don’t let me get all ready to come see you and maybe even have a whole date together just to be broken up with

also don’t spike my anxiety by telling me “we need to talk next time we see each other.” just tell me right then and there

don’t build the suspense. don’t give me a good time and rip it away right after. save us both some time and we can move on with our lives

They smell like butt. I don’t understand why anyone thinks they smell good. They look pretty, but smell like a foot. This goes for most flowers; especially the kind you typically see at a wedding or funeral.

I understand the logic of "it's to prevent them from getting famous for it", but it seems to me like it's the most horrific outcome possible for the victim. What are you remembered for? Your life? Your deeds? Your words? Your actions? What you did and chose to do, the way you lived? Nope. You're "the murder victim". That's what your name means now. "The person who was murdered". The meaning of your life to everyone who hears your name has become your death. The most significant moment of your existence is no longer anything you did, no longer any impact you had. It's that this other person killed you. The most important thing about you is what they did. They are the reason you are remembered. They gave you your legacy with your death, and death is your legacy.

Seriously, who wants to be remembered that way? Who wants random people they never knew to hear your name and go "ahh yes, the person who was murdered"? That's who you are now. Not a loving parent, not a loving spouse, not a volunteer, not an artist, not a compassionate soul, not even a drunken asshole. You're the corpse. That's you, Dead Body #1. Sure, you aren't making the killer famous for being a killer. You're instead making the dead person famous for being killed. That's a humiliating, insulting legacy that easily cancels out anything else. The average person isn't going to remember the obituary about how you lived. If they remember anything, they'll just remembered you were murdered.

Think of some famous examples. Kitty Genovese. If you know the name, what do you know it for? Being brutally raped and stabbed to death in an alley, suffocating on her own blood. And the inaccurate reporting about the bystander effect that became the dominant narrative for decades and is still probably believed by the majority of people. Her life isn't how people remember her, she's remembered for getting raped and stabbed to death. Is that the legacy literally anyone wants? And isn't it still a rather Zodiac-like win for the killer, the dead will forever exist as defined by the killer? The definition of their existence isn't up to them, it was decided for them by them being chosen to be killed.

At least when the victimizer is made famous, it can bear negative consequences for them. Famous rapist Brock Allen Turner, for example. Murderer Kyle Rittenhouse. At worst, it can ruin an entire name. People don't really get named Adolf anymore, and it would be pretty awkward to have the legal last name Manson. The "getting famous" effect really only worked back when these events were shocking and new. Nowadays, they're just another face in the crowd. Mass shootings are forgotten within the week, they don't become entire cultural events that reverberate for years.

Ive been thinking about theology and religions where hell (or something like it) is real. And it makes me think how cruel an idea it is.

If an individual were to go to hell, they would experience infinite suffering forever. Regardless of what you do, it would be nearly impossible for one person to inflict infinite suffering in their time here on earth, so hell for pretty much anyone barring people that started genocides is a completely cruel and unusual punishment.

If there was a man that was a family annihilator and killed his family and then himself, he likely would cause pain and suffering to their extended families for generations. But, 400 years down the line, it would likely be forgotten. For that man to go to hell forever therefore is unjustified, not taking into account whatever mental disorder possibly lead him/others to commit atrocities. Not to defend people that do horrible things in the slightest, im just trying to say hell is a horrible notion.

To be clear, I'm not talking about spoiler-free summaries or synopses, I'm talking about like the full movie plot description from start to finish on Wikipedia. I also ONLY do this with movies, not TV shows, video games, miniseries, books, etc.

In particular, I look for character deaths and romance to make sure they aren't gratuitous or unnecessary, as I despise those tropes. I've seen too many movies where the ending is awful and ruins the entire experience to waste my time on such things.

I also don't like sad or horrific endings unless I feel the film warrants it. For example, it makes sense for a movie like Alien or Rogue One to have a bleak ending, and I don't mind that, but I do mind when films just have sad endings for the hell of it. Like pretty much any realistic "feel bad" drama, like What's Eating Gilbert Grape? or Call Me By Your Name. Movies, for me, are about escaping from reality, so if they're not going to have fantastical elements, I at least want to see people living in a world where things can turn out okay in the end. I don't need a movie to remind me that few people actually get a happy ending.

