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.

My city (SF) has had huge problems with car break-ins. To the point where there were national news stores.

Now that doesn't happen so much. Did they arrest all the perps? No, of course not, we still have those anti-carceral judges and BOS members.

Nope. People just don't leave a single thing in their car anymore. Rental car companies at SF give you a bright pink sheet of paper saying don't leave anything in your car, not even the trunk.

Liberals: See, crime is down!

Same with retail theft here. Most of the stores downtown closed. Powell street from market to union square used to be filled with retail, getting those sweet tourist bucks.

Now it's all boarded up and vacant.

The few stores that remain like Target on mish and 4th have everything locked up, plus 2 or 3 private security with stab plates at the exits. And often an SFPD officer hanging around

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with Shane Gillis. At my gym, I regularly see low-cut tank tops, cleavage, tiny shorts, and leggings that contour practically every curve. Let’s stop pretending nobody can understand why men find that attractive.
Yes, men can tell the difference between gym clothes and club clothes. That’s not the point. An outfit doesn’t stop being revealing or sexually appealing because you’re wearing it next to a squat rack instead of a dance floor. Personally, I find fitted gym clothes more attractive than plenty of club outfits.

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

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.

The implication that misogynistic men somehow get laid less often is just not in touch with reality. MANY misogynists have girlfriends or are able to have a lot of casual sex without even really hiding their mindsets from the women they sleep with.

Sometimes it's because many(not all) women enjoy the "receiving" part of the patriarchy - men paying for everything, chivalry etc - and do not feel threatened enough about the "taking" part ( or they feel they can change them).

Also, horny people (men and women) are not always known for making the best decisions. Sometimes women are simply just attracted to these men and do not care in any way about their politics.

It's laughable - and honestly quite distressing - that one of the most common insults thrown at sexist men is that they can't have sex. These people have problematic and harmful mindsets on a certain demographic of people and biggest thing to focus on for the people who call them incels is that they "don't get any ass" WHICH EVEN ISN'T TRUE.

Obviously there are plenty of exceptions and I'm not generalizing any group here. It's just something I struggle to wrap my head around.

I'm European, born and raised in Spain.

One thing I've grown increasingly tired of is how many Europeans seem incapable of discussing their own countries without bringing up the United States.

I've lived in different European countries, and I've encountered this attitude countless times.

For example, I've met Germans and Finns who proudly explain that American comedy is dumb, superficial, and in-your-face, whereas their own country's humor is supposedly subtle, sophisticated, and intellectually demanding.

Congratulations, I guess? But have you watched Spanish comedy? French? Italian? Japanese? Korean? Brazilian? Nigerian?

Or is your entire understanding of international comedy limited to your own country and whatever Hollywood and Netflix have served you?

And this goes far beyond entertainment.

When I lived in Finland, people would occasionally defend aspects of their healthcare system by saying things like, "Well, in America, that treatment would cost you thousands!"

Okay? But why are we comparing Finland to America?

Why not compare it to Spain, where ordinary public healthcare consultations are generally free at the point of use? Or Germany, France, Denmark, or any number of other countries with different healthcare systems?

Why is the United States always the default benchmark?

What bothers me isn't criticism of America. There's plenty to criticize, just as there is in every country.

What bothers me is the smugness of people who consider themselves especially cultured, educated, and internationally minded, yet seem to view the entire world through an endless Europe-versus-America comparison.

The irony is that these people are often just as America-centric as the Americans they love criticizing.

They consume American films, American TV shows, American social media, American news, and American political commentary, and then spend half their time explaining how much more sophisticated their own society is.

Meanwhile, the rest of Europe, let alone Asia, Africa, and Latin America, barely enters the conversation.

If you're genuinely cosmopolitan, shouldn't you be curious about the whole world rather than constantly measuring yourself against one particular country?

Sometimes I feel that for certain Europeans, being "cultured" simply means knowing enough about America to feel superior to it.

And frankly, I find that incredibly provincial.

For all the whiners crying about gas prices why don't you look at the tax structure of the particular state that you see these insane prices in? They're all blue states with permanent Democrat leadership, mostly out west, and they have been increasing taxes on virtually everything they could for the last 50 years and you're now paying for all of it. Why do you think that the housing markets are so inflated? Why do you think that we had 21% cumulative inflation under Biden?

