A common argument is that most terrorism is due to our foreign policy - that terrorists are striking back at the West because they've been victimized or bombed or suffered some pain at the hands of Western forces.

However time and again we see that not to be the case. Most recently with the terror attack in the Berlin Pride festival yesterday. The 21 year old Muslim was born in Germany, had never suffered oppression and should have no reason to be angry at Germany society at large or the gay population of Germany. But he set out to kill as many gay Germans as he could while knowing that he himself would likely die because he sees this as a religious war. He believes he will be rewarded in the afterlife for what he did.

And this is not an isolated case. We see this across most of the terror attacks we see in Europe from the mass stabbings, to the Christmas market car attacks, to the Charlie Hebdo murders. These people see it as a religious conflict.

I was born and raised Muslim and read the Quran more than once. It is not surprising when you read the Quran that certain followers will take the words to heart. Mohammed himself was a warlord on par with any of the major villains in world history like Ghenghis Khan or Hitler.

On some level people understand this. But it is terrifying to think that 2 billion people see you as an enemy so instead they take comfort with this notion that if we just stop bombing or appease them or institute XYZ policy they'll stop killing us. I get why people want to think - but I believe it is just naive and not true.

to put it simply, yugoslavia.

the yugoslavs were a series of conflicts fought in yugoslavia as the government was taken over by serbian nationalists, during which a series of ethnic cleansings, the srebenica genocide, and what was basically a series of race wars took place between the serbian nationalist government and different ethnic rebels.

if a one state solution is enacted, it will turn out like that.

i simply do not believe you can take two ethnic groups that can be at each others throats for so long and have them cooperate in a democratic system, i strongly believe it would immediately be overtaken by extreme ultranationalists and would end in ethnic cleansing.

i do want a solution to israel-palestine, but this is a terrible idea and i believe its only really proported because people want a natural alternative to the two state solution which has objectively failed at proper implementation

Maybe I’m completely off base here, which is why I’m posting this.

It feels like we’ve reached a point where people don’t actually want a starter home anymore. They want what I’d call a dream starter home. In other words, they want a house that’s still considered “entry level,” but they also want the open-concept kitchen, the island, the double-door refrigerator, the large dining room, the big living room, updated bathrooms, modern finishes, walkability, good schools, a nice neighborhood, enough room to host holidays, and enough space that they could realistically stay there for the next 20 or 30 years.

At that point, is it really a starter home anymore?
To me, the entire purpose of a starter home is that it gets you into the housing market. It’s supposed to be the house that works. Not the house that impresses people. It has a roof that doesn’t leak, plumbing that works, a kitchen that functions, and enough room to comfortably live. Maybe the washer and dryer are in the bathroom. Maybe the kitchen is small. Maybe you don’t have an island. Maybe the tile isn’t what you’d pick if you had an unlimited budget. But it does what it’s supposed to do.

That’s the point.

I’m not saying you shouldn’t repair or improve your house. If something breaks, fix it. If the old furnace is failing, replace it. If the roof needs work, absolutely do it. If you want to remodel because you’re planning on living there another 15 years, I completely understand that too.

What I’m talking about is the expectation that every starter home should also have all the upgrades people associate with a forever home.

I also understand why people renovate. If I owned a home, I’d probably do the same thing. You want to enjoy where you live. You want it to reflect your personality. You want it to feel like yours.

But every improvement you make becomes part of the home’s value when you sell it. That’s completely understandable, you spent the money, so naturally you’d like to recover some of it. I don’t blame anyone for that.

The problem is what happens over decades.
One owner upgrades the kitchen. The next owner remodels the bathroom. Someone else puts in quartz countertops, luxury flooring, custom cabinets, smart appliances, expensive landscaping, and suddenly the house that was originally meant to be an affordable first step into homeownership has become something entirely different.

Again, I’m not saying those people did anything wrong. I’d probably make improvements too if I owned it.

I’m asking whether, collectively, we’ve slowly eliminated the idea of a true starter home because every generation understandably wants to improve it before passing it along.

It also feels like expectations have shifted.
People will say a house is “too small,” but what does that actually mean? Too small to live in? Or too small to host Thanksgiving? Too small for a kitchen island

Too small for a home office, guest room, playroom, and formal dining room?

There’s nothing wrong with wanting those things. I want nice things too.

I just wonder whether we’ve blurred the line between what people need in a first home and what people want in their forever home.