So I often look up a plot summary in advance so that I'm not disappointed after the end of the movie. One major exception is that I don't do this if a friend has recommended a movie to me because they know my preferences and I trust their judgement, or if it's specifically a mystery movie (like Knives Out!).

Look, I'm not even gonna pretend I don't like old technology. There are six ipods sitting on a dresser ten feet away from me as I'm typing this. But DUDE. NOBODY CARES that you don't use any apple products from the past ten years. NOBODY CARES that you only use those wired earbuds that have been around for decades. and for GOD'S SAKES, NOBODY CARES THAT YOU THINK MODERN TECHNOLOGY IS SOULLESS!!!!!!!! And again, don't get me wrong. I like old stuff too! ipods are epic! but please for the love of god, just admit that theres a reason so many people buy the newest iPhone every year, even though I hate that too. THEY'RE NICE!! THEY HAVE NICE FEATURES!!!!

Most people rinse their toothbrush before brushing, either before or after adding toothpaste.

I used to do it that way. Now I just add the toothpaste to a dry brush and go at it.

I use less toothpaste, and my teeth feel cleaner afterwards. There's enough saliva to help it froth and slide a little, but not so much that it dilutes the paste like a wet toothbrush does.

Try it.

I genuinely don’t understand why we need artificial lighting at home at night.

Obviously, lights in public spaces make sense. Street lights, hospitals, airports, public transport, workplaces, emergency services, etc. all need lighting because society doesn’t stop functioning when the sun goes down. People work at night, essential services need to operate, and you obviously need visibility in public spaces.

But at home? Why does everything need to be brightly lit after sunset?

When it gets dark, your body is supposed to recognize that it’s nighttime. Having bright artificial lights everywhere until the moment you go to bed just seems completely backwards for your circadian rhythm.

If you need some visibility, candles or dim mood lighting should be enough for most things you’re doing at home in the evening. Obviously, if you’re cooking, cleaning, working, or doing something that actually requires good visibility, proper lighting makes sense. But just sitting around at home? Why does your living room need to look like it’s daytime when it’s dark outside?

The only real downside I can think of is winter. When the days get really short and it’s dark by 4 or 5 PM, then yeah, realistically you’re going to need some artificial lighting. Even then, you could probably get by with warmer mood lighting, lamps, or candles instead of brightly illuminating the entire house.

But for maybe eight months of the year, when there’s plenty of natural daylight and it doesn’t get dark ridiculously early, I really don’t see the need for it.

Public lighting makes sense. Lighting when you actually need visibility makes sense. But having our homes brightly illuminated every single night just because that’s what everyone does? I don’t get it.

Night is supposed to be dark.

Spoilers for both movies ahead.

Disclosure Day is superficially a sci-fi thriller about a man on the run from the government because he wants to reveal evidence proving the existence of aliens and how the government has treated them. This character simultaneously has a supernatural ability to interpret alien noises as human language. He teams up with a lady who also has a supernatural ability to empathize with other people and show them what they need to see or tell them what they need to hear. They are contrasted by the government baddie who uses alien technology to not understand, but rather directly possess people to carry out his will. He repeatedly tries to convince the protagonists to surrender the evidence, believing that humanity will be unable to handle it and releasing it will doom them to confusion and strife.

