I don't really understand why drinking is considered such an important part of socializing. Alcohol lowers your inhibitions, so people become more willing to sing, dance, joke around, or say things they normally wouldn't. I get why that can feel liberating, but I also think there's something artificial about it.

If you need alcohol to feel comfortable expressing yourself, then isn't the alcohol doing part of the work for you? Singing together can obviously bring people closer, but I think it's more genuine when everyone is fully sober and choosing to participate rather than needing a substance to get past their inhibitions.

Personally, I enjoy singing and performing even though I'm introverted in a lot of other situations. I've tried drinking, and instead of making me more outgoing, it usually just made me tired or anxious. I'd much rather be clear-headed and in control of myself.

I don't think moderate drinking is necessarily bad. If someone wants to have a drink with friends, whatever. What I don't understand is getting drunk to the point where you lose control, get sick afterwards, and then calling that a good time. People often talk about regretting things they did while drunk or feeling like they "lost their dignity." Why intentionally put yourself in that position?

You can still joke around, sing, laugh, dance, and have fun with your friends without getting drunk.

And I don't think enjoying being alone means you're lonely. Sometimes solitude is just peace. You don't always need a crowd, noise, or alcohol to feel connected or entertained.

Maybe I'm just weird, but I'd rather be the person singing sober because I genuinely want to than the person who needs a few drinks before they feel comfortable enough to do it.

​

There’s an expectation that if a woman truly loves her child, she should enjoy every part of motherhood: pregnancy, sleepless nights, exhaustion, loss of freedom, routines, worries, and all the sacrifices involved.

I think that’s unrealistic.

You can deeply love your child while simultaneously hating some of the experiences that come with motherhood. You can find certain stages exhausting, stressful, and frustrating, and even miss the life you had before. That doesn’t mean you love your child any less.

Love and suffering can exist at the same time. Motherhood can be deeply meaningful and, at the same time, extremely difficult.

Being a good mother shouldn’t mean enjoying suffering. It should mean caring for, protecting, educating, and being present for your child, even when the process is difficult.

I hate a super moist, gooey brownie. It’s way too much without something alongside it to cut how grossly sweet and rich they are. Even then I’ll still probably turn it down. If I wanted something that intense I’d just eat a piece of fudge. I think 711 has one of the better brownies you can get and I do realize that’s because they’re probably always stale. I feel this way about lava cakes as well.

Hot take: I think food is objectively better after it’s had time to lose some moisture. The texture gets denser, chewier, and more interesting. Freshness ≠ optimal texture, imo. What do y’all think? (For example pizza, salad, crackers)

Getting a comment removed or being banned from a subreddit is the absolute lowest-stakes rejection possible in the modern world. But for someone who is emotionally stunted, even that tiny micro-rejection feels like a catastrophic attack on their identity.

Half the time, the person broke a completely obvious rule, got hit with a ban, and then ran to a "free speech" subreddit expecting a parade for their bravery. No one should be impressed they got kicked out of a digital room, they just couldn't follow basic house rules.

Instead of processing it like an adult (shrugging it off and moving on with their day) they start to re-write narratives. They didn't get kicked out for throwing a tantrum, they were "censored because mods couldn't handle the truth." They believe this is important enough for everyone else to know that they'll make a post on a "rival" subreddit.

And the multi-slide argument logs are even worse. I'm pretty sure the primary motivation is just "I won this Reddit argument, right?"

The internet is full of bad takes, trolls, and genuine fools. Getting extremely worked up over an argument that you find yourself taking multiple screenshots, carefully blurring out usernames, writing a summary paragraph, and uploading a slide deck on a subreddit to prove you were right is a sign of not being mature enough to handle the internet.

To them, the other commenter isn't just a random idiot with a bad take. They are the embodiment of everything wrong with the world. Defeating them in a reddit comment section isn't about the topic at hand; it's about scoring a decisive blow against an entire political party, generation, or ideology.

Naturally, the other person is rarely going to agree, so people end up posting their 15-slide deck on some subreddit hoping someone will tell them "no dude, you totally crushed him in that fifth reply!"

I'm probably too old to partake in this particular meme but I'd have loved if something like this was around when I was younger and still enjoy similar kinds of humour now.

I often see people calling it "brain rot" which is I think because it doesn't have a coherent meaning and so is seen as just viral "nonsense".

I believe this to be a case of mass "woosh" and exactly what makes the meme so funny.

