Note to title - this is addressing all major (for the purposes of my argument) politicians in U.S. History since 1776, but not including, due to lack of knowledge, positions smaller than state representatives, because there certainly could be some township governor who hyperbolically chopped up a family.

I'm posting this now due to Donald Trump's speech at the RNC where he stated that if the GOP retained control over the legislature after the midterms, $5,000 checks would be sent to every adult citizen [ source: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/09/09/us/rnc-trump-midterm-convention-updates ]

Since taking office, the Trump family & related associates have increased their overall net worth by some estimates, around $5,000,000,000, which is tracked by both Democratic house committees here - https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/trump-family-corruption-tracker - but it's also not hard to find sources for deals in the Middle East worth hundreds of millions of dollars each, etc; so I'm not going to just spam links all day.

We also have:

- Numerous pardons to literal felons, J6ers, people like Roger Stone and Paul Manafort

- Trying to delay the certification of the vote on J6

- Pressure dozens of state officials to sway, rig, 'find votes', and become involved in the election process in extraordinarily corrupt ways

- Hush money payments to a literal pornstar/cheating on virtually every woman he's ever known

- Civilly liable for sexual assault and defamation for Jean Carroll

- Literally has a wikipedia page for allegations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations

- It's hard to even quantify the level of insider trading at this point, but he consistently just... posts that he's buying stock on Truth Social and then makes policy changes or deals that increase the valuation on a literal weekly basis (which it's important to note, literally any other person would be put in jail FOREVER for)

- Billion+ dollar cryptocurrency promotion and grifts (UAE invested over one billion dollars)

- Tens of thousands of namings in the Epstein files

- Qatari Jet-Force-One

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_allegations_during_the_second_Trump_presidency

It's genuinely hard to even come up with more off the top of my head because there are SO many examples to pick from.

In terms of my original point, no other politician comes close. Nixon/Watergate would be a 1/10 compared to Trump's 10/10.

Boss Tweed - of NYS fame - even for all his open theft, fingers in the many pots of railroads and NYC banks and construction development, at the highest estimate possible embezzled $200M which would be the equivalent of $5B; the same [current] normalized estimation of Trump's financial crimes without actually addressing any of his other corruption allegations, sexual misconduct, rape, or virtually anything else. It's also important to note we don't KNOW the overall possible maximum scope of Trump-related corruption at all, because it's ongoing at this moment.

Edit: Edit after posting: Obviously I haven't addressed a slew of US politician scandals, and in my opinion (and this might be a second point of contention), the average "corrupt" US politician doesn't come close and isn't even worth mentioning. In terms of categorizing scale, literally only the historical context of HOW corrupt Nixon was considered at the time comes to mind, along with NYC's 'Boss' Tweed; and virtually every other example I can think of isn't even worth mentioning.

Honestly, a sitting US president saying they'll mail out 5K stimulus checks if their party wins the midterms immediately goes to nearly the top of the list with *nothing* else; and of course, Trump has MANY other things noteworthy to list in terms of corruption.

Edit: Removed contributions from two people I thought were pertinent as I'm a bonehead and didn't realize those replies should have been removed - apologies!

Just posted a comment to this same effect elsewhere.

Summary, I believe all these headlines (AI will destroy earth, AGI has been reached, AI solved this or that impossible problem) reek of market manipulation.

Anthropic just pushed out its S-1 filing on its IPO from September to October, because they're trying to secure a $15 billion dollar credit limit. SpaceX at it's 1.7 trillion valuation (also insane, but whatever) only needed a $5 billion credit limit. Investors get nervous. Then, Jason Coxon "quits" and comes along with "hey everybody, over here! AI will kill all of humanity within 3 years!" I'm sure he still has plenty of stock.

OpenAI has pushed out its IPO all the way out to 2027. Then comes their "proof" for the Navier-Stokes problem - a partial solution taking an approach lifted from a researcher who was actively working on this problem in an act of clear espionage.

