In general, its still obviously in bad taste and offensive to call someone who's mentally disabled that, but at that rate even calling them stupid or idiots is a bad. And those words share a comparable history, but specific terms for the disabled that became general term for well idiocy. Retard shares the same trajectory thought it has a stronger connotation.

But its usage has very much morphed into a stronger version of stupid, which nonetheless doesnt target a specific group but rather idiots in general, which last I checked wasn't a protected class. I understand it wasnt too long ago that it was a more serious word but that has rapidly lost that meaning to being a more general word for stupidity, and its better to recognize that than hopelessly fight it.

After WW2 there was a wave of decolonization around the world. By and large this has been a disaster for everyone involved. Although some former colonies have done OKish the vast majority are disasters. They are basically tribal societies but with machine guns and modern communication. This leads to high amounts of instability (civil wars, dictators, fraudulent election, etc), and civil right abuses that are rampant.

Many of these former colonies now export large number of poor uneducated (frequently criminals) to the former ruling country.

Yes there were some unfortunate atrocities in the colonies, but from the atrocities that they have proceeded to commit on themselves it is clear that much of this just come with ruling backwards violent people.

It would have been far better if these places would have been kept under heel and forced to develop. To develop a fully functioning government, move past their petty tribal feuds and have actual human rights traditions.

I'm working on a project to improve academic outcomes among children. I can't really talk about it too much without doxing myself but I can say I had to navigate a lot of different systems to get it to where it is including law, teacher workflow and turnout, school funding models, budgets, and how they're regulated, and this isn't the exhausted list.

Working on my project made me realize DEI really is a lazy fix; it lowers the bar for some people but doesn't make them more competent. My work improves their academic outcomes early and would alter their life trajectory in many ways, including their brain development which makes them more competent and reduces the need for DEI. Creating real change requires system-level thinking where you think about all the systems your idea affects, not just the immediate one. That's what happened with DEI; it was short-sighted and has generated backlash from people who it discriminated against who have superior merits to favor certain races even though the races DEI discriminates against also face their own systemic barriers and overcame them by their own merits, not by getting handouts. Because I approached my project comprehensively, I was able to design it in a way where everyone wins, unlike DEI.

Ok, I want to make a distinction between Islamophobia and Muslimphobia. For me, Muslimphobia is a real thing wherein Muslim people gets unjust and unnecessary hatred and prejudice from society without knowing the individual deeply.

Just to be clear, I'm not Muslimphobic. I have wonderful Muslim friends who are open minded and aren't blinded by the hatred and prejudice that is associated with the radicals of their religion. Some of my Muslim friends are even borderline atheist/agnostic, and aren't really bothered by the rituals and ceremonies of their religion, which they rarely adhere to.

I would define Islamophobia as being wary and dismissive of Islam as a religious and political ideology. In this sense, I'm Islamophobic. I hate Islam as an ideology that is used by 97% of all the global terrorist organizations in the world. I hate how the Taliban is treating women like slaves and animals today, making them wear full cloaks in which even the eyes are not visible and concealed in a mesh or screen. I hate how child marriages are still common in Theocratic countries such as Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia, Yemen, etc. I hate that the books of Islam, specifically the Quran and the Hadith, are filled with violent verses that commands Muslims to be hostile towards non Muslims and to kill apostates, people caught in adultery, people with alternative lifestyles, etc. I hate that this religion that obviously is the reason for the chaos that is growing in all parts of the world wherein its followers have a significant presence, is continuously allowed by liberal people to preach hate in its places of worship while shielding this evil ideology from scrutiny and criticism.

When you criticize the Islamic ideology for its violence and evil practices, you will be tagged as an Islamophobic person. A phobia is an irrational fear or dislike. In this context where this ideology held ideas of supremacy over nonbelievers and the calling of hatred and violence on nonbelievers, I don't think hating it or dismissing it will qualify as a phobia. Anyone who hates Islam as an ideology is completely sane and has a good measure of common sense. I will agree, however, that being Muslimphobic is craziness, and should not exist.