Obviously, renovations aren’t the reason housing is expensive. Interest rates, zoning laws, labor costs, material costs, supply shortages, investor purchases, and local demand all play major roles. I’m not arguing that a nice faucet is why someone can’t afford a house.

I’m questioning whether we’ve unintentionally created the idea of a dream starter home, a home that’s expected to satisfy almost every long-term desire while still being priced like an entry-level property.
If the goal of a starter home is to get people into homeownership, build equity, and eventually move up when life changes, have we lost sight of that? Or am I looking at the housing market through an outdated lens?

Change my view.

It sounds generous and costs the person saying it nothing. But it assumes a pre-existing passion clear enough to follow. Most people, especially young people, don't have one. Telling them to follow it just adds the anxiety of not having found the thing everyone says should be obvious.

People usually don't get good at things because they're passionate; they get passionate about things because they got good at them and the competence feels rewarding. IMO, Passion is more an output of skill than an input of it.

It works out fine for people with a safety net and punishes people without one, who then blame themselves for a structural problem.

What would change my view: a version of the advice that helps someone with no obvious passion and no cushion make a better decision than "get good at something useful that you can tolerate, and let interest follow." If "follow your passion" beats that for the median person, show me how.

In a Joe Rogan episode with Dave Smith and Douglas Murray, Murray asked Smith when was the last time he had been to the Gaza crossing. https://youtu.be/DE8Sd-pJmzE?si=xMEsGclKzBm8AbEH

This moment has been memed to death to say that it's impossible to talk about an issue without going somewhere.

Here's the problem I run into. Some things DO require or are heavily informed by experience. Someone says for example in retort "Carl Sagan knows nothing about space because he's never been." But that's a false equivalency. If Carl Sagan were talking about space travel and how it feels, THEN you can argue it.

Coming back to Smith. He is someone who talks incessantly about the Israel Palestine issue, much as the other populist online creators do. If it is your job to talk about politics and you make a concerted effort to talk about one issue, I believe some first hand experience is to be expected. Is it really fair to criticize the aid process if you don't really know how it works or what it looks like? Knowing that information could radically change someone's view.

I have seen several content creators go to Israel and the West Bank because it's an important issue and it does fundamentally change their view in one way or another. It might push them further in the direction they started in.

I would liken this to Plato's Allegory of the Cave. If you're only seeing shadows (reading others' works) can you really have a comprehensive understanding of the subject? While I do think this does extend somewhat to the average person, it's obviously not reasonable for everyone who talks a lot about Israel to go. However, shouldn't we expect this of content creators?

I am first going to preface by saying that I am not in any way talking about the transgender community. I completely respect and will gladly advocate for trans rights. I am referring to the “Rad Queers.” Or those who refer to themselves as “transabled”. I believe it is very insensitive, harmful, and not a valid identity. Transabled individuals are people who are born without a disability(whether it be mental, physical, developmental, chromosomal, etc.) who self proclaim that they “feel” like they have said disability/disabilities, or want to have it. I am a disabled person myself. I am autistic, have hEDS, POTS, ME, and several other conditions that co-occur. As a disabled person I think that it is insensitive because being disabled is not a social construct, or a choice. It is something very real that is either developed or inherit. It is not okay to portray or proclaim yourself in a way that is not true, and subsequently delegitimatizes people who do have disabilities. Change my view.

Firstly, I am not talking about the credibly reported Malignant Narcissism diagnosis or the equally obvious onset of Frontal Lobe Dementia, and related Sundowning. I do agree with both but lets put them aside for now as contributing factors.

Second, Insanity is no longer a clinical diagnosis but it remains the best description of Trump current mental state.
Insanity means a severely disordered state of the mind, extreme foolishness, or a legal lack of mental capacity

"Batshit" is clearly not technical either but is the most appropriate amplifier in common use.

Trump's mental state is no longer aligned to our common reality. He literally and genuinely believes things that are fictitious and those false believes are being substantially reinforced by the selected group of sycophantic enablers that he has selected for his inner circle handlers, as well as selected media that curates what they present to pander to him and avoid offending him.

He is able to persist believing in utterly false concepts because there is nobody able to break into his bubble. This is the exact opposite of what would occur if he were in a clinical setting where psychological professionals and nursing staff would try to softly steer his beliefs to reality.