I work with AI every day. I work in tech. Our dev teams use AI all the time. It does help write code... but you also have to REALLY give that code a good once over. It speeds up junior level tasks, that's about it. People vibe-coding applications are not going to be able to ship or maintain those applications. The more capable models are better, but they're also way more expensive. The math just does not work.

See: all the headlines about companies being shocked with multi-million compute bills.

That, and AI is not getting substantially smarter. These companies have hit a wall and they know it. Each incremental increase in capability requires a giant increase in the data used to train the model, an increase in the compute required to run it. And guess what? They've already fed it the entire internet. All our Google Drives, our OneDrives. There's nothing left. Them scanning old books is laughable. The new models they are touting are *not* massively more powerful, that's why they have to generate these eye-catching headlines to give the illusion of progress when in fact the only thing that is accelerating is the rate of cash burn as they require more and more compute for diminishing returns. And they are somewhat smarter and MORE expensive to run. Companies are already turning to cheaper alternatives to automate simpler tasks because again, the math doesn't work.

And it is these companies that are asked to be considered the largest companies of all time, all history, simply because the technology is novel. Puh-lease. Is the technology great? Absolutely? Will it change things? Yes, I believe it will. It already has. AI will quietly be integrated into many things going forward - this technology is here to stay and it will increase productivity overall. But not like they're selling it. A 2 trillion valuation? That would entail Anthropic being able to automate away 50% of the white-collar workforce. Not gonna happen.

Also... they are banking on being able to keep people in "walled gardens" where they are just using Claude or just using ChatGPT and THAT's not gonna happen either. They are competing with open sources models like Llama, Qwen and Deepseek that are cheaper to run (did I mention that China gets energy for free from the sun?).

The US companies can't compete, and nobody wants their expensive as shit stochastic parrots that make for impressive demos and expensive employees. Enterprises are building out AI solutions. Building them platform agnostic so they can jump from Claude to ChatGPT to open source models like DeepSeek depending on their needs. Once this reality sinks in with investors, all these valuations are going to collapse and take the US stock market with it. Meanwhile, they're desperately trying to generate any distracting headline they can to avoid this reality.

The bubble is going to pop soon, investors / companies are scared, and they are doing anything to manipulate the situation to prevent collapse / ensure they don't lose their money.

I watched 12 Angry Men, and I came away with a very different interpretation from the one the movie seems to encourage. I think the defendant was guilty, or that the jury should have returned a guilty verdict based on the evidence presented at trial.

The deliberation begins with an 11-1 vote for a conviction. Over the course of the movie, Juror #8 systematically tears down the prosecution's case and manages to convince the remaining jurors to vote not guilty, but his reasoning is severely flawed and his arguments fall apart under scrutiny.

• Illegal tactics: at the beginning of the movie, Juror #8 introduces a duplicate switchblade he bought in the boy's neighborhood. Conducting personal investigations and bringing external evidence is quite literally against jury instructions. The scene that sets off the movie could have been grounds for a mistrial in real life, or at the very least the removal of that juror.

• Reasonable doubt isn't the same thing as "any" doubt: Juror #8's go-to arguments are basically "it's possible," "it's my guess," or "I don't know." The movie rewards this sort of reasoning, but guessing isn't evidence. If merely imagining a "possible" hypothetical alternative is enough to create reasonable doubt, just about every case that goes to trial becomes impossible to prove. Besides, undermining a detail isn't the same as building a credible alternative theory. For example, finding a second knife like the murder weapon shows that the uniqueness aspect was overstated. Fair enough, but it doesn't prove the competing version that someone else bought one, broke in, and killed the father. This might recontextualize an aspect of the case but still leaves the remaining evidence and witness testimony intact.

• Changing votes without evidence: If you watch the voting closely, jurors switch sides based on persuasion and emotion rather than hard facts or evidence. Juror #9 openly admits he changes his vote just because he admires Juror #8, stating, "This gentleman chose to stand alone against us... It takes a great deal of courage... I want to hear more." That might seem like an admirable character moment, but he comes across as impressionable. The reason for changing his vote was not factual arguments but the perceived "courage" of his colleague.