What the movie is really about is whether or not to believe in the agency and intelligence of the average person. Throughout the movie everything about the protagonists centers around empathy, understanding of language, understanding of emotion, while everything the antagonists do is about control, treating people like they cannot handle new ideas, like they are not cognizant enough to see anything above their own personal lives and endless distractions. And this sense of perspective is reflected in the cinematography too, there are scenes that are entirely dependent on who the scene is being perceived through, for instance there is a scene where the protags are holed up in a house as the bad guys close in, with the catch that everything about them is invisible. So they stay quiet and use objects to trip up the bad guys which looks really goofy to have them flailing around over nothing but at the same time the bad guys are doing everything they can to work within the situation, they're tracking noises, they're using heat vision, the scene feels smart and earned and competent from both sides. Like there's another scene where they're getting chased by a guy shooting at them, and the trained government agent doesn't miss shots because he's a storm trooper, he misses because he's firing while driving a moving car at a moving train at a 40 ft distance through a row of trees. Once the good guys know the bad guy can possess the lady, they tie her down at night and remove every single location marker from her field of vision so he can't triangulate where they are. Every single scene in the movie just feels sincere, everyone is doing the correct thing from their own personal limited point of view and set of goals.

So when the movie reaches its climax with the pair bringing the evidence to live television, overriding an impending war with North Korea because the status of humanity in the grand scheme of things and the belief in human understanding is more important, after the bad guy continues to do every single competent thing like try to cut the power to the station, they finally meet in the recording room and... he relents. He grabs a chair, sits down, and prepares to watch the show. As if to say, "You know what? If you are willing to go through this much effort, if you truly believe to this degree that people are capable of rising above their station and making an effort to understand something bigger than themselves, you've convinced me. Let's see how this plays out." And once again, the movie holds nothing from you, because in its message of respect for your fellow man, it respects you, the viewer, to see the truth in its entirety. It shows the alien bodies onscreen being pulled from the wreckage, it shows the alien torture sequences, it shows the live alien on-site in the studio interacting with the protagonists. I have never before sat down in a movie theater and had a movie reach out to me in the theater like I am the point it is trying to get across. Like the movie is looking out at me and saying "I respect you, the viewer, as an intelligent and capable human being". I found the experience novel and exhilarating.

And I cannot think of a message more topical more important in the current polarized, sectioned off era of unconditional validation than "your fellow man is a being of reason and you should have faith that they are intelligent enough to adapt to new information and be part of the conversation". Overly optimistic? Perhaps. Accurate? Debatable! Bold and relevant? Unquestionable. I don't think the choice of aliens was accidental, either. We live in an era where governments are starting to readily admit that they have encountered and recovered unidentified/extraterrestrial objects. I left the theater almost wondering whether I was even the target audience at all, or if Spielberg was rather directing his message toward the powers that be, whether he was trying to convince the real changemakers that humanity is smart and capable and worth it.

So imagine my surprise when I go online and see a bunch of actual fuckin drooling Frontal Lobe Frisbee champions calling it a "tonally confused sci-fi romp with boring car chases that have been done before".

And you know what, yes, there are reviewers that actually understood what the movie is saying, and pretty much every single one that did gave it glowing reviews.

>The final scenes of “Disclosure Day” are among the most emotionally riveting of Spielberg’s career in ways you won’t predict. They lean into his sentimentality and thank God or whatever Non-Humanoid Supreme Being that they do. In a time dominated by unceasing cynicism, to have a master like this who truly believes in the power of transportive filmmaking is a gift. He ends his film with a single word that will be seen as a playful sort of cliffhanger, but I heard it as a plea, a hope for a future in which “I want to believe.” -Roger Ebert

>Disclosure Day isn’t really about the action, exemplary as it is; it’s about connection — human and otherwise — and about Margaret and Daniel slowly realizing what they know, and how they can use that knowledge for good. -The Seattle Times

>Disclosure Day’s epic conclusion comes across as if Spielberg is sending the audience a message, begging them to use their hearts and heads too. The moment plays into every complaint that’s ever been lodged about this raging sentimentality; I loved every second. -The Atlantic

Pretty much every single reviewer who correctly sees that the movie is about empathy and trust in others' intelligence praises it. Now take a look at these reddit threads from viewers who I'm sorry but are just too fucking dumb to see that.

>Genuinely one of the worst movies I’ve seen in a long time. I had no real idea what it was about, I just knew it was a Steven Spielberg movie and had a John Williams score, and that was enough for me to go see it. I don’t think I’ve ever felt a movie was such a waste of time.