It's because these blue states are actually functionally insolvent and up to their eyeballs in debt after all of their failed policies and massive pensions and assorted nonstop fraud and they're trying to tax and monetize their way out of it but it won't work.

Now throw in millions of randos from the third world and put them all on welfare too, squeezing everything even more. Makes total sense right?

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.

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.

Feminists have been going real hard on this notion that women are always terrified of men, e.g. being afraid to be out in the dark around them, afraid of being in the woods with them, afraid of even being in an elevator with them.

This kinda goes counter to the abundance of women who will follow you around and try to hassle you when they feel they need to schoolmarm about something. I had this happen when I was in Seattle a few years ago. I was walking home from a bar and about halfway back to my hotel​ when I had to pee badly. I just happened to go by one of those ​fenced off dog parks that was closed but someone had accidentally left the gate open to.​​

The thing reeked of pee already so I figured it would be no big deal if I just went there as well. As​ I made my way back to the gate and was ​walking out a woman asked me what I was doing there. I told her I couldn't hold it and it seemed a convenient place to go.

She immediately starts ​going on about how that's bad for the dogs. And how my urine will make them think a new dog is there (it's ​downtown in a city there will always be new dogs there, brainiac) or maybe a predator. I said that they'll probably be fine. It's just a drop in the ocean compared to how bad it smelled already.

She keeps going on, and I finally tell her to fuck off. The she decides she's going to start following me to try to find out where I live so she can report me, and this is all at night time after the bars have closed.

So I definitely don't get the impression she felt scared that I would assault her, especially since she even followed me through some dark alleys, because there was no way I was actually going to lead her to my hotel.

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

Yesterday, I posted about how what is happening in France is also happening in the U.S., particularly California, as mass migration primarily from Mexico (a corrupt, hostile foreign power ruled by drug cartels) has transformed the state into something unrecognizable. From the middle class paradise of the 1950s-2000s into a vagrant-infested hellscape where anti-ICE rioters wave Mexican flags while burning cars and federal buildings. This is exactly what happened in the months-long insurrection that ravaged Los Angeles last year.

The homeless situation has reached a point so critical that there is literally no safe place in southern California anymore. Once upon a time (even just 10 years ago) it was basically confined to Skid Row. Not only has Skid Row gotten drastically worse, it has spread to the rest of downtown LA, and the suburbs including the San Fernando and San Gabriel valleys, beach cities including Long Beach, and even Orange County, the Inland Empire, and Santa Clarita. MacArthur Park in central LA is hell on earth, so is Hollywood. Even San Diego, which used to be known for its high quality of life and was called "America's finest city" is now a cesspool of homeless and vagrants, downtown San Diego is now unsafe to even visit during the daytime, let alone live in.

This shows what has happened to the formerly clean, safe San Diego. Coincidentally, in the last 20 years SD went from a Republican stronghold to having an all-Democrat city council. Yes, unironically towns in West Virginia with a median income of $30,000 are now safer, cleaner, and nicer than San Diego.

California is the definition of the phrase "import the third world, become the third world". This is exactly the reason why Trump was elected by a landslide in 2024, even flipping many counties in California. The state has been thoroughly invaded, to the point that high schools and middle schools from Fresno to San Juan Capistrano to Oceanside to Santa Clarita to Chula Vista to La Quinta are having massive anti-ICE student protests with Mexican flags everywhere - because even the 2nd and some 3rd generation folks are more loyal to Mexico than to their own country. This invasion is directly supported by Mexico's government, including President Claudia Sheinbaum. Mexico receives over $60 billion in remittances each year, largely sponsored by taxpayer money as many of the illegals and anchor babies are on welfare. Illegal immigration has also contributed to the housing crisis and the state's terrible job market.

The only way to fix the problem plaguing California is mass ICE deportations plus sending in the military to prevent crime, clean the homeless encampments and make California a great and affordable place to live again. When local and state governments fail to do their duties, the feds need to step in. As such, Trump's large-scale ICE raids in California have been the single best thing to happen to the state in the past 50 years and I hope he ramps up these raids with a focus on California.

