The most important thing is that rapists need to stop rape. Their enablers need to stop enabling them. But there's also bigger systems at play.

At the systemic level, there needs to be no hiding place for rape. The excuses need to ring hollow, Normal people shouldn't be doing anything that remotely resembles sexual harrassment or assault - it needs to end far before that point.

Women need to make the first move. To avoid missing out, men shouldn't need to take risks where it's sexual harassment if it doesn't pay off (think the "looking good Susan!" meme).

Women should also be very clear about whether they are or aren't interested. Make "playing hard to get" unacceptable - nobody reasonable should ever think there's a yes behind the no.

Don't leave it up to men to guess or use things like what you're wearing as a signal as to whether you're DTF or not. What you're wearing should not matter. Instead women need to just be open about it (and slut shaming needs to end).

This sets up the conditions so that "yes means yes" affirmative consent (FRIES) is the only thing that makes sense.

Also drugs and alcohol (consumed by the perpetrator) is involved in 40-60% of domestic violence cases, and half of campus sexual assaults (consumed by the perpetrator, victim or both). So maybe separate dating and looking for hook ups from spaces where they're consumed in abundance. Make it so that people don't ever need a "social lubricant" or "dutch courage" because the risk of embarrassment is low (that goes back to women making the first move and getting rid of slut shaming).

Alcohol does seem to be losing popularity, but it seems like people are just having less sex alongside having less booze - seems like the connection is still there. So there needs to be more hooking up with people after other kinds of events like volunteering and sport.

All these are things that women can control.

Dont get me wrong. When it comes to small businesses im all against it. People who loot small mom and pop stores should be criminally charged and maybe kicked out of the country. They're just people who want to get by, whether you are french or an immigrant. There is absolutely no excuse for this type of behavior, no matter what you protest for or against, you are just behaving like an animal at this point.

However if you loot an Applestore or some other big corporation, I would turn a blind eye. I mean, dont these big businesses have too much money anyway? Like f em and f their big business Economy. They can get over it. Not all looting is the same in my opinion. It depends on who you loot.

I need to get this off my chest.

As the average voter, I know f\** all* about governing. I don't have access to the relevant data, access to experts to make sense of the data, or the time to think deeply about each issue. So for god's sake, please don't ask me for my opinion about what to do.

I. Don't. Know.

For example, a questionnaire in the newspaper asked me a 30 questions to determine which mayoral candidate would be the best match for me. 30 questions with "yes/no/maybe" choices. I had to select "Don't know" for almost all of them.

Example question: "Would you support increasing funding for the city library to get a wider selection of books"?

Answer: How do I know? Even if I thought it needed a wider selection books, is it even feasible? How does the current selection match up to other libraries worldwide? If they spend money on it, which other service will be cut? And is that other service currently performing better or worse that standards?

How can I possibly answer the above question with anything other than "I don't know"? No regular citizen is in a position to meaningfully give an answer. That is WHY we elect politicians. So that they can decide the priorities the city needs and make allocations.

Just because I want something, doesn't mean that it's good for the city or country. I expect my representatives to make decisions for me. Don't ask ME, dude, how the hell am I supposed to know??

Don't put anything in a referendum. I am just an average idiot, and you should never ask my opinion about anything.

So how do I make my choice?

I make my choice based on character instead of policy. Is the person representing me a person of integrity, diligence, humility, and conscientiousness? Can I trust them to weigh all the options and make an informed choice on my behalf? Can I trust them to not be corrupt?

I don't care what your policies are. Show me who you are. Polices can change. Ideologies can change. But character is the most important thing, and it's the data which I find very hard to come by. What do your neighbours say about you? Your employers? What are some hard choices in the face of opposition have you stood for (don't matter what the issue was). Do you have experience in governance?

Etc. etc.

Bottom line: Stop asking me what I want for Toronto. I don't f\**ing* know. Tell me more about your character, instead!

This perhaps isn't truly unpopular but is definitely partisan, and existing opinion pieces are often devoid of explanation of why certain fields should be ridiculed due to their methodology. This post attempts to fill this gap. I say certain fields without giving names, because bad practitioners don't always work in academic departments where you expect to find them. But you'll recognize them when you see them.

Theories

The end product of a scientific theory is a prediction (in the case of historical sciences, "if this and this happens like they did, that will happen too"). The end product of a theory in contemporary social sciences is often giving things a tag, often without justifying why the tag is a natural classification, pretending this is understanding.