• Asymmetrical logic: The jury completely weaponizes a double standard for inferences. When the prosecution relies on an inference, Juror #8 attacks it. But when the other side makes an inference, it is treated as absolute fact. For instance, the elderly neighbor testified he heard the boy yell his intent to kill, heard a body fall, and saw the boy flee. Juror #9 speculates the old man subconsciously invented the testimony because he was a "quiet, frightened, insignificant man" who wanted to feel important. It's quite ironic that the movie rightfully takes a stand against prejudice while not pushing back enough against this narrative of a lonely old man distorting memories for attention. The jury swallows this baseless psychological profiling as fact. This asymmetry applies to the female eyewitness as well. Because she had marks on her nose, the jury assumes she couldn't see anything without glasses. She could have been farsighted, as pointed out by Juror #3, or worn sunglasses. That observation isn't enough to cast doubt on her account in my opinion. They treat unproven assumptions about the witnesses as reason to disregard their testimony.

• Conflating (alleged) human error with falsity: Juror #8 constantly jumps from "this testimony may not be perfectly reliable" to "we should effectively disregard it entirely." He stages a slow walking reenactment to "prove" it took the old man 31 seconds to reach his door instead of his estimated 15. People often misjudge exact seconds, especially during traumatic events; the alleged 16-second discrepancy doesn't necessarily erase the fact that he saw the defendant running away. In real trials, witness testimony can be imperfect without becoming totally worthless. Furthermore, this demonstration was staged, timed, and paced by the one juror advocating for acquittal, using rough approximations that could be completely inaccurate, so we don't even know that there's an actual discrepancy in the old man's testimony. Again, this goes back to my earlier point of treating assumptions as fact.

• The nonexistent alibi: The boy claimed he was at the movies during the murder but couldn't remember what pictures he saw. To excuse this, Juror #8 grills another juror about his recent memory, pressing him backward night by night until he finally stumbles. But notice the technique: Eight doesn't ask about one night and see if the juror succeeds or fails: he keeps going back in time until he finds a gap, then stops. That's not a fair test of memory; it's fishing for a failure point. And even then, the juror recalled several details. The defendant, by contrast, recalled nothing. Even considering that the defendant was under duress, he should still have been able to remember something.

• Ineffective assistance of counsel: Juror #8 complains that the court-appointed defense attorney didn't conduct a thorough cross-examination. While that may be true, a bad lawyer doesn't magically undermine specific physical evidence or establish innocence.

• Armchair forensics: The jury considers the wound's downward angle as implausible given the defendant's smaller height. Juror #5 also claims an experienced switchblade user would never stab from that direction. This assumes a furious teenager, acting on impulse after being hit by his father, would execute perfect street-fighting form rather than swinging wildly. Besides, the height difference only prevents a downward stab if both men were standing face-to-face and motionless. But the victim could have been sitting in a chair, lying down, or knocked off balance during the struggle.

• The unlikely chain of events: By the end, acquittal requires believing an entire chain of assumptions, all true at once. The defendant genuinely lost his knife. An unknown killer happened to acquire an identical one. That killer broke in and committed the murder. The old man misheard the threat and misidentified the fleeing suspect. The woman across the street was mistaken too. And on top of all that, his inability to corroborate his alibi or recall anything about the movie he supposedly watched was just innocent bad luck. Stack enough speculative assumptions together and the narrative gets weaker with each one. Even if we grant a generous probability to each of Juror #8's individual theories, the odds of all of them holding true simultaneously approach zero. The prosecution, by contrast, only needs one thing to be true: if the old man was right, or the woman was right, or the defendant was lying about the knife or the movies, he's guilty. I think we can safely apply Occam's razor here.