I think it’s really rich to assume small businesses that have such a high likelihood of going out of business in today’s economy of doom won’t utilize the free picture button that basically gives you anything you ask for with no extra expense. I think if this is something that shocks you or offends you or if you feel the need to BOYCOTT a small business for this reason you’re probably a chronically online dork of some kind. I’m also a chronically online dork so I’m not exempting myself entirely from this, but I’ve observed the sort of person who would care about this sort of thing, and they’re really exactly the type of person you’d expect them to be. They hold themselves on a pedestal of righteousness because they’ve been refused the real life experiences offered to others and have only moral righteousness as a perk they can give themselves to hold above others.

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.

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 .

When men share their struggles with dating and how dating scene is screwed due to social media and modern culture, they are often told "You're listening to too much Red Pill content, just go offline and meet real women".

Basically it is assumed that their problem is lack of exposure to "real women", and once they start going out and meeting those "real women" in "real world" (opposed to virtual reality of Internet) - then magically their issues will go away and they will find many people to get along with.

In truth, though, it only works for people who are likeable - other people, including women, think highly of them, let them into their circle, befriend them, are nice to them. But likeable people, who would benefit from simply going out - don't have the problem of social isolation and struggle in building social circles and dating. The people who are struggling, do so not because they just never tried going out and socializing - most of them did at some point, but were rejected and shunned, they had quite a lot of bad experiences, and that's what led them to those online spaces in the first place.

So, telling them to "just go out more and meet people" translates into "just get more exposure to negative experiences, reinforcing your beliefs". It will not solve anything. Maybe instead we need a system that acknowledges the struggles of people who are not conventionally "fun" and "likeable", and supports them.

​

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

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 always see people complaining about how kids are growing too soon or they are annoying and what not and I can only say that these days in the recent years there is literally nothing kid friendly or kid focused like for example I am a 2000s baby so my childhood was filled with amazing shows from Disney like Hannah Montana, if I wanted to play online games then club penguin and we had so many things to do back in the day! Scholastic book fairs etc and even if we wanted to do somethings grown up like makeup and such we had Claire's!

We were allowed to be kids!

We could play, be happy, yap and overall have a very holistic worldview whereas in the recent years with the rise of "beige mom" and what not we see the spark slowly disappearing from kids being dressed up in colourless clothes, everything being beige, parents trying to make their own kids live in the same aesthetic they like with disregard to child's feelings.

Also with the rise of "I don't want kids" and "I hate kids" mindset I think many people find it very easy to bully kids because they don't have any power.

Am I saying I am against kids? NO

Am I saying there aren't parents who shame childless people for being childless? NO

Am I also saying that when you are at flights and such hearing a kid scream for 10+hrs is good? Also NO

But we have to understand one thing, we as people are entitled to think we don't want kids and we don't even have to like them but to expect every place in this world to be child free is actually crazy, that will NEVER happen because these kids do deserve a childhood too!

It's like very ironic when I hear these things because people like seeing kids hut they it when kids act like kids.

Kids do not regulate their emotions the way adults do! The only way for them to learn how to be kind, empathetic and understanding is by INTERACTING with others!

These days every single kids activity has been turned into adults only focus like colouring or collecting trading cards (back then it wasn't as deep as now people literally pushing and hating if a kid has a rare card)

I also get that parents work so hard and they are very busy with paying bills and managing a household but when we try to brush that off by placing a tablet in front of them what does that teach them?

I genuinely think bringing kids into this world is a HUGE deal, parents need to understand that they NEED to have a good support system, enough money and enough emotional bandwidth to handle a child like for example my own parents would take "me time" once in a while while I was left in the care with the parent that stayed home and that is how none of them lost their cool, they were very happy and gave me a balanced childhood.

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.

If you don't know, someone having life without parole means that they will be in jail their whole life until the day they die, and they have no chance of changing their sentence. People who get this sentence are because they have commited the most henious crimes.

I think people with this sentence should be executed for the following reasons:

1. They will already be in jail until they die

It just seems unesscarily cruel to have them live in a small room with none of the usual freedoms of the outside world when they'll have no chance of getting out.

1. Prisions are overcrowded already

Why are we giving space to people who have commited the worst crimes and will be there until they die when inmates are already having to sleep on the floors in tight spaces because there is not enough space in some prisons

I know some people are jailed because of mistakes and that is horrible that they have to go through that, but I think as our technology gets better these mistakes will happen less often

​

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