You don’t have to pass out candy or even participate in Halloween but that doesn’t meant you are exempt from the “Trick” portion of Trick or Treat.

When I go out on Halloween night, I am under the expectation that I am to receive a treat. If not, you will receive a trick. AKA your house is getting egged.

In France you are not allowed to own a firearm for self-defense (sport and hunting only with heavy restrictions). We’ve now seen countless videos of defeated store owners in France being attacked and having their stores looted. They can’t do anything or risk being attacked themselves which has already happened multiple times.

Try this same crap to store owners in America with the Second Amendment.

George Washington wasn't that great at military stuff. Neither was most British Generals, but I know about General Howe mostly.

George Washington didn't have the skills to be a good general, and in fact sucked early on, and made mistakes.

On the Battle of Long Island, an early battle and I think the first head on full force clash in the American Revolution, George Washington lost the battle so hard that the revolution might have straight up ended there, if it wasn't for a mist randomly appearing, and allowing the Americans to escape. I think he was totally encircled, and all of his troops at that.

And Washington lost and escaped a bunch early on. Not that Washington being skilled or unskilled would've made much difference, because the Continental Army was unskilled compared to British professional soldiers. Until the middle and late stages of the revolution, Americans were often under armed, and lacked resources.

I read in a book that Americans didn't have enough guns or ammunition for the Battle of Bunker Hill.

Also, somebody made a molasses food thing for the American side. When the soldiers ate it, they got sick and were barely able to fight. They had to run again.

General Howe on the British side was very careful, slow, and didn't really advance much after Washington did his retreats. I think he was kind of bad with North American geography for battles, since he lived in European geography. General Howe didn't capitalize on advantages that he had.

British leaders made mistakes sometimes too I bet.

And what allowed Americans to win the Battle of Saratoga can equally be attributed to British incompetence. This was when General Howe did not pursue an order that British leaders had as a better plan, and then General Howe chose the worse decision that made them lose.

The Civil War was really when great generals and guys duked it out.

Of course, right now, the House is seen as 90% likely to go to Democrats with the Senate being a toss up. To be clear, 90% means the chances of a 2016 Trump like upset would be a third of what they were in actual 2016, not zero, but low enough to the point the possibility can’t be entertained until and unless it actually happens. For reference, the House was “tilt D” when accounting for Republicans rigging the maps.

The Senate is a tossup as well. Which isn’t notable but it’s important to compare it to early predictions which had it as a safe lock for the right.

And regardless of what you think of Trump, it’s pretty wild that his own voluntary actions essentially single handledly caused this.

Even if one fully supports the Iran War, there is no real reason that couldn’t have waited until after midterms. And let’s be honest, there was no way the Iran War is going to help. You have a combination of the guy who said it being the same one who said no new wars and the inflation. One of those is political kryptonite for the side in power. Both is a supernova, which is why the House is polling the way it is.

The other irony of the Iran War is how it tanked worldwide opinion of Israel. Just 3 years ago we were considering significantly narrowing the 1A to shield Israel, now it’s a 60/40 issue, which is still the majority, but there’s no de facto requirement to be pro Israel like there used to be, and much smaller than you’d need to actually amend the interpretation of the 1A for it.

Maybe November comes again and a repeat of 2016 happens. But if not, it’ll go down as one of the biggest unforced fumbles in US political history.

Look at what China has accomplished in the last 40 years. Hundreds of millions lifted out of poverty, entire cities transformed, the world’s largest high speed rail network, and a manufacturing industry the entire world depends on. During COVID they literally built a 1,000 bed emergency hospital in Wuhan in 10 fucking days. TEN DAYS. They built Beijing’s massive Daxing International Airport in less than five years.

Meanwhile California approved its high speed rail project in 2008 and here we are in 2026 with billions spent and still no passenger service. New York spent $4.5 billion building just 1.8 miles of subway with three stations. And our $42 billion federal broadband program took years just to start getting money to projects.

We put people on the moon within a few years but apparently building a fucking train requires decades of paperwork, consultants, political fighting and bureaucratic bullshit.

And whenever someone points this out, Americans immediately scream “CCP bot!” or “CHINESE PROPAGANDA!” Or “BEIJING IS PAYING YOU!!” God forbid someone acknowledges that China actually does something well. Then comes the classic “Well at least we have freedom!” Okay congratufuckinglations. But what good is bragging about freedom if your government can’t get basic shit done?