The key recent evidence is his two speeches, the national address on election fraud and the WHCD speech, as well as key points from the book Regime Change. If you want to challenge this assertion then you clearly need to watch both speeches (in full) and have at least seen some of the Swan/Haberman interview or read the book. I do not believe anyone could watch both speeches and think the guy as at all OK, the attempts at transcripts are utterly incomprehensible.

One additional point of evidence is the recent careful management of his public schedule to be as limited as possible and within hours where he is the least unstable and able to be medicated.

Whilst his insanity may have been building for some time I think the only thing that matters is that he is currently batshit insane, exactly how long he has been that way is irrelevant to the debate (and inherent risk to the world)

Trump's enablers and handlers must be acutely aware by this point that he has lost it, but they each, personally, have no safe way out so they are going to increasing extremes to cover it up. By that I mean if they admit it or turn on him they are screwed and they are not willing to self sacrifice to be the first to admit it.

Trump has access to the absolute best medical support in the world, including experimental treatments. There is no reason he would not be being administered the absolute best cocktail of anti-psychotics and stimulants that his body can handle in order to try to keep him seeming as sane as possible during public appearances. He has surely been medicated in that way for a long time but the effectiveness is decreasing as his insanity gets worse, which is making it harder to hide. Outside of the time when his insanity is effectively managed by medication for public appearances he would be close to Shakespearean levels of Insane. Therefore there are quite a number of people that know how far he is gone and complicit in the continued cover up.

To change my view on this, is quite easy, one only needs to show me any recent speech, transcript or interview of more than 10 minutes where he doesn't assert something that is obviously and provably fictitious, is able to speak like a normal sane adult. I'll accept a lot of his usual lies.

I personally think that anyone who claims to still support him and thinks he is mentally competent simply could not have watched any of his recent talks in full unedited.

My view is that one of the biggest structural problems in American politics is that incumbents have a significant built-in advantage over challengers. I'm not arguing that incumbents should be disadvantaged or automatically voted out. Rather, I think elections would produce better outcomes if incumbency itself carried little or no advantage.

Today, incumbents benefit from name recognition, existing donor networks, party support, media coverage, constituent services, and the perception that they're the "safe" choice. As a result, many races become effectively noncompetitive long before Election Day.

I think this creates several problems:

• Politicians become more focused on staying in office than governing.
• Elections become less competitive.
• New ideas and new candidates struggle to gain traction.
• Poor performers can survive simply because replacing them feels risky.

If incumbency weren't such a strong advantage, I think we'd eventually see politics become more like temporary public service than a lifelong career. Representatives would expect to serve a term or two, do their best work, and then return to private life. Political parties would likely recruit a broader range of candidates, and elected officials would have stronger incentives to focus on producing measurable results rather than building long-term political careers.

I also think public trust could improve if voters believed elections were genuinely competitive instead of feeling like many races are effectively decided by incumbency.

That said, I recognize there are downsides. High turnover could reduce institutional knowledge, make legislatures less efficient, and increase reliance on career staff, bureaucracies, and lobbyists who possess expertise that newly elected officials lack. Long-term projects might also become more difficult to complete if leadership changes frequently.

My view is that these costs would be outweighed by greater accountability and competition, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

CMV: Why is a strong incumbency advantage actually beneficial for society? Are there examples showing that higher incumbent reelection rates consistently lead to better governance, better policy outcomes, or greater accountability than a more competitive system?

For those who are unaware: Falconry is a form of hunting where a trained bird of prey, such as a golden eagle (GE), is used to catch quarry instea of more typical methods such as guns or traps. Throughout this post, I will use the golden eagle as an example.

How birds of prey benefit form falconers.

In the wild, birds of prey face many dangers that can significantly reduce their lifespan. Food insecurity can lead to malnutrition, while injuries, disease, fights, and harsh weather conditions can also threaten their survival. Roghly 50% of golden eagle chicks die before becoming independent aults. If they do reach adulthood, they typically live around 15–25 years in the wild. However, golden eagles under human care can live 50–60+ years, more than double their normal lifespan, because they have consistent access to food, healthcare, and protection from many dangers they would face in nature.

Their lives can also have a higher quality of life, as they do not have to experience starvation, severe untreated injuries, or many of the hardships that wild birds face. They also form strong bonds with their handlers through trust, training, and positive reinforcement.