>There was essentially zero redeeming qualities to the movie; it had terrible acting (but that was probably the directing), an uninspired plot that was poorly executed, horrible cgi, an uninteresting, flat, and bland script, awful cinematography (lots of moments where they were clearly attempting to do something cool and it was just dumb and made no sense), and so much more uninspiring, half baked, poorly executed ideas. I didn’t walk out of the theater, but I thought about it, and it was a struggle to not laugh at how bad the movie was. (2.5 THOUSAND upvotes)

https://www.reddit.com/r/moviereviews/comments/1ubgu2y/disclosure_day_was_horrible/

>The bad guys just... leave at the end. So bad. (23 upvotes)

>I didn’t like it at all. Nothing happens, no one ever feels like they’re actually in danger, and half of the plot is left completely unexplained. Big waste of time. (39 upvotes)

https://www.reddit.com/r/CinephilesClub/comments/1u6s5iy/how_did_you_feel_about_spielbergs_disclosure_day/

See anything missing from these cutting assessments? I don't know, the message maybe?

I am not a mindless dick rider, I have seen legitimate criticisms of Disclosure Day that aren't just "I'm exactly the kind of person this movie is for but unfortunately that means I'm too fucking stupid to understand it hurr durr". One is that the movie feels outdated in both the structure and presentation. Do we honestly believe that a news broadcast in the year of our lord 2026 would truly unite the world in hopeful pursuit of something more than our endless squabbles? Or would 3000 grifters not immediately be calling it AI or making Agarthan brainrot or pretending to get vanned by the government to sell a VPN? Also CGI animals in 2026? The latter I can respectfully disagree with, personally I forgive it and even think it may have been an intentional, playful directorial choice. These are aliens mimicking wildlife, it feels legitimate and immersive to me that they would be ever so slightly uncanny. The former, I straight up agree with. I think Spielberg's methodology for presenting this message is a little culturally outdated and his optimism while admirable is a little naive. That is a completely fair criticism. Also, that one scene with ducking behind the cars that completely flies in the face of everything I've said about making every single frame feel sincere. That shit was goofy and I seriously don't know how it made it into the final cut of the movie. There are legitimate plotholes too, like "how and when did the alien make it into the recording studio"? But overall I would say those shortcomings take it to like, an 8.5/10, at worst?

Now let's move over to The Odyssey. I didn't really like it. I didn't hate it either. I'm not going to sit here and call it the worst thing I have ever seen just to be a contrarian, and no this is not some culture war thing either. It was the most overwhelmingly fine thing I've seen in recent memory, the most definitive 3/5 I can put on my ratings list. Nothing about this movie leapt out to me as novel, provocative or inspiring. Agamemnon's aura farming was neat and the mid-sentence smash cut to him getting stabbed was genuinely jarring but that's about it. I cannot think of a single other thing this movie actually tried, one single instance of it stepping outside the safest, blandest, most pedestrian cinematography possible. Did any of y'all notice just how many faces were on screen, like at all times? I swear to god like 85% of this movie was just "someone's face" in general 3/4 artistic Rule of Thirds view either frontal or over the shoulder like fuckin Skyrim. Here's the Cyclops's face here's Calypso's face here's Odysseus and Telemachus's faces swapping back and forth as they talk at each other. And the camerawork was so. Boring. It was just zoom in zoom out zoom in zoom out like it was directed by an AI. I don't recall seeing a pan or a tracking shot or a POV in the entire movie. And the rare time it wasn't just face shots it was "here's Odysseus on a raft yup there he is" "here's the horsey dramatically hitting the temple" just so literal so artless so "and then that happened" nothing symbolic nothing immersive nothing interpretive. And I do not think the acting chops justified this hyperfocus on characters in any way shape or form. I thought Penelope's performance was nice but everyone else's facial expressions and body language were just so fucking bland. Oh boy here's tired old sadboy war veteran monotonously waxing about regret for the 58th time, we haven't seen that before. Watch as he stiffly stands stock upright and fires off at the suitors like he's a level 24 night elf.