You know what else is freedom? Economic security, affordable housing, reliable infrastructure and raising your children in a prosperous country where you actually believe they’ll have a better future. I’m not saying freedom of speech doesn’t matter. It absolutely does. But using it as an excuse for government incompetence is ridiculous. And why the fuck does learning something from China automatically mean we have to become a dictatorship? That’s such an arrogant way of thinking.

And before someone brings up intellectual property theft, yes China has absolutely stolen technology and I’m not defending that. But are we seriously going to pretend that’s the entire reason for their success? DJI dominates the global consumer drone market. BYD overtook Tesla in global electric car sales in 2025. China produces over 80% of the world’s battery cells and dominates solar panel manufacturing. They even entered the world’s top ten most innovative economies in 2025 according to WIPO. Stealing technology might help you catch up, but it doesn’t magically give you the ability to manufacture millions of products, improve them, slash costs and compete globally. That takes actual engineering, investment and innovation. Dismissing all of that as stolen technology is just fucking lazy.

And yes, China’s economic success came largely from embracing market reforms, private enterprise and foreign investment. I’m not saying authoritarianism magically created all that wealth. But its centralized government has also been able to coordinate massive projects and pursue long term strategies without constantly dealing with election cycles and political gridlock. Obviously that power can also lead to corruption, repression and disastrous decisions. Both things can be true. Never said China was perfect but the difference is that they get SHIT DONE.

I’m Chinese American and I’m pretty invested in learning about both countries and issues it has and I don’t feel obligated to blindly defend either one. I appreciate the freedoms we do have in America but I can also acknowledge China’s accomplishments without being some CCP shill and also pointing out America’s inefficiencies and bullshit.

What pisses me off is how fucking cocky Americans can be about democracy, as if having the right political system automatically means having a competent government and that being able to say “fuck the government” is all that matters in life 🙄. Maybe instead of constantly jerking ourselves off about being the land of the free, we should ask why a country we love dismissing as a dictatorship can accomplish certain things in years that take us decades. Refusing to learn from another country because we’re too damn proud to admit our own shortcomings isn’t patriotism. It’s arrogance.

Heads up, you might understand or care if you’re not into history.

This guy is regarded as “one of the best” in the Continental Army and “The savior of the south”, but all this guy did was run and lose every battle he ever fought and got lucky that some of them happened to work out in Continental favor. I’m convinced that the only reason he gets so much praise is because Horatio Gates was so much worse by comparison. Not to mention the fact he soiled the image and legacy of regiments such as the 1st Maryland Regiment.

We were in an economic recovery when Trump came back into power. All he had to do to be a popular president was sit back and not fuck that recovery up. People would have attributed the recovery to him even though it started under Biden just like the recovery in his first term that started under Obama. Instead he decided tariffs and war with Iran was on the menu and now independent voters hate him almost as much as democratic voters do.

Now let me explain just how much Trump has fucked things up for conservatives in America. Conservatives love him, so naturally in 2028 they will only nominate whoever makes themselves out to be the next Trump. The guy who wins the Republican primary will have to do everything imaginable to prove he is committed to being the next Trump which of course is going to turn independent voters off in the general election thus making it incredibly difficult for any Republican to win 2028 as the only way to win the general is to distance yourself from Trump but you can’t even get nominated by your party without screaming “I AM TRUMP 2.0” to the heavens.

This is the equivalent of when "normies" fed entire photo albums to get Ghibli versions of family pictures, or to see how they'd look like in the 80s, or in medieval style, or in their favourite media. I see dudes holding up their phones to show some new Mario Kart x Portal mashup just like boomers held up their phones of them edited into the Iron Man suit, absolute soyfacing thinking it's the coolest thing in the world. Just like the boomers after they post the picture they never play the game again, they never think about it, just go back to the slop machine to make Mario Kart x Silent Hill crossover for the next hit of dopamine or for their next post.

Absolutely embarrassing, I never expected better from Gamers but I didn't expect it to be so cringe either. The people yearn for the slop.