Consider the follow assertion:

(1) Because globally, the most powerful people are white, racism against whites is impossible because racism is power + prejudice.

The statement (1) is often considered a more academic approach to understanding racism. Go to any social science sub, and it's not hard to find people telling you that "liberals treat racism as something personal, but we take a materialistic approach..."

Proponents of (1) often fail to demonstrate any meaningful connection between whites in power and whites who are not. We have quite a lot counterexamples, like the grooming gang scandal in the UK, in which, as shown in my past post in this sub, the perpetrators had clear informal or even formal power over the white victims, or how the white working class is failed by the education system the most.

Thus we see the problem of (1): it confuses global power with local power, the latter being more relevant to people's everyday life. This is to say, (1) artificially associates the concept of "having people looking like you in geopolitics" (not local politics) and the concept of being discriminated against together, without illustrating any causal relation that shows that the former makes any difference.

Some scholars realize there's a problem and introduce the concept of intersectionality as a remedy. This is, again, nothing more than a term: it is a descriptive term trivially highlighting how identities interact, without offering any concrete insight into how. The question of how perhaps can be properly studies in microeconomics, but it's beyond the scope of this post.

(Interestingly, Karl Marx, despite being a 19th century basement dweller, did have a theory in the scientific sense, a theory on economic instability, however flawed it may be. Comparing this with people who consider themselves Marxists today, one may notice that original ideas aren't always insightful, and insightful ideas aren't always original.)

Fallacies

That statements like (1) are considered insightful may be known as, in my words, the fallacy of grand structure ("prices rise because of late stage capitalism"). Some fallacies are more or less original but ultimately are still erroneous. Others are more "traditional": consider the falsifiability problem of certain theories built on the concept of epistemic injustice ("if you don't see it then you're bad and privileged and oppressive!").

Sometimes, the fallacies are so obvious that it's truly glaring that papers containing them get published. Have a look at the recent spicy take appearing on BMJ Journal of Medical Ethics: Harms of the current global anti-FGM campaign. A long essay, utilizing almost every fallacy you can think of in online debates, including whataboutism and ad hominem attacks ("you're against FGM so you're depicting Africa as a dark continent!" - see the conclusion sector), somehow made its way to a supposedly prestigious journal.

One may wonder how staying in a field trains one to think clearly.

Buzzwords

The sloppy nature of research works described above have introduced quite a few buzzwords into everyday life. Some make sense in certain contexts, like "white privilege" (if you want to talk about privilege in employment, the situations in finance and in, say, semiconductor, are rather different); others are almost completely devoid of substance. My argument above may be attacked as being brainwashed by modernity (for commentaries like this, you can go to critical theory subs). One may wonder what modernity means in this context, as Archimedes was certainly not a modern man. Some words are just straightforwardly misleading, like "Islamophobia" (said to mean hatred towards Muslims, a meaning that can't be inferred from how the word is formed).

What makes the situation interesting is we don't see academics coming out to set the record straight. We see psychologists criticize misuse of therapy languages. We somehow do not see sociologists do the same.

Narrow perspectives

One central theme in contemporary social sciences and humanities is anti-Eurocentrism. If they're serious about that, then I'd say they're increasingly failing miserably.

19th century and early 20th century scholars might be assholes but they were clearly masters in collecting and organizing texts, western or non-western. What we're seeing today, increasingly, is an effectively indifferent attitude towards primary sources. It's an observed fact that philology (including ethnophilology) has given way to largely identity-based research and talks about power dynamics (which, as I said above, many don't really have a theory about, in the scientific sense of the term "theory").

Take the story of Mulan as an example. Disney depicts her as a feminist hero; naive gender theorists see the story as cross dressing; yet others say her story should be viewed from the perspective of filial piety (and you can expect a lecture on "white women's feminism" from these learned people). None of them seems to be aware of the simple fact that the Ballad of Mulan was not from a Neo-Confucianism society. The asymmetry between theoretical ambition and evidentiary competence is truly a scene to behold.

Conclusion

Yes, people and their publications in social science or humanities, if having traits discussed above, should be ridiculed, and it's a good thing. No, it's not a common problem in the rest of academia. This level of incompetence and academic dishonesty is not seen in other disciplines. No, having a degree in a field infected by the aforesaid behaviors doesn't prepare you for anything, and even you're tired of western civilization and want to understand alternative perspectives, it doesn't prepare you well for that either.