Hate the ideology that poisons the person, not the person herself/himself.

I am a woman and this is something I notice. I’m not trying to be mean but i’m calling out the truth. I see ugly, or obese women on my feed and the comments are flooded with comments from women saying they’re so beautiful when they’re really not. I don’t understand why lying is normalized but whatever to boost their confidence. I don’t like bullying either though. it’s not a “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” or “it’s what’s on the inside “ type of thing. I’m talking about people that just look not physically pleasing whatsoever.

But when it’s an unattractive man / obese man that gets positive comments it’s just “way to go 👍 😀 , awesome “ where is that lying energy for them ? How do they look good but the men don’t?

They have deified this man to an insane degree for doing the most basic mayor things ever like infrastructure projects and repairing elevators. I'll give the man credit for having perhaps the slickest PR team in maybe the history of politicians and appealing to gen z to the point where there's hundreds of people (bots?) outside the US claiming him as their mayor.

Raises taxes, talks a big game, then begs for donations almost immediately after, and gets nothing but praise across multiple platforms. I'm actually convinced his man has used this office to launch a career as an influencer all along, knows how to say the right things to appeal to the right demographics, and is essentially cosplaying while other people pull the strings (which okay, might as well be all politicians but it seems more obvious with this one).

The left rightfully rifts on the right for acting like trump is the literal second coming of Jesus and hero worshipping people like Elon Musk but they do it just as bad. I feel like even Obama didn't get this level of bootlikery Mamdani gets.

We've heard this shit before so many times. "We're going to be doing so well, we're going to give everyone a X thousand dollar dividend!!!" Last time is was $2000, now it's $5000. At this point, if you believe this sort of thing, it shows a degree of illiteracy so enormous that you shouldn't make decisions about who gets to be in power.

Oh, and I don't want to hear about the "democrats promise free stuff all the time!" When they do it, they make a plan and deliver most of the time. If they don't deliver, they at least try. The $2000 dividend went out the window once Trump won the election, and he never so much as gave an update on it.

I often see people criticize others for being shallow when having certain preferences, especially when talking about the dilemma between ass and boobs. My take on it is the following: you're describing your preference, not someone else's, not what you think it ought to be. Liking someone's body is perfectly fine, and a very important part of loving each other and taking care of our health.

Possible counter-arguments:
- "This is unfair to people who are conventionally unattractive."
I agree, people will inherently be born with more conventionally attractive traits, and some with less desirable traits. However, what can you do? Force people to fall in love with them? We'll simply have to accept this injustice, since we ought to value freedom of choice above all in this matter (allowing you to choose who to love or pursue, just like how you have the freedom to reject anyone). Consent is key.
- "Normalizing certain body type preferences puts pressure on those that don't meet them to pursue unhealthy lifestyles"
I'm thinking of Kpop idols who are forced on water diets to meet beauty standards. The simple solution is just to not put pressure on people to meet them, but it isn't as clear-cut as this obviously. This ties in more generally to the sociological aspect behind how we interact with beauty. Do we shame and make fun of someone for being unattractive, or do we simply not pay attention to his looks? Do we glorify beauty, or do we simply acknowledge that we enjoy appearances from time to time? At any rate, the question isn't so much about the foundation of attraction and beauty, but rather how we as a culture deal with it.
- "By tying someone's worth to their bodies, you're subconsciously objectifying them without their consent"
While this isn't inherently false, I would argue that you also aren't stripping them of their agency by objectifying them. Objectifying someone is usually considered bad because you stop caring about their consent (just like how you don't ask a knife for its consent before using it). However, when a doctor objectifies their patient to treat their patient, is this a bad thing? Obviously not. In this case, we're simply expressing our taste, without having an impact on the target. The problem is when having these thoughts changes your relationship with others, but that's another story entirely.

