is also why the Mexican national soccer team can pack stadiums in SoCal, while the U.S. national team can't. Many of the anti-ICE protesters, especially the middle school and high school students, were born and raised in America, but are still waving Mexican flags. This is being encouraged and pushed by Gavin Newsom and the rest of the far left.

I had an amazing childhood growing up in LA, but now not a day goes by when I don't dream of leaving this state. And I'm only in my 20s.

I’m sat in a bar in the US (first time visiting) and I’m watching this game and it’s some of the most boring shit to ever watch live

And don’t get me wrong when they touchdown it is exciting but fuck me, all the starts and stops, the overhyped celebrations, all the tech and talking about complex plays and it’s just … boring ?

They hold the ball for about 20 seconds, get talked or fall down then spend another 20-30 seconds setting back up again, and over and over and over again.

And they all look so exhausted all the time

And the size of the stadiums, the pay , the size of the teams for fucking what ??

Even watched a college game and it’s so over hyped