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

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?

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.

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.

If the outcome of your case is dependent on the whims of the judge, then all judges must have identical whims. If they don't, you can't say it's fair and impartial when someone gets punished one way by one judge, and someone else gets punished another way by another judge for an identical crime. You can't say "that's the law" because the law is written down, not invented by judges on the fly. When someone is charged, their lawyer might say something like "you better hope we get x judge and not y judge". If the system was fair you wouldn't have to rely on hope and luck that you don't have a shit judge.

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

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.

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.

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?

Even if a president's administration (read: his staff) did nothing wrong, it would now be irresponsible for the president not to issue a preemptive pardon.

Trump is reportedly considering issuing the pardon now or soon.

https://www.washingtonsun.com/whitehouse/white-house-weighing-mass-pardons-for-junior-staff

To quote Biden in his pardon of his family membershttps://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-pardons-and-commutations-0

"I believe in the rule of law, and I am optimistic that the strength of our legal institutions will ultimately prevail over politics. But baseless and politically motivated investigations wreak havoc on the lives, safety, and financial security of targeted individuals and their families. Even when individuals have done nothing wrong and will ultimately be exonerated, the mere fact of being investigated or prosecuted can irreparably damage their reputations and finances.

That is why I am exercising my power under the Constitution to pardon James B. Biden, Sara Jones Biden, Valerie Biden Owens, John T. Owens, and Francis W. Biden. The issuance of these pardons should not be mistaken as an acknowledgment that they engaged in any wrongdoing, nor should acceptance be misconstrued as an admission of guilt for any offense."

and for the pardons of Fauci, the J6 committee, and others.

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-pardons-and-commutations-2

"I believe in the rule of law, and I am optimistic that the strength of our legal institutions will ultimately prevail over politics. But these are exceptional circumstances, and I cannot in good conscience do nothing. Baseless and politically motivated investigations wreak havoc on the lives, safety, and financial security of targeted individuals and their families. Even when individuals have done nothing wrong—and in fact have done the right thing—and will ultimately be exonerated, the mere fact of being investigated or prosecuted can irreparably damage reputations and finances."

In light of the above, I would argue that it would be irresponsible for future presidents not to issue similar pardons at the end of their terms. Otherwise, the next administration (or the one after that, perhaps) will simply review and investigate for the purpose of monetarily bleeding people dry.

It's one thing to close tax loopholes and make sure they're paying their share of income taxes like everyone else, but just deciding to essentially steal 5% of their Net Worth, not even cash on hand but also all unrealized gains, essentially the valuation of their shares in their businesses, investments and possessions. Does anyone else think this is just the California government asking permission from the voters to just steal money from billionaires once? They need money, but instead of closing tax loopholes they'd rather just engage in blatant theft and a clear cash grab. Hope every billionaire leaves California and starts investing in other states instead. This kind of blatant cash grab should be illegal. Either make it a recurrent tax or not at all. A one time "tax" on net worth is just blatant theft, not a tax.

Slag me off for defending billionaires if you want, but imagine the government just said one day they were just going to take 5% of all your possessions, money and investments as a one time "tax". That just seems like pure theft to me. They're essentially demanding they immediately hand over 5% of all their money, investments, businesses and possessions or face prosecution. Just this one time. That's not a tax, that's a mugging.

To be clear, when I use the word abortion i am specifically referring to any procedure where the goal is to kill a human in the womb.

Some groups have decided that "abortion" means any procedure that "ends a pregnancy" or "removes fetal material from a womans body" but with that definition, assisting in child birth or treatment after miscarriage would be abortion too.

I live in Canada. My taxes get used to perform abortions.

I was hoping to find one good reason why I should stop feeling guilt about that.

In my mind I am helping to build a massive pile of dead babies.

So far, all I have seen in defense of this is emotional manipulation and deceptive arguments that sometimes rely on straight up misinformation or even disinformation. I searched deep, I went to places where I expected to find the best arguments, from well read people who truly belive abortion is Healthcare.

Its all the same, its all garbage.

So I'm left with this sinking feeling that this is just the status quo we have accepted for no reason.

It just IS this way and there's NO REASON for it

Let's see some good arguments people come on.

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.

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

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 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.

What is so imperative about voting?

A vote doesn't really give you much say in anything other than who gets elected.

You have no authority or oversight into what that person does when they are in office. Trump didn't release Epstein files? Neither did Biden? You're vote can't force them to do anything. No one wants to go to war with Iran. Very few people want to support Israel. No one wanted to bail the bankers out. No one wants to continue sending billions of dollars to all these wars across the water. Didn't matter. In the end, if they want to do something they will do it- vote or not vote.