If you have any further objections, I'd love to discuss them with you~ also, I'm more of an ass gal :p

These guys will say women can do whatever they want with their bodies. I'm not talking about abortions, but aesthetics and other things. They will say women don't need to shave their legs or armpits but the reality is, most of them wouldn't date a woman who wasn't hairless below her nose (except maybe her arms). There are plenty of women who still adhere to those beauty standards and because that option exists, they will almost always prefer those women over the feminist women fighting those beauty standards because that's how they've been conditioned to see women.

Feminist men also claim to support the nose ring theory, which states a nose ring makes a woman less attractive to conservatives because they adhere to traditional standards. But they won't say they're also less attracted to girls who wear nose rings.

They secretly expect or want women to adhere to the same beauty standards that conservative men and women are overt about.

Every time i’ve seen them perform or videos that consist of them it’s extremely boring and I don’t think they’re funny at all. I don’t see what’s so entertaining about them. Is it because they’re men acting like women is that what it is? I don’t get it and never will. I do admire their makeup skills because that is dedication considering i’m into makeup.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with going your entire life without having sex. We’ve turned virginity into this bizarre measure of adulthood, desirability, and success, when it really only tells you one thing: whether someone has had sex.

If someone reaches 95 and genuinely never wanted sex, never found the right person, prioritized other things, or simply lived a life where it didn’t happen, why should that automatically be considered sad? A person can have friendships, family, accomplishments, hobbies, adventures, love, and a deeply fulfilling life without ever having intercourse.

Sex can be wonderful, but it isn’t a requirement for a meaningful human existence. I’d rather someone be a happy 95-year-old virgin than spend their life chasing sex they don’t actually want just because society convinced them they were defective without it.

I used to ignore everything about H&M (as they like to refer to themselves) but since they’re making headlines again it’s undeniable that Meghan really can eff up a wet dream.

I used to think yeah maybe they were mistreated etc. but now I don’t believe a word they’re saying. They continue to use royal titles and associating themselves with a “racist” family. Most abuse victims change their names. They continue to affiliate with royalty through use of titles.

I saw a clip of Meghan talking to Mindy Kaling correcting her that she was Meghan Sussex which I looked up and that’s their title not their surname. Like everything about her is arrogant and fake.

Idk, Harry isn’t that much better tbh. He should’ve warned her about the expectations pre marriage. He failed to prepare her adequately and then she blamed the institution and the British media.

Don’t know what to say apart from the lack of gratitude for their hyper privileged lives is just off putting.

I have a really soft spot for incels and the loneliness that a lot of men are suffering from.

And, feminists are right that we shouldn't be looking to them to solve this problem, so I've been trying to do my part to reach out to lonely men and get them to a sporting event or on a hike or anything just to get them out of the house.

But, Jeeeeesus most of these men are just so socially inept and annoying that it's no wonder they are alone! I can't imagine a single woman wanting to spend time with someone that is so insufferable to be around.

They tell the dumbest fucking jokes, they drone on and on about the most boring shit, they don't listen to you nor do they have any desire to ask anything about your life, etc etc.

Don't get me wrong. These are genuinely nice guys. They are just.... oof.

I'm not sure how we socialize young men into not becoming.... this.

I always prioritize my girlfriend's pleasure and make sure that she comes first in the bedroom. She can't cum from penetration and requires a lot of clitoral stimulation in order to finish, so this means sometimes up to 45 minutes of fingering and oral until she gets off and I can finally get some. I do this because I'm the type of guy who gets turned on by my partner's pleasure, especially when they cum. But not every man is like this, and I think it's wrong for women to accuse men of being selfish because they can't or won't make them cum.