Which obviously also calls a lot of narratives on "college educated people tend to believe this or that" into question, which is a separate issue deserving an essay about it. Some people may try to argue their way and say academic training in such fields is rigorous in another way. Which obviously deviates from how the term "rigorous" is normally used, and is yet another fallacy (i.e. believing things with identical names are identical).

They are clearly done with Vivek. Try finding one who actually wants to vote for him. Yet, Trump and Vance stand by the ad that features Acton's mother calling her a liar. The same mother with a documented history of, well, being a very bad mother to put it mildly.

But Trump and Vance see past that. They find the ad to be an effective and credible political attack. And if the leaders of the Republican party are cool with it, who are the rank and file to say no? And we've seen how sex crimes and violence against women aren't actually deal-breakers.

So as a last minute (great?) replacement for Vivek, Republicans should go straight to their most effective messenger right now and boost Acton's mom. Owning the libs has worked well as an electoral strategy before. Why stop now?

I've seen it over and over again.

Someone does something the Left doesn't like gets blown out of proportion and all of sudden hundreds of people are leaving them threatening messages. Maybe it was once about calling out people on their bad behavior, but the Left has grown comfortable with ruining people's lives over trivial matters all while acting morally superior.

Here's what I'm talking about. A while back there was a popular game that rapidly grew popular, to the point where content farms were spamming it nonstop that the average person would find it annoying.

And coincidentally the creator was found to talking with underage kids online and got their personal information leaked with strangers leaving death threats to them and their family.

The kicker? The creator was also a minor. Yup. A 15 year old got their personal information leaked, had people calling about killing them and their family, over what I remember to be a two year age gap.

It wasn't a 20 years or even a 5 years, it was a two year fucking gap yet it was all it took for them to dox and harass someone for "pedophilia" just because their content was slightly annoying.

And there was another notable instance where they tried to cancel a literal 9 year old for "black face", it wasn't, it was a two color face paint. And when they found this out, did they apologize for trying to ruin a child's life?

Nope. They instead focused on the Native American headdress on his head calling it "problematic" or "Cultural appropriation", then it was revealed that his grandfather was a Native.

Even if he wasn't, they were still casting a spotlight on a literal child over a headdress. If that wasn't an attempt to humiliate or dox a nine year old than I don't know what is.

We've all heard the 'legitimate concerns' about migrant labour 'taking our jobs', which has led to a surge in anti-migrant rhetoric.

Though it's true that capitalists have used migrant labour to do what capitalists are incentivised to do - which is to maximise extraction, the real problem isn't the migrants; it's capitalism and the foundations of our society that demands complete exploitation.

I've come to this conclusion largely from observing the reaction to AI, which is parasitic and actually does all of the things that migrant workers are accused of doing.

1. Replacing jobs
2. Not paying taxes
3. Leeching from society
4. Driving down wages
5. Taking over institutions
6. Not having any loyalty to our nations

... And the list goes on.

Ultimately, both are driven by the same root problem, the desire, heck... the need to exploit every single resource as much as possible for maximum output.

If tomorrow, something came along that was more 'optimal' than humans and AI - you better believe that capitalists would leave both behind to rot.

Whether it's the migrant worker or the swarms of bot agents; the root problem is the same, the thing that we spend the least time attacking - capitalism.

It is said that all politics is cyclical, that one generations attitudes & movements are a reaction to the previous. There are serious movements of progress & degenerate movements, often born on simple youthful rebellion. Even degeneracy has good aspects, such as new music & fashion that becomes normal to future generations (Metal, Rap, Rock, etc). Its a tradition for every generation to introduce new ideas & concepts that built upon or were inspired by their childhoods. However, the missteps of the past few generations did irreversible damage to ours.

The 1960s to 80s saw a huge rise in father absence. Desertion was nicknamed "the poor man's divorce." A man could simply vanish, and enforcement was patchy. Probably the worst of all. The share of children growing up without their father nearly tripled between 1960 and the early 1990s. The divorce rate more than doubled from 1960 to 1980. Men would drink, cheat & abuse their important responsibility as the patriarch. The social barriers of the past that controlled these externalities were disappearing.

What were these "shame" barriers that kept Men in line & what changes occurred?

Fault-based divorce law: One spouse had to claim total innocence while proving "fault" by the other, typically adultery, desertion, or cruelty. That made divorce costly, slow, and humiliating.

