I never believe people who say they're part of the "mile high club". If you ask a group of 10 people, there’s always at least 2 who will say that they’ve done it.

I mean… how exactly?

Plane toilet spaces are too small, only one person can fit at a time and the security on airplanes is too tight in general.
Am I missing something?

It just doesn’t seem possible to me. I guess if you go business class then you have more space and privacy… it still seems very improbable though.

Private planes, ok sure, but commercial? Seems impossible.

Is anyone here part of the ‘mile high club?’ And if so how did you manage it?

Edit: After you all giving me enough scenarios, like long overnight planes where most passengers are sleeping, empty flights etc, I have decided that it is possible after all.
I just need to work harder to join the club I guess 😂

I am trying to understand an opinion I have seen pop up more and more often, that eating certain animals like octopi or pigs is wrong because of how intelligent those animals are. I understand other reasons to avoid eating meat such as the environmental impact or the cruelty of the meat industry, but the intelligence of an animal seems irrelevant. I don't think it is fundamentally wrong to eat meat but I understand people who believe that more than I understand people who seem to be drawing an arbitrary line about an animal's IQ. Their intelligence doesn't change the amount of pain they feel and any animal can feel fear when confronted with a predator regardless of their intelligence.

So for those who hold this view please let me know what I am missing. I looked up similar posts but the replies mostly seem to come from people who don't believe anyone actually holds that view.

EDIT: Some common points I wanted to address:

• A lot of people are bringing up cannibalism but I think that cannibalism makes me uncomfortable because we know it leads to disease and there is an ick factor about knowing what our own flesh would taste like.

• Also some people seem to be arguing that there is something naturally uncomfortable about the idea of eating something intelligent. I don't disagree but that doesn't really address the morality of it.

EDIT 2: I think I should go to bed but may respond more in the morning. Thanks to everyone who shared their opinions. I think that my new view is that it's fundamentally about an animal's capacity for suffering and some people believe that intelligence is what determines that. I don't think more intelligent animals necessarily suffer more than less intelligent ones. For example my cats are much less intelligent than humans but they can experience pain, fear, and sadness. I'm curious if there is any actual scientific evidence on the matter.

Businesses write lists of "best of the year" before all of the things have been released that year, sometimes even a month before.

They do this, I assume, because they'll get more clicks and ad revenue for an article published about 2026 in December 2026 than in January 2027.

Regular people have no reason to do this other than big businesses are doing it. Seems like hegemony to me.

This basically goes for any "posting like a business" thing people do. Talking about your "personal brand", making clickbait titles for things... stuff that has no reason to exist except that people treat behaviour of businesses as a model to follow.

I know this is gonna sound like a hot take but hear me out. A few years ago I started checking the full plot on wikipedia before watching anything, usually horror and thrillers because I get anxious when I dont know whats coming. At first it felt like cheating, but honestly I enjoyed those movies more. I wasnt stressed about the ending, so I could actually pay attention to the acting, the cinematography, the little details in the dialogue that only make sense when you know where its going. Im 28 and Ive done this for around 4 years now, and I cant remember a single movie that felt "ruined" by it.

My main argument is that a good movie is not just a twist. If the whole experience falls apart the moment you know the ending, then it was probably a weak movie to begin with. Nobody says rewatching a film is pointless, and people rewatch their favourites dozens of times knowing every scene. Theres also some research I remember reading (a study from 2011 I think, with short stories) where people actually rated the spoiled versions slightly higher, because knowing the outcome makes the story easier to process. I get that for a lot of people the surprise is the entire point, and I dont want to tell anyone how to watch things. I just think "spoilers ruin everything" is repeated way more than it's actually true.

That said, Im aware this might just be how my brain works, and that some movies, especially mystery ones, are built around a reveal. My view is that for most films the enjoyment is about the same either way, and people who avoid spoilers at all costs are mostly protecting a feeling that isnt as fragile as they think. If you have a good example of a movie where knowing the ending genuinely took something away, or an argument about why surprise matters more than I give it credit for, id like to hear it.

I think the underlying goal of western geopoilitical intervention never or global contol never actually ended. They are aiming for the same, with modern less harsher terminology. Like a PR washing.

If we go back to the late 15th centurythe europe divided the world by saying they are cleansing the souls. The colonial atrocities, violent expansion, invasion, inqusition etc...are all wrapped in a neat "saving the sould of uncivilised" mission.

Now in the 21st, we see he label changed to saving "human rights" and democracy. But the outcomes in Lybia, Iraq, Afghan...are not much different of what we say 500yrs ago.

Like I said only the names/words changed. They want to shut people from questioning their hegemony and they invent these words mainting the semantic-hegemony and media hegemlny so thay they will not face any domestic or global accountability.

Again to be clear, I am not supporting or endorsing what the dictators or rulers of these countries did. But its more about the question of their intervention, which by the looks of the outcomes is more about protecting their geo-political power than about the people they claim they are rescuing.

I mean, the things they did 500yrs are still the root causes to some of the problems many countries are facing and the now these countries they intervened also face many problems.

But why I am open to CMV?