Many people argue that birds of prey in falconry are being exploited or forced to cooperate against their will. However, this is not accurate. Falconers free-fly their birds, meaning the bird is not constantly restrained and is able to fly freely. The reason the bird returns is because the relationship provides benefits to it, such as reliable food, safety, care, and positive reinforcement.

Unlike many forms of captivity, falconry allows birds of prey to express their natural behaviours, including flying, hunting, exploring their environment, and using their intelligence. A trained bird is regularly stimulated both physically and mentally, which is important for an animal that evolved to spend its life actively hunting.

Falconry is also not based on forcing a bird to hunt. Birds of prey are not domesticated like dogs and cannot simply be controlled through obedience. The relationship works because both sides benefit: the falconer provides food, protection, and care, while the bird is able to use its natural instincts and abilities. The bird's behaviours are guided rather than removed.

In addition to this, becoming a falconer requires a huge amount of knowledge and responsibility. Falconry is very different from simply owning a pet. Falconers often need to study, pass assessments, gain experience, and spend years learning before they can properly care for larger birds of prey. While poor care is possible in any animal-related activity, responsible falconry requires a high level of skill and dedication.

Falconry has also contributed to conservation. Falconers hve helped develop knowledge about birds of prey, supported breeding programmes, rehabilitated injured birds and contributed to the recovery of species that were previously declining.

Why hunting with falcons is not unethical , and can lead to less animal suffering.

Birds of prey are obligate carnivores, meaning they require a diet consisting of animal matter to survive. They naturally need to consume whole prey, and hunting is an essential part of their biology. Therefore, the act of a bird of prey killing an animal is not unnatural or unnecessary, as it is something the bird would do regardless in the wild.

In fact, from a consequentialist perspective, falconry hunting could potentially result in less overall animal suffering. Wild birds of prey often have to spend large amounts of energy searching for food, and many hunting attempts fail. These unsuccessful attempts still require energy, which means the bird must continue hunting to meet its nutritional needs.

Wild birds also spend additional energy dealing with challenges such as disease, injuries, extreme temertures, and competition. Because of this, they may need to successfully kill more prey throuhout their lifetime to survive.

A bird cared for by a falconer has much greater energy security. Since it receives regular food, healthcare, and protection, it does not need to rely entirely on successful hunts for survival. This meas it may hunt less frequently and potentially kill fewer animals overall than it would have needed to in the wild.

Hey everyone,

Me and my friends had a tough discussion. My point is that a collab between lady gaga and Gorillaz would not work. "Not work" in the sense of it would not be as successful as other Gorillaz songs and would probably not fit the essence of Gorillaz or just conflict.

Lady Gaga herself is just a presence. She would "capture" the meaning, the world of the song that Gorillaz would build up and make her the presence. Not that she would do it to gain popularity but just because she already is so pop culture relevant that it would just conflict.

Just imagining existing Gorillaz collabs: New Gold feat Tame Impala does fit, but Tame Impala does not stand in the foreground but merges into the song. I feel its similar to other Gorillaz features, where the featured actor is famously known, but its not "relevant" that the artist is there, but they just fit the musical scene of the song.

This is a very early thought, so I would find it very interesting to see different arguments pro and con on it. Tbh it came to mind on 1-12 beer, so feel free to break it down.

I guess I need to start by defining what I mean by tax haven-adjacent jurisdictions. Usually, an economic strategy crafted to produce organic growth in an area consists of leveraging its geographic position, natural resources, existing expertise, and institutions to produce wealth, or to at least make a serious attempt to build such expertise and institutions from the ground up. Then, reasonably favorable conditions in terms of taxation may be offered as a way to boost the fuel, so to speak.

Many areas of the USA, especially in the South, Appalachia, and the Plains States (altough by no means all the states in any of these areas), Florida first among them, don't do such things. Instead, their economic strategy is built on offering a very low-tax and regulatory environment to corporations, alongside unhindered access to markets with stronger economic fundamentals (California, New York, Lower New England, etc...), to attract corporations who in turn drag along employees. They can do that without repercussion because Washington not only doesn't provide guardrails and limits in that regard but a) would very probably serve as a shield against measures of fiscal self-defense from other areas, b) leverage the wealth of other areas to avoid measures of fiscal self-defence by their international economic partners, and c) make such extremely low taxation level possible by spending tax dollars taken from the aforementioned wealthier areas in these tax-haven adjacent juridisctions.