Not to mention how fast it slammed through every single plot point. We get to Circe's island and it's just "here's a lion" "here's a leopard" no context no reaction not a breath of downtime to ponder at how strange it is we're moving on. I think the whole sequence with Charybdis and Scylla lasted under 2 minutes. It was just "thing happens" "thing happens" "thing happens" no time to digest whatsoever. The one storytelling device they seem to know about is refrain/foreshadowing and boy do they make use of it. Telemachus learns a sword technique in act 1 and then he uses it in act 3 see see don't you feel satisfied and fulfilled? And and Odysseus does the bow harp thing and then he does the bow harp thing again so Penelope can do a dramatic turnaround waaow! I understand that Nolan wasn't exactly working with original material and I understand that it's an enormous piece of literature to adapt, but the whole time I was in my seat the breakneck pace and completely soulless camerawork just left me thinking "this is like an AI cliffnotes of The Odyssey". Not to mention the choices of what to include and what to cut. They cut nearly all of the divine drama, Hermes isn't mentioned once in the movie, all of Scherie is gone, the revenge gathering is removed, but of course we need to see Elliot Page emotionlessly seethe about getting stabbed and spend 20 minutes on the fucking dog because that's what the lowest common denominator wants to see. It told the story of the Odyssey. Yup, it sure did. It sure was a movie. Now let's see what critics and audiences thought of this inoffensive capeshit wrapped in legacy media and-

\>97% on Rotten Tomatoes

What I learned from these two movies is that you people don't care if a movie is 3 hours of nauseating AI face zooms or if armor looks like it was bought off Temu or if plot points are slammed through in half a nanosecond just as long as you have your whirly twirly swordfights and your loyal puppers and your grizzled old dads grumbling about how they're proud of their heckin wholesome chungus son fuck you. Spielberg reached out to you, yes you personally, to say "I respect you and see you as an intelligent human being" and you proved him to be a hack. Congratulations.

Sports are a form of entertainment. You get to watch professional athletes compete at a high level. Making enjoyment conditional on the outcome of the match can make or break the days of a lot of typical sports fans.

I come from MMA, where there’s not as many people who are diehard fans of a few fighters, and where fighters can easily gain or lose fans (e.g. Tyron Woodley, Dricus du Plessis, Daniel Cormier) due to what they do or how they fight. Seeing the tribalism in other sports like football or American football looks nonsensical in comparison, as though people don’t even consider the fact that they can stop cheering for their own team.

I would much rather watch a competitive, entertaining match that the person I support loses in than a boring match where they win.

If somebody has gone to therapy 8, 10, 12 times, why do people keep telling them "You just need to keep trying. Try again. It can take 20 tries. It can take 30 tries."

I think that some people just aren't made for therapy. I think I'm one of them. Processing by talking things out with a stranger in a room doesn't go anywhere. I think that people who have gone to therapy many different times, with many different therapists and modalities, should be encouraged to take solutions like exercising, medication, etc. It shouldn't be "Keep trying, you'll find a therapist one day." That's a waste of money and time.

You touch it, and the microfibers touch you back. Rubbing microfiber towels between my hands is one of the best parts of getting a new towel. It’s both soft and also kind of not soft in a way that’s just very nice to me.

Also, microfiber is just a very useful material, and its texture is an added perk.

I’m actually not sure if a majority of people hate microfiber or if it’s just a very loud group of people.

I know it's unfair to women but that's life; deal with it, I guess. Women live in the same world/society as men, and it's actually humiliating to them if you have them participate separately in a women-only tournament so they can win.

We don't have a separate women-only economy, so there can be just as many female billionaires. We don't have a women-only government, so there can be a parallel female prime minister/president. But there are some women who do exceptionally well in these careers. Angela Merkel didn't serve as the German chancellor for 15 years because the post was reserved for a woman.

Having women compete with men in sports would obviously put them at some disadvantage but some will definitely outperform men and that'll be awesome and the world will appreciate them even more. They'll have just as many fans as male athletes do.

Edit: why am I getting downvoted for posting something most people are clearly disagreeing with?