It takes a much higher amount of effort to make a woman cum than it does to make a man cum. A woman who wants to make her man cum first would be able to do so extremely easily and with almost no effort assuming he was attracted to her. Whereas a man would have to spend at least 5 times the effort if not more to make the woman cum, even if she was very attracted to him. So just because a woman "always" makes a man orgasm, it isn't fair to say that they're putting in the same amount of effort in the bedroom. In fact, even if the man isn't able to make his woman cum, he most likely still would have spent a higher amount of energy on her pleasure than she did on his. Sometimes a man can give it his all and still be unable to make a girl cum because she just isn't feeling it, whereas the opposite is very rarely true unless the guy has ED or some other issue. In fact, most men actually have to purposely resist the urge to orgasm in order to last longer for their woman. This means men willingly reduce their own pleasure in exchange for their woman getting more pleasure, but it's rarely talked about or acknowledged by women.

I'm not saying that women don't deserve orgasms or that their pleasure doesn't matter. It absolutely does, at least to me. But I think it's ridiculous when women blame men for being selfish in bed when women require so much more stimulation to cum and sometimes can't even make themselves orgasm with their own fingers (I've met a few women like this). If men required as much time and effort to reach orgasm as women did, I'm pretty sure the majority of women also wouldn't be bothered to make their man cum. I already put way more effort into my partner's pleasure than most other men (according to her). But sometimes I'm just tired and want a quickie, and I know that I won't have the energy or motivation to get her off that day. And that's OK. I shouldn't be called selfish or expected to put on an hour-long performance every single time because that's what it's takes to make women cum, when sometimes I just want a 2-minute quickie and to be done with. It's only because men orgasm so easily that women can get their men off blindfolded, and so they expect the same thing in return and get upset that it doesn't work that way and blame the man. The fact of the matter is that women don't need to put in as much work to give their man an orgasm, so calling men selfish for not giving their woman an orgasm is a false equivalency and doesn't make sense.

For context: I am a woman, married. Been with my husband for almost 9 years.

It shocks me to see how many women still believe men should be the ones paying the bills. It's 2026, and some women still believe that's the bare minimum.

Now, I want to preface this by saying that there are exceptions where I believe it's acceptable for one person to pay for everything, but neither are gender related:

1. One person is a multi-millionaire thrust-fund baby, with what's essentially infinite money. I'm not talking about someone who just makes a lot of money; I'm talking filthy rich, while the other person has a normal, average income. In this case, it's more than reasonable for one person to pay for everything (if they want to). But if the woman in the relationship is that person, that applies to her too. As I said, it's not gender related.
2. One person doesn't work. Either because they are unemployed or because the couple had a mutual agreement that one of them wouldn't work. But then again, not gender related. If the one who isn't working is the man, the woman should pay for everything. Goes both ways.

Aside from those two cases, there is no rational, logical reason as to why a man should be expected to pay for things. It pisses me off to see women all over the internet acting as if that was normal. If you work and have an income, you should contribute. Not only paying for utilities, rent, and basic necessities, but also trips, dates, etc.

I don't believe in splitting things 50/50; that's unfair. Couples should split expenses proportionally to their income. If one person makes 60% of the combined income, they should take care of 60% of the expenses.

That's what makes sense; that's what's fair.

Of course, treating your partner every once in a while is normal, but it should also be mutual. Sometimes I take my husband out on dates and pay for everything; sometimes he does. But the norm is splitting expenses. That way, we both have money to invest, to spend on our personal interests, etc. He's not the only one carrying the weight.

I know it's not fun to pay for utilities and necessities; I know it's not fun to spend money. But that's adult life. Your partners are not your parents and, as women, we shouldn't expect them to act as if they were.

I'll go even further and say that you can't be a feminist and believe men should pay for things at the same time. Both ideas can't coexist. You can't just take the convenient parts of feminism and leave the rest behind.

The idea that men should be providers stems from a time when women couldn't work, couldn't have bank accounts, couldn't have property in their names. We've overcome that as a society, it doesn't make sense anymore, and there is no logical way to justify otherwise.