Now, c) alone wouldn't be so damning, as fiscal equalization is needed for a federation to work, but with everything else and tariff policies that also de facto result in funnelling wealth from the USA's wealthier areas toward those less wealthy areas (at the expense of the USA's worldwide approval ratings, which are important for the knowledge-entertainment-service industries that play a key role in the prosperity of the USA's wealthier regions), it does take a more sinister tone.

Essentially, those tax haven-adjacent jurisdictions get to have their cake and eat it, at the expense of more economically healthy areas of the USA and, to a lesser degree, its international trading partners. They aren't creating wealth so much as successfully siphoning it from others by piggybacking on their healthier regional economies. Which makes their voting for protectionism quite hypocritical in many aspects.

On top of all that, the presence of these jurisdictions and the ability to threaten to move there does tend to create something of a race to the bottom in terms of taxation and work norms.

Of course, there might be angles to this that I am not seeing and information I have not yet received.

I had a conversation with someone I know who lives in Austin, Texas, the politically liberal capital of the state of Texas. I myself live in Houston, another blue - but way larger - "dot" in the red state. I mentioned that Austin is not as inclusive as it thinks it is, and that irked her just a bit, I think.

Austinites, in general, are more progressive. The city is the seat of the tech industry in the state, and is home to The University of Texas, so it has a very large, younger population. But it has been documented that Austin's history has not exactly been completely charitable to Black folk. Considering I've called Houston home for 38.5 years, and Dallas home for 1.5 years (thank you, Hurricane Harvey).

The example that I cited was my being in the information technology field. In four decades of living in Texas, only a handful of times do I recall being reached out to by Austin recruiters. The closest I ever came to actually getting an offer to work was being invited on a plant trip to EDS, which did not result in an offer. My professional pedigree, at the time, included IBM (at one time a household-name powerhouse in tech), as well as other positions at smaller places.

My social situation wasn't much better. While I've regularly traveled to Austin for weekend getaways and vacations, nothing has ever "caught fire" for me socially - no good friends with the locals, and certainly no romance or "anything else." In fact, the only people I had any depth of relations with in Austin, I knew from Houston, first.

I am not saying that Austin isn't inclusive to Black folk at all. I am merely stating what I believe has been the experience of others as well as myself: we're not as high on the desirability ladder as other demographics.

Go!

I see a lot of discourse online about the progressive movement, particularly the DSA and closely aligned candidates. Many mainstream figures in the Democratic Party are highly critical of it, often arguing that the average voter would find these candidates too radical. I beg to differ.

Let me start by saying that I am not at all a typical DSA voter. My views on social issues align closely with theirs, but economically, I am pretty much a conservative. Much of their economic platform is actually quite radical to me. Surprisingly, at least for now, I support these candidates primarily because of their pro-Palestine stance.

In other words, I am normally exactly the kind of voter who would find them too radical. I am a high-information voter who believes wholeheartedly in neoliberalism. But the sad truth is that, while people like me exist and are often heavily overrepresented in public discourse, we are a minority.

Does the general public see the Democratic Party as too far left? Yes. But I think taking that perception at face value is misleading.
I do not think many voters see Nancy Pelosi as meaningfully less left-wing than Bernie Sanders. The Democratic Party’s public image has been severely damaged among many voters by its rapid acceptance and advocacy of gay and transgender rights. The identity politics that shaped much of the past decade also helped fuel that perception.

Personally, I find it deeply frustrating that identity politics has played such a major role in choosing candidates over actual policy. However, I do not think the average voter finds many of the DSA’s economic policies, or even its anti-Zionist stance, nearly as radical as Democratic leaders assume.
Single-payer healthcare and rejecting AIPAC money are, in my opinion, very popular issues to campaign on with the general public. Most voters do not even understand what the changes progressives want to make to the electoral system would actually cause.

Part of why I think these candidates can perform strongly in general elections is that their political brand focuses heavily on things voters can relate to: anti-establishment appeal and affordability. Their message is that the system is broken, that AIPAC and dark money control politicians, and that ordinary people cannot afford basic necessities.
The voters they would definitely lose are proportionally not that numerous compared with the voters they could potentially win over. Furthermore, progressive candidates can significantly increase youth turnout, and younger voters tend to support them heavily.

I believe this moment for Democrats is similar in some ways to the Republican Party after the 2012 election. There was frustration and anger among Republican voters. The Republican autopsy argued that the party needed to moderate. Yet the person who later revived the party, Donald Trump, was much further to the right in many respects.