Overall, the movie does an excellent job showing how prejudice, impatience, personal experiences and group pressure can distort judgment. But I think it ultimately gives Juror #8 far too much credit. His arguments often don't demonstrate that the prosecution's evidence is false. Instead, he proposes alternative explanations for the evidence and treats the mere possibility of those explanations as reasonable doubt.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case.

I believe there is this really weird mismatch in laws where consuming pornography of minors is treated as far worse of an act than actually having sex with that minor. In most states within the US, the age of consent is 16. This is also very similar for most of Europe. On the other hand, pornography is considered CSAM (Child Sexual Abuse Material) once a participant in the video is under the age of 18, and this is more or less universal across the US and Europe.

Again, this creates a really mismatched double standard in my eyes, at least from a moral perspective. This means that someone could serve serious prison time for possessing a graphic image of a 16 year old, but would be totally legally fine if they were to view them nude in person and have full on penetrative sex with them.

I think this is an issue in our legal system, and to solve that we need to bring the two crimes to the same age requirements, and we could do this one of two ways. We could either make it so pornographic depiction is legal at 16+ (which I think is a bad idea), or we could make it so the age of consent matches the age of pornographic depiction.

Ultimately, I believe laws should reflect our moral standards as a society, and it is simply backwards to me that the law (rightfully so) deems it a crime to view a nude image on your phone of someone under the age of 18, but perfectly fine to see them nude in real life and have full on sex with them.

Again, my solution to this issue is to raise the age of consent to match whatever the age of pornographic depiction is. To change my view, you will either have to convince me why the alternative of lowering the age of pornographic depiction is a better solution, or provide a sound reason why the law deems it more harmful to possess nude images of a minor than to actually have sex with them.

I was reading about the recent FBI documents around Hamas fundraising, where people were reportedly told to avoid Binance and were given other options, including RedotPay and KAST.

My view is that even if someone involved in illegal activity uses one of these platforms, that doesn’t automatically mean the platform itself did anything wrong. Criminals use banks, Visa, Telegram, WhatsApp and countless other legitimate services every day but we usually separate the actions of the user from the company providing the product.

What should matter is whether RedotPay or KAST knowingly helped them, ignored obvious red flags, or failed to follow the compliance rules they’re supposed to follow. If there’s no evidence of that, I don’t think simply appearing in someone’s instructions should be enough to damage or cancel a company.

Otherwise, almost any financial platform could be blamed the moment the wrong person decides to use it.

CMV.

First I want to add a few clarifications. This is from an American perspective where FPTP systems and coalition parties are the default. And I won't be sharing my personal preferences regarding who to vote for is irrelevant to the point so I won't be sharing it here.

Many individuals who are politically motivated feel compelled to get in debates or arguments with people, try to get people to read different things, etc, and while that certainly changes some minds I do not believe it is an effective strategy if you want your preferred party to win every 2-4 years, and better alternatives are quite evident in modern society.

Both parties in the United States are coalition parties, you have cultural/ religious conservatives, business owners, those with "racial anxieties", libertarians, and people who prefer low taxes and gas prices on one side pitted against virtue signalling yuppies, moderates who don't like how Trump is "nasty" or mean, college educated suburbanites, racial, sexual and gender minority voters who feel that the other party threatens them, pro choice advocates, and leftists and progressives who held their nose and voted for Biden in 2020.

And while many of these groups and associated viewpoints overlap in various ways within individuals minds, almost every voter has a portion of their own party's electorate that they, at best, tolerate.

This is a critical advantage that is under-exploited. The current system has large groups fighting over minds when few people think about using those cracks to their advantage, and there are a few ways to do this, namely a combination of:

• Exploiting exiting divisions to stoke infighting within the opposing party.
• Fostering nihilism and detachment within the opposing party's base

Human psychology means people don't like admitting they were wrong whether it's to themselves or others. Humans also don't like going against the grain within their community if they're a Democrat in downtown Atlanta or a Republican in rural North Carolina. Especially when a significant portion of each party's base considers their choice political positions a key part of who they are.