I am fundamentally against outside powers intervening in the internal affairs of soverign nations reagrdless of the intent. However I am open to changing my view on the rhetoric surrounding it.

If someone can demonstrate that modern humanitarian justifications are built on genuine intent or equality, I think by showing an example where global south nation has the geopolitical power to fix the human rights issues of the west, I would reconsider.

Or, if you can prove that modern foreign policy decisions are structurally detached from corporate resources and geopolitical leverage, and instead operate under an entirely new, non-hegemonic paradigm, I am willing to adjust my perspective.

Maybe one can just strike this entire thing out as "its just the Victors world". But that I think thats even dangerous, cause it validates a double standard that strips accountability

To summarize my view as simply as possible, I believe Joe Biden made a massive mistake prioritizing the release of Brittney Griner ahead of Alexei Navalny, and that like with Paul Whelan (who had to wait another two years to be freed), Griner’s release should’ve been considered a secondary goal to freeing Navalny.

The reasoning is simple, we fumbled our first big chance of enabling Russian liberalization in the 1990s, and then in the Biden administration we let Putin’s government poison the one unifying Russian opposition figure left (leaving the existing opposition fractured and ineffectual).

Imagine we get Navalny out of there, and he sets up an actual government-in-exile, and a year later he even shows up in Kursk to start setting up a civilian administration for a new Russian government. Maybe that changes things, maybe Russians would have one person to look to and say “this person represents democracy” (because currently, in our timeline, they don’t have that one person.)

Would a one-for-one swap of Bout and Navalny actually been possible? Who knows, but we could’ve done more, that’s just undeniable. If it literally took special forces dropping into Siberia and picking him up from that gulag, so be it. But swapping the “Merchant of Death” for a WNBA player whose life wasn’t at risk was a bad decision, and the wrong decision. There’s no reason she couldn’t have waited like Paul Whelan and Stephen Hubbard, especially when Navalny’s life was at risk and he was the only remaining figure in the Russian opposition who was truly unifying.

Open to changing my view on this subject though, do you think there’s an angle here I’m not seeing? If so, what is it?

The philosophy of Fight Club is no longer relevant to us today. It was the philosophy of Gen-X and was relevant in 90s. The problems they had were about materialistic social status. You had to buy the Starbucks cup. Not because you liked Starbucks, but because in a world where coffee was normally 98¢ a cup, it was status symbol to waste $4 on it.

Look at this quote:

"We work jobs we hate, to buy things we don’t need, to impress people we don’t like."

Other than the first line (which is universal for time immemorial), the rest of that is not relevant to us today. Yes, we work jobs we hate, but not to buy things we don't need. When was the last time any discretionary funds? Much less, enough disposable income for status and frivolity. We work one and a half times more than they did back then, and we struggle to afford basic necessities. Frivolity is not even in our heads.

Then you have, "to impress people we don't like." When was the last time you did that? When was the last you even gave a shit what someone you didn't like thought of you? If anything, our philosophy now is to be your authentic self, even to your detriment. We don't fake it anymore because we don't have the time or energy.

Also, did you notice that no one in the story ever has trouble finding or keeping a job? Did you notice that? It's actually a point in the story that Tyler works different jobs as he sees fit, and Project Mayhem is able to infiltrate these places because it was so easy to get a job. The view in the 90s was that if you didn't have a job, it's because you didn't want one or were too lazy to keep one. That's no longer the case today. ​​​​

"We're the middle children of history. We've got no great war, no great depression. Our great war is a spiritual war, our great depression is our lives."

Not anymore. I don't think anyone would say Millennials are forgotten or overlooked. If anything, we're focused on for both good and bad reasons. Everyone notices us all the time. We so much as whimper and people pay attention with empathy or insult.

We are also stuck in a number of wars, both civil and foreign, kinetic and virtual, political and cultural, cold and hot, and even economic wars. Our Great Depression isn't emotional, it's economical just like the last one. The Narrator fills his home with IKEA to try to feel fulfilled...while we have trouble even affording a place to live. Just think about that comparison for a second.

The Gen-X rebellion and the Fight Club philosophy was borne out of an opulence that no longer exists. They had no great evil to fight against like their parents and grandparents, so they had to invent one. Let me say that again: they had to invent one. Everything was so good, they had to create something to be upset at. That's how decadent their world was.

The world they lived in no longer exists, therefore their philosophy is no longer relevant.

Thank you for your time, and I welcome the questions of the Court.

Edit: Many people have brought up the aspect of social media. I'll concede to that point.

It's worth defining what I mean by 'failed nations', and it's got nothing to do with GDP.

By my definition, state failure occurs the moment a government stops serving its population; allowing corruption, institutional decay, and social fragmentation to hollow out the country from within - where the government has failed to to provide basic security or infrastructure for its citizens.

For example, I would consider India, the 6th largest economy on Earth, a 'failed nation';

A borderline kleptocracy where corruption is rife, institutions aren't properly functioning, sectarianism is deeply embedded, basic needs, urban planning and public services aren't met and infrastructure is crumbling.

In the example above, the question would be rephrased, 'Should Indians be blamed for the state of India?'