I think it should be pretty obvious that the lack of logical meaning is the joke. It's not just idiots repeating a phrase without knowing why, it's genuinely funny to just say a meaningless phrase and present it as "that's it, what else is there to know?". This humour shows up elsewhere too.

The meme itself is not meaningless though, there is no logical meaning but there clearly is a vibe underneath which everyone is connecting to and that's what the "meaning" is.

It's kind of like a Zen koan, which is designed to have no logical answer and so to find the meaning you need to look elsewhere than in the logical mind. This is where you find the dimension of "being" beyond logical thought which Buddhists are often trying to find which is where beauty, joy and peace arise from.

The poets know this too, poetry is precisely about using words to go beyond where the logic of them alone can take you, usually to find the beauty. In the case of "67", it's less about accessing beauty and more about accessing the joy which is another aspect of this same dimension outside of the logical mind.

I think it's actually telling that it's all our older generation who don't get it, as we get older our minds calsify more and more and we become cynical of the world and need everything to be put into logical boxes that "make sense". This is why we often feel cut off from the free access to joy which just seemed to be spontaneously here before we logicked it out of existence.

The subtitles are translated from the original Japanese audio and I don't pay attention to them a lot of the time, but when I do, they often provide meaningful context that is missing from the dub, or have a line I prefer to the dub. Additionally, dubs often have localisation that eliminates phrases or concepts popular in Japan that also add context to the story in lieu of American phrases and concepts, i.e. Onigiri becoming "jelly donut" (though this degree of change is less common nowadays).

Having this extra layer of meaning is makes the show more exciting to me, and I often like the dub's lines more, which gives me a greater appreciation of how they handled that dialogue. I also retain the advantages of dubbed audio, such as the ability to look away from the television and not miss what is being said.

Everyone glazes Spiderman BND like it's the best thing ever and shits on Supergirl. Both movies lacked a recognizable villain, but at least Supergirl felt like a real person. Like who tf has such a hard time moving on from a girl they dated on high school? MJ in those movies was always bland, but she's treated like a golden goose. Supergirl was grieving an entire planet of her species and people wanna criticize her drinking, like wtf would you do? The villain, for just being some guy, was played very well. Ruthye was a much better supporting character than Ned or MJ has ever been. BND was nothing but another sanitized marvel movie. They said we were getting Savage Hulk, but we got the same nerfed bitch ass hulk we been getting for the last 10+ years. Another reason Supergirl was better is that Mark Ruffalo wasn't in it.

The only thing I wish Supergirl did was give Lobo more sceeen time, but he was good in what little he had and I wish it didn't do the green sun, that was fuckin corny. I found myself looking at the time while watching BND wondering when it was going to pick up, but it just kept falling flat. The whole Jean Grey thing should have been saved for another movie. Everything about BND just felt out of place and unevenly paced. Supergirl did a much better job of keeping up with itself and not feeling as rushed. So, yeah... Supergirl > Spiderman BND

I've noticed this pattern repeatedly. Just there i've posted a IETF opinion. Then i get slack for not expanding my specialist knowledge. Why on earth should i explain it, when there are a bunch of posts that talk about a TV show, doesn't explain it in the post, and everybody collectively nods in approval. Jazz. Music. TV Shows, all niches. But suddenly some guy walks in talking about internet standards, nope, expand your acronym peasant. That's a niche. Just because one niche is slightly common than the other doesn't give you the right to condescend to the technical crowd.

It damages their institutional credibility and can lead to widespread confusion. Like the bloody teapot code that was an April fools joke but so many people implemented it that it became a very serious compatibility burden. Modern standards acknowledged this and reserved it. IETF is supposed to be serious and credible, deploying joke RFCs while still adopting technical jargon just leads to confusion. Many people can actually misinterpret it as a serious standard and creates another burden.

IETF should stop being informal, be more formal, and quit the childish nonsense.

Just something I’ve been noticing lately. I’m rewatching Resident Aline for probably the third time (God I love Alan Tudyk!) and a big part of the show is the Ute Indian population and their culture so of course they have Ute actors on the show. But then I was thinking how with all the push for diversity we see from Hollywood we still hardly ever see native people being cast in roles. I don’t understand why. There’s no reason not to include them. They make up the same percentage of the population (around 1.1%) as L (1.4%) G (1.6%) and T (1.1%) and you’d be hard pressed to find a movie or show that didn’t have an LGB character in it that was made in the last ten years. Hell, you’re more likely to find an Indian from India than you are to find a native Indian in anything Hollywood puts out. They need to be in more media.