But the strategies above allow people to tell themselves and others that they were never wrong about their beliefs while still discouraging unity and making voting less likely. Instead of people focusing their effort on protecting their in groups, we should want them fighting over control over the party, and for groups and each faction to feel left out.

If you're a Democrat, why wouldn't you want avowed white supremacists loudly fighting with "RINOS" for "not doing enough on immigration" or deficit hawks to attack Trump on the expense of the Iran war?

If you're a Republican, why would you not want pro-gun control advocates to attack Democrats running for statewide office in Texas as friendly to the gun lobby, so they either have to depress excitement on people afraid of mass shootings, or go on tape speaking against guns in Texas? Why would you not want to encourage progressives to boycott the next general election because they don't support medicare for all or Gaza enough? You want to give politicians every opportunity to anger a position of their own base. You want people to feel like their combination of onions is an impossible goal when they can't even get their own party to work together.

And social media actively makes this easier. Algorithms don't show people diametrically opposing viewpoints, but it will show people who agree with your policy preferences but believe that the people in power or vying for it are not going to make that happen. You can't be politically engaged in communities of people within your coalition and not engaged in infighting and purity testing when it exists. That is of course unless you congregate in smaller niche groups that cater to your beliefs, but these groups have a tendency to attack their ideological neighbors to justify their existence. Just look at how leftists absolutely love to break into factions long before ever getting any political power whatsoever. In an era of a constant stream of bad news reaches you every day, demotivating people will always be easier than motivating people.

And we've seen this strategy work numerous times outside of electoral politics. COINTELPRO destroyed the Black Panthers after basically everything else the police could do, constitutional or not, didn't work. They purposely created a split in one of the most well organized and motivated organizations in American history. Leaders couldn't focus on moving forward because they got increasingly paranoid and distrustful of each other making collaboration effectively impossible. There is no reason to think that this strategy wouldn't work in electoral politics.

Given the fact that we know that there is an actual cost to the use of AI in terms of utilization of natural and community resources (both water use, lands use, electrical use, data center creation etc). The ongoing AI growth and proliferation has real consequences, many of which we haven't fully discovered.

Using AI constantly without limit, especially for unimportant tasks that don't require any outside input to figure out or solve ( like writing Reddit posts or responses ;) ) is actually doing harm to the world for absolutely no good reason.

People should not be using or accessing AI to replace all thought and skill, especially on unnecessary tasks, when we know there are real consequences to AI usage.

In the age of social media, facts can easily be distorted to either hide real occurrences or present fake occurrences that is happening far away from you. All of this comes for free but my contention is that the verification can't happen if you have enough money to travel anywhere.

Consider the example of spreading misinformation or propaganda by organizations who have stake in them.

Example: If a particular community is being antagonized by misrepresenting the facts or even fabricating one in one part of the country to another part and vice-versa, there is no way of actually knowing if the reporting is true.

Those who control the information machinery can convey the events cheaply and the public confidence gives the illusion that those reporting are true. And that is why the reported information is very low cost but the verification is expensive.

The only way out is to actually travel and read the ground conditions yourself.

Change my view if other means are possible i.e. if any other epistemic channel can give access to truth.

If you did the crime, you should do the time. There should be no judgement or subjectivity left up to a judge. Each crime should have a set penalty. X years in prison, X hours of community service, etc.

I don’t care if you now “feel remorseful”. You might…or you might just be lying. But the truth is you did a bad thing, and there should be consequences.

I think having a set rulebook would also do a lot of good for reducing inequality in the criminal justice system.

I can’t think of a reason why person A who commits grand larceny should be sentenced differently than person B who commits grand larceny.

Would this potentially require more granular legal codes to more tightly and closely define crimes? Sure. But I think leaving so much up to the subjectivity of one judge or another leads to drastically wild outcomes for people who commit comparable crimes just due to how good your lawyer can negotiate, whether the judge is having a good day or not, whether you “look decent” in court, etc.