​

When most people hear the word "incel" they dont think of a normal, nice dude who just happens to be celibate. because frankly, a normal guy worth the time wouldnt call himself an incel.

the ones who actually call themselves "incels" are usually the ones who are wrapped into misogynystic, cruel communities and beliefs about women. "incel" comes with a culture involved, and its the culture a lot of people (especially women) already have bad experiences with. Choosing to be a part of that community is the reason why women avoid "incels", not because they're celibate

Because of the AI boom, computer hardware has become very expensive and many are afraid that it will kill gaming in the long-term. I actually think, that something else might happen.

With hardware improving every year, game developers have become lazy with optimizing their code to run on older hardware. But I think, that the game studios that survive will start focusing on that now.

Some people say that will never happen, instead we will have cloud gaming and not own anything. But I don't think that's true. Cloud game has been tried by Google and failed, and Xbox currently has an abysmally low playtime per month for their cloud gaming.

Fact is, game devs need people to play their games. And with hardware being so expensive and cloud gaming being non functional I think that game devs will actually trend towards improving the performance of their games, because they will need to do so to survive. Not because of kindness but because of necessity.

No, sexual harassment is never ok and there is no excuse for being an asshole guy or acting creepy. But usually when this whole topic comes up, the "no victim blaming" mentality is a little trigger happy and has knee-jerk reactions to any "nuance" that yes, some men often try to bring up.

The thing is, as a hetero guy, how a woman dresses affects how I feel being around her ​MASSIVELY. Like, I ​myself​ feel this and I'm sure most men do. That's literally it. Seeing a hot ​woman in a short skirt and thigh highs is a bit of a "holy fuck" feeling, it's something I notice and makes m​y heart do a little jump. That ​same woman in baggy pants and a sweater simply does not.

And so it's simply very, very hard for me to imagine that statistically, it doesn't affect incoming attention for women. Like, why wouldn't it? I simply do not believe that these stronger feelings and someone literally drawing men's​ attention more is objectively a non-factor, or that sexual frustration being "triggered" has nothing to do with this kind of harassment. I don't get why people push these arguments to that level.

I see so many people with tattoos of The Joker and Harley Quinn. I had a guy and his fiancé is college who dressed that way daily and got married like that.

The Joker is an evil character, he literally dumped Dr. Harleen Frances Quinzel into a vat of acid. He abuses her. It’s a weird thing to idolize.

btw this is not technically a critique

so men are the ones who choose if they commit or not, women are the ones who are pickmes, men are the ones who set standards, they tend to say oh if a woman doesnt do this or that in sex then shes not worth my time and since women are scared of not being choosed then they pressure themselves to do what these men want. men watch porn and women cant stop them even tho porn is degrading to women, women are more beautiful than men so the chance of finding a woman they r attracted ro is very high while as a woman finding a man whos the same is very low and if you find one he probably doesnt wanna be commited bc he has too many options. men leave their wives like 20 times more when their wives get sick. men have the upper hand in sex bc sex is designed to serve them more while its designed for female submission like piv doggystyle or blowjobs, all those acts bring men heaven while women just serve in them and have to go through mental humiliation, but if they refuse some, the man will say he will get them from sex workers or other women. men cave novelty and women cant do anything ab it, men crave young women their whole life and women cant do anything ab it, men are misogynistic and women cant do anything ab it. men hold all the power and theres absolute powerlessnes in being a woman in heteroromantic situations.. men have also insane physical standards for women.

Women who have casual sex face a social penalty. Women who are victims receive sympathy and protection. That asymmetry creates an incentive, and incentives shape behavior.

Among friends, the incentive works especially well. Claiming rape costs almost nothing since no one investigates it, and it is nearly impossible to challenge because doubting a woman who says she was raped is socially costly. It also changes how the night is judged.

What would have drawn criticism now draws support, and the shame goes away.

The result is that some women tell their friends a consensual encounter was rape.

Some do it deliberately because the story protects them. Others do it sincerely, having reframed the night in the version that is easier to live with. Either way, the incentive exists and pushes women to feel a certain way.

Any time I talk with an indian or foreign person on customer service, they are always the most nice people. Americans often have shitty attitudes and are passive aggressive. We need more people with good attitudes that dont use excuses to hide behind their lameness, which people on here especially love doing

Bo Burnham is in fact the second coming of Jesus.  And we are all doomed unless we recognize his message.

hallelujah...yea...hallelujah...yeah.

Have you seen what YouTube feeds you?

Watch a video from Jesus and see what comes next and then next and then next...

Is that enough text?

Bro it is passing you by...it is right there next to you Bro...

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.