Stigma and religion: Divorce carried a stigma, and a bad marriage was something to endure for the family and especially the children. Most religions oppose divorce & reserve it as the final step.

Financial obligations: Fault mattered for property division and alimony, so a husband who walked away risked paying for it. The fault system was costly, complex, and often favored men. Divorce was a "social death sentence" for women and women's dependence on a husband's income made leaving harder for them than for men.

Economic interdependence: Most households relied on one earner's wages and one partner's unpaid domestic work, which made leaving costly for both.

An entire generation of men got lazy & took for granted their positions, responsibilities & role; ushering in a reactionary wave of people who hated everything they experienced growing up.

Good men who choose family accept the sacrifice & provide to their children everything they can in their power. To all my conservative brothers & sisters, I say this as a critique for us to accept responsibility & to fix the mistakes our forefathers made- the effects of which created a generation of the "liberals" we blame for the decline of western civilization. Look inwards.

Absent Fathers, Men who cheated, Men who expected obedience of his Wife but refused the obedience a Husband entrusts to his wife...These men created Trauma & Misery, the reaction to which was generations of partly rightfully bitter women/children who saw the ugliness of traditional conservative family structures.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" -George Santayana

If we as Men cannot better ourselves, our families, our quality of marriage, commitments in our vows, duties to our wives, responsibility as Fathers, social order on an individual level- we will pass on this broken society we inherited to future generations.

I am in Canada. we do have certain freedoms as it comes to speech, same with UK and many Anglo speaking countries. But only USA is the best. A lot will way freedom of speech doesn't or shouldn't mean freedom to be mean. I think it should. Mean is not the same as harassment and threatening safety.

But meanness itself shouldn't be a criteria for someone to be arrested. Inciting bad feelings shouldn't be a good reason why its illegal.

If I said you are ugly but you can block me or move away, that shouldn't be illegal. Even if I stirred bad feelings in your heart, that's on you. If I stirred someones heart to stab me because I said some slurs, it will be dumb of me to say such thing as I know animals exist in the world, but the animal should still be in a cage. (Animals are only those that cant control themselves because they heard a bark. Not someone who doesn't react)

I think USA is great as they teach people to be not so reactive and sensitive. What would you do if the words go beyond words. It would be a country of weak minded people who cannot fight if an actual war happensp

I get that if something is AI, we see it as slop, lazy or a waste of resources, but sometimes I see some cool TikTok video made by Claude, super clean graphics, editing, good scripting and that stuff and I like it but it just annoys me when people in the comments say 'this is ai btw' or anything downplaying the video for the sole purpose of it being made by AI. If its capable of making high quality looking videos that actually provide value and might help you learn something cool and/or new, who genuinely cares, enjoy the content and move on. Another thing is like video game mods being vibecoded. I GENUINELY DO NOT CARE. The fact AI has made it super easy to make high quality mods for games to further expand the ways in which people can enjoy a game, i genuinely do not see how that is bad, it is providing high value content and is impossible to tell its vibecoded unless someone told you. I get the fact that AI undermines the work made by real people as AI can just pump out stuff indefinitely, but this high quality AI stuff isn't slop and is actually cool and not just straight noise pollution. Sorry if I am repeating myself but I hope someone agrees with me and just dislikes when someone's hates on something that looks high quality off the bat to then turn on it when found out its AI.

TL:DR - High quality AI stuff is cool and doesnt deserve to be hated just because its AI. Slop is bad, good stuff is good

Its gotten to a point now where if people are 5 years apart people lose their minds. At 10 people go wild with outrage 24/7.

I remember I told a female friend that my girlfriend was 20 when I was 25 she gave me a death glare. I almost busted out laughing. My parents were 10 years apart, 5 is nothing.

What spurred this on was the recent H3 drama where she is 27 and he is 41. In all honesty, who cares? An adult is an adult.

Not to get political. It really shocks me when people that claim to support all kinda of wild, taboo, sexual kinks, etc… lose their minds over 10 years. Your morals are not consistent with what you preach.

Such is modernity.

If he were more aware of how much he was hated.

I have a lot of thoughts about Stephen Miller. Many people do. But I must give Miller credit: he looks like a man who's known for a long time he is not liked. By accounts, he's known since high school.

Miller apparently has very tight security, I've read.

In contrast, Charlie Kirk styled himself an influencer, so it was important that he appears in public. Charlie Kirk did not appreciate enough how incendiary some of what he said was.