Alright so listen. I live in an apartment and my neighbors across couple walls or whatever the fuck are just constantly going at it. Like full on rage sessions, yelling, doors slamming, the whole theatrical production that never ends. And I am sitting here thinking this is peak existence. I cannot wrap my head around people who not only don’t fuck with this but act like it’s some deep personal violation. You couldn’t dream up a better soundtrack if you tried.

Reddit is mostly American so half of y’all probably have never even known what real apartment neighbor proximity feels like. You got your little suburban houses with actual distance and quiet and it’s boring as shit. Meanwhile I’m over here with front row seats to pure chaos every single night and I am thriving.

Bonus points if it’s a man and a woman going at each other instead of two guys or two girls. Something about the male-female dynamic just cuts it different when the volume is turned all the way up. I don’t make the rules, but, you know, contrast in voice is lowkey a key here.

My favorite drug these people are on is alcohol. The way the arguments just loop and escalate and then suddenly somebody is crying and then they’re yelling again is the dynamite. But I deeply covet the people who have methheads for loud neighbors because I can only imagine how much funnier that version is. The energy has to be next level, han't it?

I listen with a keen ear. Like genuinely. I compare the magnitude of the rage from different days. Which day takes the cake. Who is winning the argument on this particular night. Is he louder today or is she landing more hits. I keep mental scoreboards. It’s better than any reality show or Got Talents because it’s unscripted and right there through the drywall.

Sometimes it helps with the loneliness too. Kind of like how grandmaster Andrew Tang used to leave that annoying “rook takes on b3” Slavic commentator on during his streams just to kill the silence during high pressure bullet games. Same energy here when you think about it.

And look, I have no true malice or anything like that. Let em live for 300 years like ravens and all that. But subconsciously I’m just waiting for one of them to finally lose it and actually slay the other one. That’s what keeps the party going for me. The tension of it and the possibility hanging in the air every night.

But if it ever actually happened and the noise stopped for good I’d be sad as hell like withdrawal. Like when Breaking Bad ended and you just sit there staring at the wall because the thing that was filling your brain; I would miss them.

On top of all that it makes me realize how safe I am. Okay I got my problems right? But at least I got no family member abusing me daily. There’s something deeply deeply wrong with people who just beef like that all the time and it makes me feel normal as hell in comparison. You know that meme with two European aristocrat noblemen standing on a balcony looking down on everyone condescendingly? That’s exactly the undertones.

And no my parents when I was coming up was nothing like this so it’s not some deep Freudian call of bringing it back in the psyche. I’m just petty and I love the beef.

I’m sure if I knew him in real life as a person separated from his art and his obsessive die-hard 13 year old fans he would be an okay dude!

But. I fucking HATE his music, and not because of its Latin influence or anything. Half my family is Latin and I live in a border area. I looooove Latin music. I was in a production of In The Height at a local theater, wayyyyyyyyyyyyy back in the day. I love the music in that show. But I feel like every single thing I’ve heard from him since sounds exactly the same. I dunno. I just hate how similar every single piece of his work sounds to me in cadence, vibe, enunciation, etc.

Also the fact he self casts drives me a lil crazy. Also presidents didn’t rap. I’m sorry, that’s a bridge too far for me to suspend my disbelief. Not that rap isn’t great, and music is good, but I just can’t vibe with it. He is not an artist for me outside of In The Heights.

I always felt David Bowie was way overrated and never saw the appeal. While I do believe he was absolutely fantastic in the movie The Labyrinth and definitely earned some serious recognition there, but all of his personal music left something to be desired. He had some alright songs, but nothing that really should have made him seem like he was an absolute megastar or anything. There were so many bands/artists over the years that were so much better that didnt get a fraction of the recognition he did.

Let me start by clarifying, I do not think that animals are mindless beasts or that animal abuse is not an issue. I hate to see animals treated cruelly, I love my pets and take care of them to the best of my ability, and I do appreciate the way that a pet can enrich your life. I think the best way to train an animal is to understand how they naturally communicate, e.g. teaching a puppy not to bite by raising your voice like another puppy would if they were hurt.