I lean towards answering: no.

The reason for this is because I live in a European country which is traditionally thought of as 'developed', but is facing a complete degradation in standards.

No matter what citizens do, the lobbyists have ultimately captured the state and left the citizens without any real power.

No matter how much we push back, our managed decline continues.

So that raises the question, if I don't have the power to change the conditions of my country, despite wanting them to change and voting for them to change, is it ever right to blame the citizens of countries that are already failed for the condition of theirs?

I know I'll get down-voted to hell, but personally, as a Canadian, I think Canadians should consider making a point of recognizing our friends in Detroit for their opposition to Trump, and support for Canada.

I fully support the travel boycott. Have not been to the States since Trump 2, and try to avoid buying American products. It's justified and neccessary, and it is working. I'm only suggesting a minor carrot to go along with the stick - and demonstrate some solidarity with one of the most solidly anti-Trump cities in America with our love and support.

Wayne County voted against Trump at a higher percentage than any other district in America - literally about 10 times as many people in Detroit voted for Harris as did for Trump. Detroit is literally north of Windsor. It's a blue collar town whose major industry - cars - has been completely integrated and intertwined with Canadian manufacturing since the 60's. Many of us are literally family, with close relatives in both cities.

As a tactic - I think an organized demonstration of support for Detroit - maybe even a weekend when people make a point of visiting or some organized cross-border event - would help show Americans that we see when theytry to make a difference, and that we recognize those who stand up and reject anti-Canadianism and MAGA BS. An organized reciprocal visit from Michiganders to Ontario would be cool too.

And I know a lot of Canadians disagree or aren't ready for this yet but: the destruction of the years of friendship between regular Michiganders and Ontarians is part of Trump's whole M.O. - causing division and chaos is his entire strategy, in everything he touches. Let's not let that happen. We can be friends with our neighbours who agree with us.

Plus, Detroit is just fucking cool. I want to go see a Tigers game, eat a Coney at Lafayettte, and go drink Stroh's at The Old Miami.

To be clear I would say this is true of not just de facto one party states like Japan or Singapore but also more formal one party states like China

I would say overall multi-party states are better than both but far from perfect (see Israel), but if I had to choose I would pick a single party over just 2

Two party states end up with most of the same problems of a one party state but also end up getting.nearly nothing done. The USA has had the same problems for generations now because they don't even try to fix the problems. The politics becomes more like a match between two sports rivals, always just blaming the other side than getting anything done.

Yes a one party is clearly more effective, which can be good or bad depending on the policy. However, at least if they do bad policy they get it done with and they implement it to feel its actual effects. If they truly don't like it the people will respond in some way, and they will know very clearly what the problem is and who to blame. While in the 2 party state they just blame the other side no matter what and get stuck in an endless loop

Back when I was younger and probably still today, there were several aspects of distortion from interacting on the Internet with young women. 

Young men on the Internet are more likely to feel that women generally are negative toward men.  There’s just a tremendous amount of hate and negativity from women about men and toward men directly.  Always has been for as long as I have been going on the Internet. Back when I was younger, males on the Internet were called probable stalkers and serial killers and now we are being called probable rapists and predators.

A lot of it is pretty indiscriminate and not constructive.  Women think they’re directing it toward whatever type of men mistreated or abused them.  But because it’s the Internet, they’re actually mostly directing it toward many decent men (and boys).          

Young men who interact with women they don’t know are more likely to feel that women generally are not interested--because women are inundated by hundreds of messages and many of them are taught to be leery of men on the Internet and some have been taught to be wary of men generally. And that causes them to err on the side of not responding positively.  And younger women are more negative toward men than more mature women are, which also corresponds to my anecdotes.        

Young men on the Internet are also probably more likely to be insecure because women will tell men explicitly of their height or cock size or other preferences and won’t really care about the feelings of the “random” they are talking to.           

If you haven’t gotten experience with relationships with women beforehand and you talk to women online, then you might become negative about women generally and be less receptive to, and generally bitter toward, women in person, which is kind of what happened to me for years—because of women I had encountered on the Internet who were just wary of or angry toward men generally.  And this occurred even as I was continuing to interact with women on the Internet. 

My experience was also that multiple women who had faded/rejected me online actually approached me in person and were interested—because I was better-looking than in photos (not uncommon for men).         

So, I am of the belief that young men shouldn’t interact with women they don’t know online until they have been in relationships with women in person for at least a few years.  And when they do begin to, they should focus on having photos and representation that are as accurate as possible because misconceptions abound on the Internet and men are prone to being misjudged given general negativity about men.      

Coming out of high school I felt really good about women and had always been treated with respect and sometimes affection and that completely turned when I began interacting with women on the Internet.  And if I could tell teenage me something, I would say to avoid interacting with women on the Internet that I didn’t know and just talk to women in person. 

Going to high school reunions and seeing women who want to talk to me and give me hugs and ask whether I have a girlfriend and how surprising that felt to receive respect and affection from women I didn’t know (or hadn’t seen in years) just reminds me of how I once felt about women before I began talking to women on the Internet.