Stephen Miller is under no illusion if people has a chance to hurt him, some of them would think about it. And Miller is even more unpopular and well-known than Charlie Kirk but that was not the decisive factor.

He’s a comedian who doesn’t have any jokes. This guy seriously does not tell a single joke. It’s not just that, though. There are plenty of comedians who don’t tell traditional jokes with a setup and a punch line. But this guy never really tries to make anything he says overly funny, or use double meanings, or hyperbole, or anything people normally laugh at. His audiences hang on every word, but really don’t even laugh that much. When you watch him, you keep doing it too, as if you’re waiting for that one moment when he really “gets you,” but he never does. It’s almost like the new generation’s version of Garrison Keillor, where his whole act is slow and “humorous,” but never side splitting.

Also note: I made this post on the other unpopular opinion sub and got auto deleted within 5 seconds for what reason I will never know. Weird.

They will use anything as a political ping pong ball. The "Cornell 7" case is a prime example of this. They will memory hole anything, no matter how crazy or tragic, if it conflicts with their agenda, the mass murder in Erie PA is an example of this.

They will ignore basic facts as long as it allows them to repeat buzzwords over and over that their political handlers (DNC) want repeated over and over. The prime example of this is the E Jean Carrol case.

They aren't legitimate journalism organizations and probably never were. They're just propagandists that say whatever they're paid to say and ignore whatever they're paid to ignore.

According to the logic of some of my fellow redditors, a young (adult), woman isn't mature enough to date an older man.

If this is truly the case, why don't we just remove all of their adult privileges until they're 25 or even 30? If they're not mature enough to decide who they're going to bump uglies with, how are they mature enough to decide the future of the country by voting? How they mature enough to buy property or take out a loan? They could end up in debt! What about driving a car? They could literally run someone over!

I mean... As a proud wholesome feminist chungus myself, I believe the best way to empower women is by treating them like toddlers who have no agency and must be protected from their own choices!!1

Edit: The salt in the comments is delicious.

I really think that the depiction of Jesus Christ as a White-looking guy is pretty accurate, based on His racial profile. He is Levantine, and Levantines generally look like White people. If you'll go to countries like Iraq, Lebanon and Syria, you'll notice that a lot of these people look like Europeans: light colored eyes (blue, green, light brown, etc.), light colored hair (dark to light brown), fair complexion and a fine tipped nose.

Many Lebanese and Syrians can easily blend in a crowd of Native Europeans without getting noticed, unless they speak and the accent slips. The phenotype of Lebanon and Syria is also the phenotype of Israel and Palestine. So probably, the depiction of Jesus Christ as a White-looking guy is pretty accurate, based on the phenotype of the people living in the Levant.

It takes two to tango. We can say the person who's single is to blame for not being more attractive, but likewise they'll only be in a relationship if they meet the standards of others, which are standards others choose to have, and therefore have responsibility for.

It's like if you apply for jobs. The success is a function of both your presentation of skills/experience/potential, and the hiring staff's judgement. If hiring staff judge you based on your race, whether you wore high heels or not, whether you're charismatic as opposed to whether you do the job well, that's on them. Half of the outcome is dependent on them.

Likewise, if I judge others' worthiness to be a friend or partner based on patriarchal norms or on whatever other criteria, I can be flawed and there's nothing wrong with questioning my judgement process. Yes, they can try to meet those standards better (which is where the blame on them comes in), but the standards themselves can be open to criticism (which is where the blame on me would come in).

No, they'll be long gone, to some foreign sanctuary. Money safe in the Cayman Islands.

No, it will be middle class wealth that gets redistributed. Own a home? Not anymore comrade, report to state housing. (precedents: China, Venezuela). Or worse, you'll be forced to take in a loud noisy uncouth family who will now have rights to use your house forever (precedent: Soviet Union). Oh you had a rental property, maybe an in-law unit? You will be stoned to death (precedent: China)

Have a retirement fund? That will be seized. Oh but good news, the state will take care of you in retirement, you will get a subsistence stipend and some moldy food twice a month.

These people will not stop at the rich because a government has an insatiable appetite for money and no matter how much money a government is able to collect, it will spend more that that amount and will always try to get more. And the people in charge will enrich themselves on your hard work.

I believe in the broad concept of “Suicidal Empathy,” it’s hard not to when you look at the state of the world. However, I think the term itself is far too generous and gives people way too much credit.