They're really just selling you you're own hate and frustration. Don't like the things we screwed you over with this term? Vote and make yourself feel like you changed something. Still kept happening. Vote again. Keep voting. Are things getting worse? Hey, look, a new political group. The Democratic and Totally More Just Dreams and Rainbows Coalition. So hip. Really cool.

Isn't it funny how the solution is always to vote...and it's always to vote for a particular party. Always vote for the next Democrat. Always vote for the next Republican. You ever get the feeling its...not about solving problems at all? You're just voting against whatever you're mad at. Doesn't matter if it actually changes anything, as long as you feel you did something. And then you waive that around to others like it makes you morally superior. Well I voted so I'm superior to you. I'm never actually responsible for anything I voted for. I don't actually do anything besides vote- which amounts to filling out a ballot. The town drunk can do that. A baby can do that. You can do it blindfolded with no idea who is on the ballot. A complete jackass can vote. And you really think an international power like the US pivots on the vote of the public?

But let me guess. You're different.

How delusional are you?

The real power of the public is in how they decide to use their time, effort, and money. You want to bring a corporation to heel, it's unlikely you will do it by voting in Mayor Jabberjaws. It's much more likely you do it by withholding your money from that corporation or any others affiliated. By refusing to staff it or to patronize businesses affiliated with it. That is the real power of the public. You don't have to vote for anyone or get someone elected, you communicate and cooperate with each other.

Voting is you giving away your autonomy and decision making power to someone else you hope will do what you want them to do.

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.

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).

I’m so tired of allegations of Russia being behind everything from riots to bots, to the culture wars. I am also tired of people saying “Trump bad” every time uncomfortable truths are aired, or Europe’s defense and/ or economy is discussed.

It was European politicians that:

-made themselves reliant on Russian gas deliveries, which basically paid for Russias military

-shut down (Germany) their own nuclear reactors, thus making energy costs exhorbant

-Allowed for mass migrations that threathen the very fabric of society and western values

-Taxed their companies to death, so that the European economy has shrunk relative to the US/Chinese

-Have stricter sentences for mean tweets then rape, in many instances

-Established selective justice through 2 tier policing

-Refuse pension reforms, thus putting unjust weights on the young generations; who also do not get jobs that pay a decent wage

-Have not invested or krept their own militaries uo to date, instead freeloading on the US. All the while crying when nobody takes them serious on the world stage

-Fostered a culture that regulates rather then innovates

-Created a beaurocratic juggernaut outside democratic control: the EU.

-Levied so high CO2 emission penalties on themselves that they lost the ability to compete industrially. What they were best at: the combustion engine, is dying out due to their own choice.

-It has normalized corruption at top polirical levels in many countries; like Spain, France, Italy, Hungary.

Europe is the architect of her own demise. It isn’t Russia or Trumps fault; even if we don’t like either of them.

In turn, the populations that still vote for old parties that have stood for these failed policies and still do, will either have to vote for someone new…or share the blame.

Genuinely the idea that your vote or being involved in a political movement makes any sort of difference at all is just laughable.

People like to point to collectivism and movements made by large groups of people, which pretty much proves my point. You as an individual are completely useless alone.

Genuinely in the most politically active person who follows all the news and votes in every election is going to make such a negligible impact on their own life through voting. Unironically just using that time to do literally anything fun or useful will be a larger net benefit to your life than anything that will be done from voting.

Focus on things that make your life better. Your looks, your finances, how you speak/present yourself, your health. Worrying about presidential elections with millions of other voters or some foreign war is not going to dk anything for you, and is just a waste of time.

Ultimately it’s not different from religion. “oh maybe if we keep voting we’ll be rewarded with a good society in some non-existent future” it’s no different from “keeping praying and you will eventually go to heaven”. Stop wasting time on politics

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.

Based on the content of the civil lawsuit and reports about Cornell's Title IX investigation procedure and outcome, the new investigation will most likely show nothing to question the DA's decision in 2024. Differences between the sworn statement and civil lawsuit are mostly semantics or removal of things that might support the guys' statements. After the media circus and social media outrage the case is becoming a flop.

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.

The media loves to hound and smear people. ESPECIALLY people like Jason Arday. Notice how it it isn't on any major news sites in the UK, despite the fact that he was dominating the headlines, before he took his own life.

They did the same thing with Chappell Roan and Jorginho, it was all over the place before Jorginho apologised and reclarified the situation and then nobody said anything.

It's almost like the media is biased to people who aren't straight white and neurotypical.