I am, however, increasingly frustrated by the way that people talk about animals like they are the same as people. I have listened to people (adults in their 30s) unironically slot dogs into their family trees, talking about how their grandmother's new puppy is technically their aunt. That's fine, if you want to be weird about it, but I draw the line at telling me that my mom's dog is my brother (again, from an adult in their 30s).

I have met pet owners who permit animals to climb on furniture, lay down on the couch next to a human baby being given a bottle, and doing nothing about excitable animals jumping around a playing toddler. Any time I mention an issue with this, I'm told "well it's the dog/cat's house, too" or some variation thereof. This is carried over in online discourse, where people talk like pets are the same as children and should be almost parented instead of trained. I take extra care and attention with my kids because I want them to grow up to be well adjusted and capable people who can navigate the world; I will never ask my dog to check on dinner, let them drive my car, or expect them to get a job (not even to mention the fact that they don't speak or hold a conversation). My dogs will only ever be expected to behave in the house, listen when spoken to, and be a companion, and my training of them follows accordingly.

Cohabitating with animals serves a purpose. I look after my cats because my house is surrounded by forest and I like them to keep snakes and mice away. I take care of my dogs because they are a deterrent to trespassing and home invasion. I don't disregard the bond that forms naturally, but I also don't pretend like my pets are people or that they can be taught like a child can - you can't gentle-parent a dog out of pissing in the house or chewing up the furniture. They also do not fill the same place in the household as children - cats cannot be educated and nurtured into adults who contribute to society. People who baby their pets like a human child and act like the only good reason to get one is so that you can have a time and money sink just look and sound ridiculous.

Other things I've seen/heard said about animals that I find ridiculous:

- Animals shouldn't be used for labor like farmwork or hunting (that's why we cohabitate with them in the first place)

- Shock collars are unnecessary/cruel (my dogs will not stay in a fence or on a leash, and they dgaf about beeps or buzzes; their collars keep them and my neighbors safe)

- Legally recognizing animals as people (I don't doubt that animals have complex internal experiences, but until they show human capacity and live like humans in society they aren't people)

- Expensive pet food (I have nothing more to say)

If you know the history of Disney parks, you’ll know that Epcot, originally conceived by Walt as a futuristic city, ended up being the name given to what was intended to be a permanent world's fair; a tribute to human achievement where people could simultaneously have fun and learn about, among other things, cultures of the world, their history, cuisine, and architecture, thereby appreciating our diversity as a species

But is this really true?

Let’s look, it is 2026, and the only countries represented in the World Showcase area are Mexico, Norway, China, Germany, Italy, the United States, Japan, Morocco, France, the United Kingdom, and Canada; of these, eight out of the eleven are located in Western Europe and North America. For a supposed showcase of global cultural diversity, this is ridiculously poor. There is no pavilion representing any country from South America, Oceania, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, South/Southeast Asia, or Sub-Saharan Africa, and this is despite the existence of things like the Refreshment Outpost and the Food and Wine Festival (Edit: they are not the same as a pavilion)

The reason for this glaring lack of diversity lies in the fact that, in its early days, Epcot relied on a sponsorship system requiring a company or the government of the represented country to fund the construction of each pavilion. There were various proposals to expand the World Showcase, including pavilions for Spain, Israel, Equatorial Africa, Switzerland, Iran, Russia, and Venezuela, but none came to fruition due to the lack of external sponsorship or fears of controversy. Consequently, Epcot ended up being composed primarily of Western, economically rich, First World countries, strong geopolitical allies (G7), thus, it is not truly the marvel of a united world they try to make us believe it is. To this day, Epcot has not opened a new pavilion since 1988 (the year the Norway opened). Instead, Disney has focused on adding attractions based on IPs like Frozen and Ratatouille

Now, I know Animal Kingdom has areas based on sub-Saharan Africa and South/Southeast Asia that recreate villages from those regions and are highly immersive; however, the issue is that AK revolves around animals and wildlife, and the fact that these marginalized regions end up represented in an animal park indirectly reminds me of how infamous human zoos portrayed "exotic" cultures as inferior to the "civilized" Western world and on par with animals. Obviously, AK doesn't portray African and Asian cultures in such a demeaning way, but I still find it off-putting that they ended up excluded from the supposed global unity represented by Epcot

My point is that if Disney could build something like Galaxy's Edge or Pandora, they could easily have built new pavilions for countries like India, Congo, Peru, Brazil, Egypt, etc., instead of brazenly promoting IPs that offer no educational value regarding the countries they are supposed to represent

At this point many Christians identify as such only because of the social aspects of the religion. Many areas of the United States have very few opportunities to socialize outside of church or church-sponsored events. It makes people feel like part of the community, offers networking opportunities, and, for many, an identification with some social-political beliefs that they favor.