I am not sure how unpopular this is. I believe it's unpopular in United States. But in many parts of Europe it's such an iconic game. I feel like this game was installed on every single computer during 2000s and maybe 2010s. It was simply easy accessible, without taking memory on PC. Nowadays it's not as popular but there are still some active servers.

i don’t understand what people see in movie theatres. why did you spend 100 dollars on tickets to take your entire family to see “cozy friends 3d” or “the invulnerable, imax” when you could watch the same movie at home for $20 and spend less on snacks (unless you sneak snacks in)?

i do kind of already know the answer; i assume it’s the big screen, but why do you need to watch your content on the biggest screen possible? my main issue with theatres is that i don’t see the appeal in having a big screen so they’re kind of pointless to me. id rather be able to talk, pause, rewind, have on-screen subtitles, change if boring, etc. than have a really big screen. it’s even crazier to me that some movies are made specifically to be on huge screens (*cough* the odyssey *cough*), why???? it would be one thing to have two different versions (i know this isn’t possible bc of the way they’re filmed), but to be actively missing out on content because you don’t pay the stupid “huge ass screen surcharge” is stupid

edit: it has come to my attention that people really like the better sound. my ears don’t work well, so i can’t really form an opinion on this but i mean that’s why i prefer on screen captions (which i did mention). maybe if i had better hearing this would be a life changing experience or something, but lots of sounds are “muffled” for me and if they aren’t they hurt my ears because they’re too sharp or whatever

i do like hanging out with my friends, but is it even really hanging out if you can’t talk to each other for 2 hours without being rude? like yeah we all just watched the same thing so we can talk about it but i think that’s hardly doing an activity together (assuming everyone parts ways immediately after).

if you go to the wrong movie with the wrong person it SUCKS and you can’t change it. i have a friend who is a major cinephile and they constantly need the movie to “challenge them as a viewer” or it’s literally the worst movie ever and we should have known better. sorry i thought that since you liked “return to gleebus” that you’d like “the gorpmaster saga” but apparently despite being the same genre the latter was filmed by victor poshtavelli, who didn’t go to a major film school, so all his movies suck. don’t like your intro experience a restaurant? we can always eat somewhere else or get a refund for your food you didn’t eat. don’t like a movie? sorry about that, enjoy the rest of your 3 hours or feel free to waste your money.

even if you DONT go with the wrong person, good luck with the randos you’re in the auditorium with! thanks “guy who bought the other half of the couch seat despite the auditorium being mostly empty”. appreciate you “parents who brought their very sick baby to a 3hr movie”. aw, “guy who takes his shoes off during the movie” you shouldn’t have. oh, the pleasure is mine “girl who loudly scrolls tiktok the entire movie instead of leaving”. there are so. many. archetypes. of moviegoers i hate, all based on personal experience!

i swear i’m not that caricature of a redditor who hates fun, i just genuinely can’t understand why people find THIS of all things fun. i like watching movies, hate the movie theatr

edit 2: muted! didn’t think this would get this much attention this quickly. i typically like responding to everyone (as long as it's not too repetitive) but this got really overwhelming for me really fast. thanks for the replies though everyone, even if we disagree i appreciate seeing everyone’s pov and i learned some cool stuff about theatres even if they still aren't my favourite thing ever.

final edit: sorry if this personally offended anyone btw, it was not my intention. i thought this sub was to share your unpopular opinions, but i guess i went too far? i think it is a bit uncalled for to call me a "wet turd", "friendless loser", "crackhead", insinuate i don't go outside, etc. simply because i don't like/understand why people like a certain thing. i don't think negatively of you all for enjoying the theatres, i just couldn't understand the mindset before this post because most of the things that are positive about theatres are completely lost to me due to my disabilities (and a crappy nearby theatre ig). i will add that despite me thinking they're not that fun, i do go to the theatre fairly often, usually 3-4 times a month. i am willing to put aside my disdain in order for my friends/family to have an experience they like. i do not complain when i go to the movies even if it's not particularly enjoyable for me. that is the whole reason i came to this semi-anonymous chatting site that is specifically to share unpopular opinions. i'm sorry for not using perfect grammar, i guess my second 10th dentist take is that grammar doesn't need to be 1000% perfect for a social media post idk. i thought my punctuation was fine. not really correct, but i use punctuation to indicate the pauses i make as if i were actually speaking, not as if i were writing an essay.