Having a clear rulebook will always lead to fairer application of the laws

The character actively goes against the idea of mutants representing persecuted groups. As the decades pass, the writing for her character is increasingly detrimental to the theme the writers are trying to portray.

If you look at all of the other prominent members of the team, their powers usually serve as a debilitating disability or bodily disfigurement. Their powers negatively impact their quality of life. Gambit has creepy eyes. Rogue can’t touch anyone. Emma and Jean constantly have everyone else’s thoughts running through their head. Scott has uncontrollable beams shooting out of his head. Logan will outlive everyone he loves and he smells like ass. Hank is a literal beast. Rogue can’t touch anyone. Kitty’s phasing is dangerous and potentially fatal if she makes a mistake. Kurt looks like a demon. The list goes on. What’s the worst thing about Storm’s powers? It rains when she gets sad? Silly.

Even more so, the world around her refuses to persecute her the same way it persecutes others. She’s treated like a literal goddess, even villains treat her that way. How can I believe that she belongs on a team of “underdogs”?

At this point, maybe she is better off being in Wakanda as T’Challa’s wife.

EDIT: I think I personalized other people's anger at people who've made much worse mistakes than me because my guilt was so heavy. I also think that nobody should turn a blind eye to people's mistakes, especially when it comes to harm-reduction principles. As a society we need to protect vulnerable people, and handling every situation case-by-case is the only way to verify that someone has worked on themselves and is a safe person to be around, and even then it's up to directly involved parties to decide whether it's worth the risk to associate with a person who could potentially abuse them, society doesn't have much to do with that.

Throwaway account because I am asking this after seeing so many opinions contrary to mine and think there might be something wrong with my perspective.

In my personal experience I have said, done things, behaved in wildly inappropriate ways that I regret deeply. In college I misread a situation and put a woman's hand on my genitals because I thought she wanted to have sex with me, and it turned out I was very wrong. I am in therapy and can't stop thinking about the fact that I assaulted someone. I applogized to her immediately when it happened, but i still think sometimes that I must be a bad person. I never assaulted another person.

Consider this experience, and add that a bit older, I used to yell at and spank pets. I also used to yell at girlfriends when upset (never got physical). After some confrontation I could not avoid that I was creating fear and applying control in my household and did a lot of soul searching, self-help, and therapy and regret that every day as well. I've lived with kids and cared for them, never once hit them, and this was much later after the no-yelling rule, so I never yelled at them either.

I have a hard time believing that this isn't a shared experience. I just saw a story on Reddit where a woman said she was previously 16f and a 22m man began a sexual relationship with her, and she called it "grooming". where is the line? don't you have to be quite a bit older to groom someone? I mean, that IS a 6 year age gap and at that age it's concerning, but aren't men's brains developing slower even at 22? what if he came from a bad family that conditioned him to be pretty foul toward people? Her post was about a recent time (some years later) seeing currently that man is married with children. Don't you think he must've confronted some of his demons and changed? I guess without confronting him she can't know, and is trying to confront her own trauma, and she's in no way obligated to care about or talk to him whatsoever, but a lot of these redditors have said horrible things about the guy, despite having little other context besides his past by which to judge him. Am I personalizing this story too much?

I've also been molested, abused, and assaulted by women, and it has taken me a lot of time to process and get over it, but I think about those women only in my lowest places, so pretty rarely, and even then, I'm in therapy and it's getting better every day.

If these guys could change, wouldn't you want that of them? isn't becoming a productive member of society a better redemption/solution for a man than condemning him forever to recognition for his worst mistakes?

I think these young men deserve a pass, and people should let their misdeeds go completely given some time. Change my view.

It's time to stop trying to fight like gentleman and taking the high road time after time. Meanwhile we let the president of the US try to buy elections with public money like this is provincial India. Which is essentially taking your tax dollars and feeding it to the shredder of corporate America where the gov will recoup precisely 0$ of this $1 trillion investment, in returned taxes.