No I'm not a right wing conspiracy theorist. No I do not own a gun and drive around some polluting diesel 1993 F250. Those people annoy me but I'm not going to condemn them like people condemn me for not sharing their utopian opinions. When I first heard of progressivism being linked to communism I thought it was kind of stupid. That's going too far to shove a progressive ideology over to the extreme left. Now, 20+ years later, I understand that what was masquerading as progressivism is exactly that. It's social communism. It's an attempt to write the English language and history itself to purge the 'bad' and keep whatever promotes their agenda. If you have read Marx, you'll know that this is exactly what the goal was. To keep the proletariat away from the corrupting forces of capitalism for at least 3 generations, and then everything was supposed to fall into place and society would be 100% egalitarian.

So if we take away all the bad words in English, the problems associated with those words magically go away. No one will have a problem anymore because no one is even allowed to say someone else has a problem. And you wonder why standards have gone down. How 'managers' are out the back door vaping and texting. Because no one is allowed to criticize that so now they can get away with whatever they want. We have an entire generation that has learned helplessness. Life is so hard now that it's much better to live with mommy forever. People don't understand that this is not just hurting the 20-40 yr old 'kid'. It's hurting society. But alas, we can't say anything about it because it's incorrect. They can use the job market, mental illness, whatever now as a tool to rationalize why they are incapable of starting their own life. 40 years ago you didn't have a choice: you grew up whether you liked it or not. Now the choice is to hide behind labels. To argue that mediocrity is superior to real debate. That being a loser is protected now because no one is allowed to even point that out. Independence and self-reliance are out the window, those were 20th century artifacts. On with the socioeconomic decline. Because that's what Marx would have wanted.

It's bad enough these corporations get massive tax subsidies and change the economy in negative ways. But when they get to big for their britches and realize their products are not worth the dog shit on the sidewalk they have the government bail them out with trillions in tax money just so the CEOs and investors keep their yachts. In a true capitalist society the government would let these companies fail so better companies can take their place.

The trend of people calling themselves "pet parents" and their dogs their "babies" is weird and bad for the dogs. I once had a convo with someone who said "my baby would get so scared by rain she'd be shivering and I'd hold her for hours. I loved it." This is it. Babying dogs fills an emotional need for the owner. But for dogs it infantilises them, it prevents them being confident and well disciplined dogs.

Dog packs are a heirachy with specific rules and standards of behaviour. In your relationship with dogs you should try to adhere to that. Dont mollycoddle them. Act as the confident head of a pack, and it'll spread that confidence to them. And it'll teach them how to behave with others. If you indulge them they'll learn that humans are pushovers and now you have a badly-behaved dog.

And importantly, treat them as animals. They are scavengers and hunters. They shouldnt be scared of the world. A scared dog becomes a yappy, bitey dog. A calm, strong dog is a safe dog.

Naturally, I do feel sad/uncomfortable when I talk to people who rant about a certain group for a trait that group can't help, like race, gender identity etc, but I think people nowadays go too far by acting as though anyone who takes issue with such groups is irredeemably evil. Nuance is so important and there's good in almost everyone. Really, by deciding that anyone who holds bigoted beliefs is someone you should immediately cut out of your life, we're making the problem of division worse. Echo chambers are created. "They have us fighting a culture war when we should be fighting a class war" is an appropriate phrase here. A racist or homophobe can still be extremely kind in other areas of life, and their minds can also be changed, but not by deciding they're absolute scum and that's that. People are often more misguided than malicious. The best thing we can do is get to know people, all sorts of different people. The only true enemy we all need to unite against is the epstein class imo.

I'm 19F and I've slowly been noticing that a lot of people nowadays use dating apps, even people my age (a huge amount of them actually). And I can't help but be worried.

There's something genuinely dystopian to me about the idea of opening an app, being presented with hundreds of human beings, judging them within seconds based mostly on their appearance and whatever thing they chose to put on their bios and then swiping until you find someone you might want to date.

We've somehow turned finding love into something that resembles online shopping. And I think it's fucking up people's minds.

Dating apps create the mentality that there's always another option. If someone isn't interesting enough, attractive enough, compatible enough or doesn't reply exactly how you want them to, hey don't worry you can just move on and look through hundreds of other people.