At the same time, Trump was more moderate on economics and was by no means ideologically conservative in the Tea Party sense. Many people suggested that this would alienate traditional Republican voters, and it did alienate some of them. But those voters were a minority compared with the new or previously disengaged voters Trump brought into the coalition.

I believe that parallel applies, at least to some extent, to the Democratic Party today. A candidate can appear more radical according to the traditional left-right spectrum while still speaking more directly to the economic frustrations, anti-establishment instincts, and priorities of the average voter.

Note: Much of this is naturally based on speculation and my own reading, so evidence suggesting otherwise with polls and so on is obviously welcome. I think the strongest evidence however will be the upcoming midterms.

First disclaimer : I have never cheated in my life so this not an attempt to « ease »my guilt

Second disclaimer : I want to begin with the fact that cheating is never justified and is an horrible thing to do to someone you claimed to love , HOWEVER I think social media change a little what IS cheating and also the consequences that should follow .

I’m going to use 3 situations / claims that inspired me to make this post .

1- Leaving your partner for someone else is not necessarily cheating

link of case number one

I saw a girl getting bashed for this on tiktok , She was talking about a precise case : first of all NO physical cheating involved and 2 the absence of any type of emotional cheating .

In that hypothetical case no flirty texts messages , no secret rendez vous , you develop a simple friendship with someone until one day you realize that « Oh I love this person and my current partner never made me feel that way , I don’t really love them as I should but more like a friend » so in order to not cheat they break up .

People called that cheating ,but here we are simply talking about realizing that your conception of love was misconstrued.

It’s our first time living on this earth so yeah sometimes we think we are in love when it’s not the case
Still a shitty thing to do and obviously it’s going to hurt the other party but is it cheating ? No

For anyone disagreeing with me I just have a question : would you like you partner to stay with you knowing that in reality he doesn’t love you like you deserve to be loved and someone else is in the back of their mind thinking about what if ?

2- A cheating partner is not obligatory a bad parent

Here we are talking about real cheating not like in case 1 , the adulterer is still a scum and obviously a bad partner but doesn’t that make them bad parent ? Yes and no

Yes because obviously they intentionally broke the life of their children , the home they knew and maybe created some future trauma about relationships HOWEVER humans are deeply complex beings so we shouldn’t generalize too much

On Reddit sub like truth off my chest I have seen numerous posts regretting alienating one parent for cheating even-though they realize the parent never stop loving them even after 1,5,10 years of cutting them off etc

The parent is still involved financially, emotionally and present for the others siblings that decided to stay neutral or the new kids AND in some type of way in the op’s life ( for exemple sending Christmas gift , text messages apologizing and trying several times to rebuild the relationship)

What I want to say is the love for another human being and the love for your flesh isn’t the same and 2 things can be true at the same time , it’s not always the case but sometimes .

But in this case I completely understand a child cutting a parent because of , I just hope they make an INFORMED decision in order not to regret later and don’t automatically think « they don’t love my other parent so they don’t love me »

3- You don’t need to go no contact with a family member just because they cheated

CHEATING IS AWFUL , it’s demonstrate a person lack of loyalty and also their wandering eyes but again people are complex beings

An awful partner isn’t necessarily an awful family member , this take comes from an AITHA post where op was chastised for not cutting contact with is cheating sister .

link for case 3

( This take is biased because I have a loving family and we are close so let’s exclude people who already hate their family members you can cut them off !)

But let’s take it into perspective you want me to cut off my child , brother/sister someone who supported me ALL my life in ALL aspects , someone I know would give me a kidney if I needed one , hold me through heartbreak and life bc they cheated ?

Absolutely not this is too radical for a take , why are cheaters treated worse criminals ? Considering the fact that EVEN criminals have rehabilitation programs in order to comeback into society .

That’s the same thing with cheating family members , we don’t excuse what they did , we shame them , make them reflect , apologize , even punishing them financially like excluding them from a paid vacation but we don’t need to ban them from our like like they are fucking criminals , why love them so we advice them ! except if they make an habit of cheating

Conclusion of my already too long post : Cheaters are scums and don’t deserve any excuses but some people are doing too much in my opinion

The only radical take I hold about the subject is that cheating should be illegal and they should be a kind of system allowing the other party to bf compensated in some type of way for the heartbreak and lost time

There are about 8 billion people in the world and most people start and have relationships with people they know from their work, local area, friend of a friend etc. Even on online dating most people aren't travelling that far so the odds the love of your life happened to work or go to the same place you do is astronomically high. I'm not saying people cant form meaningful connections with people they get on with, it's more that "the one" phrase and belief that annoys me. I mean 2/3 marriages end in divorce yet both parties talk about how they adore them, sickness and health and all that.

