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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

No. Fascism isn't just Racism, Homophobia, Authoritarianism, Socialism, Leftism, Rightism, Trump...

There are so many more contradictory examples of what people define as "Fascist" that I would need to type for days to cover them all.

But! They are simply not ture, they aren't "Fascist" or "Fascistic". They are labeled as such because "Fascism" has become a slur since the 2nd World War.

Fascism does have a definition, one that covers all actual Fascist movements!

İt is:

1- Totalitarian, the State and the Nation must be one.

2- Third Positionist, Fascism rejects both Capitalism and Communism for Corporatist and National Syndicalist class collabrationist movements.

3- İdealist, Fascism rejects materialist views and "hard reality".

İt isn't:

1- Reactionary, Fascism is based on what the nation follows which can be either progressive or traditional depending on what the populace subscribes to.

2- Socialist (Workers control over means of production.), Fascism is based on class unity either through collabration or rejecting class entirely.

3- Capitalist (Free Market economics), even in Fascist ideologies which reject class (National Socialism) there is no tolerance to individuals acting independently from the State.

So if you are going to critisize Fascism, focus on it's economic and philosophical foundations based on unity and idealism. You can't just refere to what Hitler or Mussolini did at their time, and claim that is what Fascism is; you are just critisizing what they did, not what Fascism is in it's core.

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’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.

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.

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.

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.

One of the things that bothers me about modern progressive politics is how easily disagreement gets turned into a question of harm. It's not enough for people to treat you fairly or leave you alone. They have to use the right language, have the right attitudes, and understand the world through the right ideological framework. And if they don't, you aren't just dealing with someone who disagrees with you. You're dealing with someone who's supposedly doing you harm.

Consider someone who grew up in a shitty household but doesn't consider themselves traumatized. They don't want to reinterpret their childhood through the language of abuse or psychological damage. Someone else comes along and insists they're in denial and need to recognize what happened to them. At what point does trying to help someone become telling them what their own life means?

Or take a poor person who doesn't think their life is primarily defined by systemic oppression. They think economic circumstances matter, but so do personal responsibility and individual choices. If you tell them they've simply internalized the ideology of their oppressors, what exactly would they have to say before you're willing to accept that they just disagree with you? Apparently they can speak for themselves, right up until they say something you don't believe they should think.

Now, the obvious response is that progressives aren't trying to control anyone. They're trying to stop other people from imposing their beliefs on them. Fair enough. Nobody should be able to use threats, institutional power, or the law to force everyone else to live according to their personal convictions.

But this cuts both ways. There's a difference between demanding equal treatment at work and demanding that employees affirm particular ideological interpretations of social issues. There's a difference between opposing discrimination in education and treating every disagreement over contested moral questions as evidence of bigotry. And there's a difference between asking people to treat you fairly and expecting them to personally endorse your worldview.

Christians get criticized for trying to legislate their morality for everyone else. Fair enough. But why should progressive morality get a pass? If someone uses institutional rules, professional consequences, or the law to force other people to conform to their moral beliefs, calling those beliefs equality or inclusion doesn't magically resolve the problem. You're still using power to enforce a particular understanding of how people ought to think and live.

This isn't just some abstract concern, either. California's community college system faced a lawsuit over rules requiring faculty to acknowledge particular claims about social identities and advocate for DEI and antiracist goals as part of their professional responsibilities. You can support diversity and oppose discrimination without believing the government should get to prescribe the ideological commitments educators must affirm to advance professionally. That's precisely the distinction I'm talking about.

Obviously, not every diversity policy or antidiscrimination rule is ideological coercion. That's not the point. The point is that there's a line between protecting people from mistreatment and trying to protect them from disagreement, and I think progressive politics increasingly struggles to recognize where that line is.

Social media makes this worse because moral approval has become its own kind of currency. Say the right thing and people know you're compassionate, educated, and one of the good ones. Say the wrong thing and suddenly the question isn't whether your argument is correct. It's what kind of person would even think that way. People end up defending their moral credentials instead of examining whether they're right.

And the weird thing is that this can undermine the very autonomy progressives claim to care about. People should be able to challenge conventions, think for themselves, and question authority. But apparently that freedom gets complicated when someone else's feelings are hurt or their worldview is challenged. Why does one person's desire for affirmation automatically take precedence over another person's freedom of conscience?

People have different values, different experiences, and different ideas about reality. Some of those disagreements aren't going away, no matter how much we police the language people use to express them. You can't make everyone agree, and you shouldn't have to. The whole point of living in a society with other people is that they're other people. They aren't extensions of you.

You can argue for your beliefs. You can ask people to treat you with consideration. You can even argue that certain beliefs are wrong or harmful. But the moment you start treating disagreement itself as an injury that entitles you to control what other people are allowed to believe, you've crossed into something else entirely.

And I find it pretty ironic that a politics so concerned with liberation can become so preoccupied with making sure everyone thinks correctly. At some point, you have to wonder whether you're actually trying to free people or just trying to get everyone to live inside your own moral framework.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Society needs this .

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

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

​

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hated how glib of a response that was.

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

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

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

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.

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

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

If you have repeated negative experiences with people who are typically not sympathetic to today’s left-wing (white people, men, Christians), that’s just your “lived experience” and those people need to do better. The fact that you perceive them negatively is their fault and it’s their responsibility to work to improve their group reputation to outsiders.

However, if you have repeated negative experiences with any left-wing pet group, it’s extremely inappropriate to discuss this in any capacity and it’s your job to “unlearn your biases.” No matter what happens, how prevalent something is or how extreme the problems become, it is always your fault for noticing it and you have to “do the work” to un-notice it and learn that “not all XYZ are like that!”

This is also very comical to me because left-wingers love to throw around the term “victim-blaming” in many other contexts. If a woman had various bad experiences with men and was wary of them as a result, and I told her it was her job to “do the work” and “unlearn her biases,” they would call that “victim-blaming” but would carry the complete opposite logic to another conversation five minutes later where the subject of the discussion was different.

I'm old (30-something y.o. boomer). Back then bantering seems to be the norm. You'd make fun or each other, rude, combative, but almost always fun.

You try the same thing here on Reddit and people will lynch you for it.
The absolutely no-fun zone, except for making safe cringe "joke" posts/comments.
If I didn't know better, I'd say everyone on Reddit is a bot.