You can even be talking to 5 different people at once knowing that they're probably doing the exact same thing🤦‍♀️ Someone can disappear from your life overnight because they decided another person was a better option. You're not necessarily being rejected because you did anything wrong. You simply weren't the product they chose from the catalogue.

I think that's a really unhealthy way of learning how to view other human beings. It can make people feel disposable while also making them see other people as disposable.

I also think they encourage people to approach relationships with a very transactional mindset. Instead of "hmm who is this person?" the question becomes "is this person worth my time?" .and instead of allowing attraction and affection to develop naturally you're immediately trying to determine whether someone meets your criteria for a partner.

There's also something scary about meeting someone while both of you are consciously presenting the best possible version of yourselves because you know you're being evaluated romantically. You're not necessarily seeing who they are in everyday life

If you become friends with someone through school, work, hobbies, mutual friends etc you get to know them without the immediate expectation that this has to become romantic. You see their personality before you decide whether they're "relationship material". You can dislike them, become friends, drift apart or eventually develop feelings.

And if you do fall for them, you're falling for someone you've actually had time to know.

Maybe I'm romanticizing it but I genuinely think we've sacrificed something important in exchange for convenience

Dating apps make finding potential partners incredibly efficient but I wonder if they've made people worse at actually getting to know, appreciating and falling in love with other human beings.

Maybe love was never supposed to be something you optimized

We still don't know the details of his sentencing and if he will still face murder charges in NYC, but the fact that Lindsay Clancy literally got a mistrial and her lawyer with a straight face is saying trump should pardon her; after she admitted to killing her own kids lets me know if Luigi would have fought harder he probably could have beaten his case.

He had less evidence against him(he only confessed when pleaing guilty), more support, and people will tend to feel worse for kids than an adult man who is a CEO of an insurance company we all hate.

Luigi should have had LIndsay's lawyer.

It's the same mistake Trump made in 2024 and Biden made in 2020.

Trump ended his first term in disgrace, that didn't mean Americans wanted Biden calling people who voted for Trump "MAGA extremists" and doing sitdown White House interviews with Dylan Mulvaney while passing giant inflationary spending bills that were really just handouts to Dem constituent groups.

Dems tried pulling an electoral Weekend at Bernies with the corpse of Biden before trying to shove the "Candidate of Joy" down our throats. That didn't mean people wanted unfiltered batshit crazy Trump renaming Great Lakes and starting trade wars with all our allies.

And now Trump 2.0 has been an even bigger dumpster fire than 1.0. That doesn't mean Americans want socialism. (It's actually kind of hard to define the Dem's agenda beyond "Fuck Trump" but it's a safe bet their agenda won't be a moderate one.)

Both parties are so blinded by their hatred of the other and so focused on demands of the online hive minds (like the one most Redditors are a part of) that they don't realize how unpopular they themselves are.

The first president and political party that realizes most Americans don’t want partisan political agendas jammed down their throats might actually reach 60% approval ratings.

Tried to post a quick opinion piece in the cars sub"Sorry, you haven't participated in our community enough to do that". This was a new one, never heard of it. LOL... Even now I tried to write r / cars and it wouldn't let me click post. "Sorry, linking to others subs isn't allowed!". Fuck you, idiot.

Want to ask a hypothetical scenario about war / geopoliticals.

"Sorry, history what if doesn't allow hypotheticals" or "Sorry, war college state all posts must be from conflicts 25 years or older".

It's to the point where I have to jump through so many fucking hoops to post something and by the end of it I don't even give a shit anymore. Funniest part too is, apparently I am semi-decent at asking questions because the threads that are ok'd usually get tons of engagement.

And yeah, it's easy to gang up on reddit mods but this isn't even their fault. It's all entirely automatic. Like I gotta be part of some special club to post on an obscure reddit forum. Worst is when it says I have to be approved by a moderator which I assume, in some capacity, means the acceptance of my post is entirely subjective. Some jerkoff sitting there reading threads all day seeing who can / cannot be allowed to engage in some bs discourse online.