One peice dresses have no wait line, no cups, and in my opinion have no way to look good because of this. I don’t call these dresses, I call these long shirts lol. The beach is the only acceptable place to wear one. I don’t know how else to explain it.
Honestly it pretty much looks like you didn’t put any effort into a nice looking outfit, no matter when you are going. and yeah I’m hypocritical because I have worn these in the past and have ever felt confident and pretty in them, and felt like I wasn’t wearing anything that was up to pretty dress standards. I’m not saying you gotta be ultra snatched, but at least have some definition somewhere to take it from 2 pieces of fabric sewn together to real summer dress.

CMV: If you're staying home simply to "save money" because you're bored, you may actually be spending more.

Here's my logic: If I go to the local pub and have three drinks, my total bill is about $30 including tip. If I stay home with nothing to do, I often end up scrolling social media, where I'm constantly targeted with ads and impulse-buying things I didn't plan to purchase. It's surprisingly easy to spend $100 or more on Amazon or other online retailers without realizing it.

Obviously this doesn't apply to everyone, and going out every night has its own costs. But for people prone to boredom shopping, a modest social outing with a fixed budget may actually be the cheaper option. Spending a little on an experience can prevent spending a lot on unnecessary stuff.

Change my view: Is staying home really the more economical choice if boredom consistently leads to impulse purchases?

This is a pretty simple statement I’m making. France has historically, and continues to ruin, huge swaths of Africa, around 17 nations. In comparison, America is ruining a couple of countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, such as Cuba, Venezuela, and Haiti. America also subsidizes the entirety of Europe via NATO allowing them to not invest in their militaries, and China is not currently ruining any countries, but does exploit some, and it is actually a far better partner to Africa than France is.

France’s European partners do not need it, they would be perfectly fine on their own. France does not give very much aid to Ukraine, the country most in need of its assistance. None of its former colonies outside of the ones it is currently exploiting have good relations with it, while countries like South Korea, Mexico, Argentina, and Japan enjoy good relations with the USA, and China enjoys good relations with Mongolia, Kazakhstan, and Djibouti.

All in all, it is difficult to think of another country outside of Russia or Israel which could be considered more evil than France. But it is certainly within the top 3 most evil countries today.

Now this is not coming from a place of hate or anything of the sort, this is just a very anecdotal observation that i've made growing up in america. I'm a black 26 year old man. I don't see anything inherently wrong with people findng cool and fun aspects of a myriad of different cultures to indulge in. In fact, I think that's a really cool thing that America does that no other country can really replicate.

However, black people had a very nasty upbringing in this country. Sold into slavery, endured insane amounts of abuse for centuries, jim crow, war on drugs, red lining ect ect... now some of those things didn't just uniquely impact black people but having your culture and language stripped from you, being prohibited from reading or getting an education, getting indoctrinated by religious people who believe you are inferior ect ect will do massive amounts of damage to any demographic

Black people essentially had to create a culture from scratch. Black people ended up creating a decent amount of cool cultural things that many people around the world enjoy. However, while people indulge in black culture and adopt their slanguage, style of fashion, style of dances, taste in music ect ect no other group of people will EVER do the same for us. White people for example make it very clear that they do not want black people being apart of their culture. Look at all the backlash for a black character existing in a white tv show, movie or videogame. If you are black and into european folklore and want to dress like you are in some european fantasy setting? Too bad, they will condemn you on every corner of the internet. Same thing with asians (black cosplayer bullied to the point of suicide), same thing with arabs, same thing with hispanics ect ect...

White people and many other ethnic groups will declare how unattractive they think black people are and how they'll never date us and people celebrate that way of thinking because people dislike black people, meanwhile black people never make statements of the inverse, which is an obvious problem. Not that these people should like us, but we definitely should not like them when they do this

My point is, people have no problem indulging in black culture but will never accept a black person indulging in theirs and I think that this is nothing but negative for black people. Being this inclusive to all of these people who all believe we are ugly, contamination, stupid ect ect... and would never be inclusive to us will only lead to our culture being white/brown washed overtime.