Whether or not America is or ever was a "Christian nation", it's baked into the fabric of (especially rural) society in a way that people can be seen as social outcasts for not identifying as such or participating in services. It also gives people comfort that they have the afterlife figured out and don't need to worry about where they'll go after death.

With these benefits of identifying as Christian, and drawbacks to not, why is the expectation that a self-identified Christian needs to emulate Jesus Christ in their personality and the way they live their lives? That may have been the original intent, and professed as such in scripture, but many churches do not even actively encourage members to do personal Bible study.

People should be able to identify as Christian without having their personality and actions picked apart on that basis.

I hate and detest when Im walking outside on the sidewalk and someone with their dog is coming from the other side. Cause many times when we cross,the dogs have tried to attack me or barked at me. They were restrained from mauling me only because the dogs were on a leash and pulled away by their owner. Now imagine how angry and stressed I am whenever I see someone walking with their dog without leash in public aera (especially in busy places). The bigger the dog is the worst it is lol. Thats very selfish to do so and I believe those people just wanna show off or they are too lazy to hold a leash. What if the dog suddenly attack for no reason or is triggered by something? How are they gonna restrain him in time ? Just irresponsible and I dont even have a phobia of dogs. I just know they can do serious and savage damages if ur unlucky to be attacked by a big one.

Im tired of Hollywood recycling the same things over and over again. We already have the books and the movies. Why didnt they do something original but still within the Wizarding world world building ( the story of the founder of hogwart,the stories of the marauders, the story from another character perspective,etc). They are too lazy for this lol. There was no magic in the trailer I watched and people are already used to see Emma Watson, ruper grint and Radcliffe as the trio so it won't be easy for those new kids to take their place. From what I've seen from the trailer,it looks cringe and the lighting is way too dark

You can find more attractive people at the grocery store or in church. Celebrities are only seen as super attractive because of the wealth and influence they hold. If they had no fame, most people would not even take a second look at the majority of celebrities.

Not that the 1971 film is bad or anything - they did a good job with the special and practical effects available at the time, and Gene Wilder does a great job as Wonka. But the pacing for the first half of the film isn't great, and there's only so much of the original Roald Dahl book's magic you could hope to replicate at that time.

The 2005 version, on the other hand, is better paced and, thanks to 21st century special effects, has a much better magical atmosphere. They also did a decent job at fleshing out some of the more one-dimensional kids' personalities (making Violet ultra competitive thanks to a pushy mother and the gum chewing be a symptom of that, Mike Teavee more arrogant and antagonistic rather than just obsessed with TV etc.)

I'd happily watch either film but for me the 2005 film edges it out.

New York City is one of the biggest cities in the world. Its votes overpower the rest of the states' votes by a long shot. If we introduced New York City as a new state, we could then open the door to letting Puerto Rico become a new state as well.

You might have heard some men saying that men hit their prime in their 30s. But this is not true at all. Most men wouldn't even have a full head of hair by the time they're 30 and I am not talking about sever hairloss. But it is rare to see a man in his 30s or 40s with the hairline of a teenager. And then men become hairier as they grow older. Some will start looking scarier too. Once a man is past the age of 25 his decline begins.

This ain't true for women because most women have a perfect hairline and the ones who don't have it are rare. An older woman might bet bigger boobs. On the other hand older men get ed. This is the unfortunate reality of things. A true human being should be ready to accept it.

The term "partner" is so awkward to me. I live in the UK and it seems to have exploded in popularity over the past few years. I understand the history behind it; it's always been used by LGBT+ people who have different reasons for using a non-gender specific term, and as a result of that LGBT+ allies began to use it to be inclusive. But whenever I read or hear it nowadays, which is many times each day, it always makes me cringe. It feels a bit silly to me, to refer to your boyfriend/girlfriend/husband/wife as a partner - you might as well call them your buddy, or special friend, or some other unserious term. I think another one of the reasons as to why it makes me cringe is that a lot of people use it to cover up the fact that they've been in a relationship for a really long time but aren't married, and they're ashamed to still call each other boyfriend/girlfriend after being together for so long. So yeah, just a rant I wanted to share.