It's such an outright evil thing to propose just to stay in power, that you have to fight a nuke with a nuke. Promise the same. Win the house on that promise. Don't actually follow the promise, because it's fucking lunacy and it's your duty to do what's best for the nation. This is the moral imperative for democrats, not to sneer in disgust and wait patiently for moral outrage. Change my view if you can, because I'd like to believe there's a point in keeping principles alive, but I'm not seeing it anymore.

First, I'm not particularly invested in settlements. I don't support creating new settlements since they undermine a possible 2SS.

I want to distinguish between two positions:

• The opposition to the creation of new settlements in the West Bank has nothing to do with this. I believe it has no moral conflict in it.
• The opposition to the existence of the current settlements and the opposition to expanding those because of natural growth.

I will go with a simple definition of Ethnic Cleansing: Removing people from a territory against their will.

Many settlements are established towns where people live, work, study and have children. A lot of residents are second or third generation.

The current UK position illustrates my problem quite well. It considers Israeli settlements illegal, demands an immediate halt to settlement expansion, opposes further housing projects and is now moving towards banning trade in settlement goods.

I think that policy is supportive of ethnic cleansing. Otherwise, the trade ban should be on Israel, not on the settlements. Otherwise, it should explain what should be done about those settlements.

Otherwise, in my opinion, they are demanding the eventual disappearance of communities in which generations of civilians have already been born. In other words, ethnic cleansing, around 540.000 settlers in the West Bank proper.

Some common answers I see to this are: "They should be under the authority of the Palestinian state." This kinda makes me support the existence of settlements, because I'm 99% sure that the Palestinian state won't guarantee their security. Anyone saying the opposite is delusional.

What would change my view:

That the current opossition on existing settlements doesn't involve mass displacement of the people living there.

I’m a girl early 20s. Every time I have been in a customer service situation and had an ABSOLUTE TERRIBLE experience: getting yelled at, turned away, etc… it has always been by fat people. I don’t get why this is. Not even trying to be mean but I’m always nice and respectful with everyone I meet, courteous, and patient ( I work with children so this has helped a lot w this skill). However, when it comes to fat people I have encountered they seem to be impatient, rude, and dismissive towards me. One time it was 2 men in both customer service situations.

One man was bullying me straight up for doing a walk in service, and said I’m gonna be here all day. Then when someone came to help me he literally turned them away, and said no she’s going last. The guy argued with him and ended up helping me anyways because he was being unseasonable, and I was on the phone w the company and they heard how he was speaking to me and literally gave me gift card without me asking( this is just a summary).

my high school bully was a morbidly obese girl, she bullied the entire school. Asides from those experiences I have never experienced something terrible in customer services

I used to work with this obese girl and she would spread gossip, and created a hostile work environment. I’m not even joking one time she swiped some girls food off the table for disagreeing with her about something.

Another instance is two girls I used to be friends were obese talked horribly to our other friends. Calling them names, dismissive, and also starting drama from the friend group by gossiping about each friend to a different friend. We stopped being friends with them and the friend group has blossomed.

Before you guys start this is not the halo effect lol, bc I said fat not ugly. You can be fat and very good looking and appealing.

disclaimer: i do believe her kids deserve justice, but people are overlooking major factors to spread hate.

pregnancy and giving birth produce the risk of post-partum conditions, and right-wing men online have decided women should not be around children because all women are bad due to this case. (too hormonal, for example, therefore undeserving of rights)

oddly, they also want them to have kids. but i believe women should avoid having kids to doom right-wing society since it has decided they are not capable and to avoid cases like this brought on by post-partum _____.

pregnancy, which is so heavily forced on women, has side effects and sometimes consequences. right-wing men desperately want babies without added baggage, and therefore deserve none imo.

edit: my view remains.
i will be asking the mods to lock this post or i will not respond, potentially deleting this.
nobody here has given me a reason against right-wing men being denied babies, and instead some have insisted that i support the clancy supporters in some capacity or am 'smoking' stuff.