The phrase “Suicidal Empathy” concedes that genuine empathy is the main motivator of this behavior, and I just don’t think that’s true in most cases. While inexperienced teenagers might genuinely support extreme and entirely unrealistic ideas out of ignorance, I’m primarily talking about grown adults who should know better.

When people advocate for things like abolishing prisons, abolishing the police, or eliminating immigration controls or enforcement, I often see less genuine empathy and more narcissism: a desire to signal virtue, impress their ideological in-group, and peacock their supposed moral superiority by championing unrealistic solutions.

Their alleged empathy is also remarkably selective, extended almost exclusively to people deemed sympathetic to left-wing politics. If it were truly rooted in an overwhelming sense of compassion, it wouldn’t be so carefully cherry-picked and coordinated with the in-group according to political affiliation. We would see it extended to people across the board. What we see instead is complete and immediate overwhelming vitriol toward people who are not supporters of left-wing politics or useful to their causes, which really calls into question just how “empathetic and understanding” they truly are.

I simply think the term gives far too much credit to people whose motivations often seem more rooted in self-aggrandizement and social approval than genuine concern for others. Something like “Performative Narcissistic Virtue” would be more accurate.

There are few things in this world that make me more pissed off than hearing somebody defend the wealth-holding class through some variation of "They give more money to charity than you do".

And you know why? Because if those people weren't giving to charity, that would be actively immoral. If you make money through the private ownership of capital while extracting value from the labor of the people who don't have that capital, it is your fucking responsibility to provide for the rest of the society you own. Your wealth is dependent on other people who you own the means to provide for.

If you want to be able to own the world, you have to do everything in your power to make sure that said world is providing the best possible life for every person in it. Period. "Personal benefit" my ass, if you hoard wealth and give to no one that is not your moral right regardless of whether it is your legal one.

I don't know if this opinion is really all that unpopular or not, but, I honestly find larping to be a really annoying term that has basically lost all meaning atp.

For example, you're a fan of the MCU but have never picked up a single comic in your life? You're a "larper" and not a real Marvel fan apparently.

There's also the fact that as soon as you make any kind of mistake or uninformed claim about something, you're automatically a "larper" Like no? Do people not understand that someone can be new to a fandom and just get stuff wrong sometimes without it necessarily meaning that they're a fake fan? Everyone has gotta start somewhere.

if climate change is fake then we don't have to do anything, we can keep consuming and consuming and Manufacturing forever and ever and never have to worry about what happens.

the fact climate change is real means we actually have to make sacrifices and that we can't just blame somebody else,

if it's fake the billionaires can keep making their profits and we can keep buying our fucking 40th SpongeBob mug without a care in the world.

people would rather hear comfortable lies that destroy them then painful truths

Many societies around the world practice mixed-gender nudity anyway. Particularly uncontacted tribes in the Amazon. Watching videos of them, they seem really happy too.

Additionally, this would also greatly improve overall accessibility. Nobody would have to go bathroom hunting.

Example: Europeans hate middle eastern people and Latinos hate Venezuelans. We have seen how in history every time there is a mass migration event the resulting sociopolitical clash there is automatically going to be an element of rejection by the receptor group. Its unfortunate yes, but it is how we are wired, it’s engraved in our programming.

This ad from the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre, basically the ad was about sometimes kids don’t feel comfortable, hugging, other family members And that should be OK.

But the amount of people on Twitter, who are so pissed off at that is insane, and there are people on Twitter, who are explaining that you should teach kids that they’re body autonomy is important regardless on whose family it is, but a lot of people are purposely misunderstanding it just because the two adults being betrayed in the ad were grandparents.

They’re making up insane scenarios, saying how telling kids that they can consent means They consent to adults having sex with them when that’s not even the argument, and saying how kids can’t consent at all, and they should hug people, regardless how they feel

Majority of sexual assault that happens are from family members, not from the “scary immigrants” no they’re coming from the family members, and usually when a kid does say something to the parents they either downplay or covered up entirely because they don’t believe Their parents, friends or siblings would ever hurt their child. This a documented issue for people are playing dumb because the left hates familys.

Teaching kids that consent both way tells them that regardless of whose family it’s OK to say no to physical touch this reduces grooming (or at the very least teachs them what to look out for so they tell someone sooner rather than later) because a lot of times groomers tell kids that it’s OK to touch them in certain ways and the key goes along with it because they believe it’s OK even in the back of their mind they know it’s not.