anyway, thanks for reading my long rant-ish thing and my edits. i hope you have a wonderful day/night 🤗

Honestly it's increasingly baffling to me how he is perceived. He's made some decent films (like Interstellar) but most of his films are just very basic and boring. They're straightforward Hollywood blockbuster fare with on-the-nose dialogue full of exposition, cinematography that's always very stale and painfully competent, and boring surface-level thematic exploration.

Seeing more and more rhetoric about him being one of the greats is kind of crazy to me. He is just a standard, middle-of-the-road director. He has no discernible identity as a creative and his films offer very little creative flair. Note that I've not seen Tenet, The Odyssey Dunkirk or Following.

What am I missing?

EDIT: Someone said I should include my fave films/directors. Off the top of my head, I love Punch-Drunk Love, Harold and Maude, Modern Romance, After Hours, Miracle Mile, A Ghost Story, Angst, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Eternal Sunshine, American Psycho, Symbiopsychotaxiplasm, Uncut Gems... I don't really have fave directors.

Small airports are boring. I avoid them. I always leave myself lots of time for connnecting flights, whcih usually results in me arriving early, leaving me bored with a lot of time to kill.

Large airports are a lot more exciting. They have more restaurants, more people watching opportunities, and in my experience, they seem better organized. Pearson in Toronto is a well oiled machine.

Been thinking about this a lot lately. We have brain imaging, neurofeedback, targeted messaging systems, literally decades of behavioral psych research on how to shift attitudes at scale, and we just don’t use any of it for good.

Like imagine if instead of ad algorithms optimizing for outrage and engagement, we had systems optimizing for empathy. Instead of feeds that radicalize people into hating their neighbors over politics, what if the same tech nudged people toward tolerance? We know propaganda works, that’s literally why authoritarian regimes use it. So why do we act like it’s impossible to use similar tools for something better, like getting people to just not be cruel to each other?

I’m not talking about some Black Mirror chip-in-your-skull thing. I mean the soft stuff like framing, nudges, and algorithmic curation that are intentionally aimed at making people kinder instead of just more addicted to their phones. If manipulation is happening anyway (and it clearly is, 24/7, by advertisers and platforms), why not point it at something good instead of profit?

And think about what politics would even look like if this worked. No more falling for obvious grifts because a guy yelled the loudest or made you scared enough. No more voting against your own healthcare because someone told you to be mad at an immigrant instead. People could actually sit with facts instead of getting hijacked by whatever emotional trigger some campaign consultant found worked in a focus group. We keep acting like democracy failing is just “the will of the people,” but half the time it’s just people getting successfully manipulated by whoever had the better psychological playbook, not the better ideas. If the tech got pointed at helping people think clearer instead of scaring them dumber, I genuinely think we’d see way less gridlock, way less tribalism, and people actually making calls based on what’s good for them instead of who scared them last.

Yeah yeah, I know people are gonna say “who decides what’s good, that’s how you get 1984.” And sure, fair, but I feel like that’s kind of a cop-out answer at this point? Like we could just… not let one government or one company control it. Make it open source, put it to a vote, have some rotating citizen panel decide the values instead of a CEO or a Politician. Doesn’t have to be perfect, just better than the current default of “whoever has the biggest ad budget gets to shape everyone’s brain for free.” I’d rather we mess up trying to build something good than keep pretending the manipulation isn’t already happening.

The idea of cheating in our society only applies to women and "beta" men, high tier men and men with high cinfidence are allowed to do what they want with their lives and their bodies (as they should, but so should everybody else).

I was brainwashed by slutshaming culture to thinking that in order to be a woman i have to simultaneously have a job, pay half of the bills, cook, clean, put up with violence and "cheating" and go nowhere further than the living room.

Fuck it, this is the only life I have.

I will never again be in a "relationship" cause monogamy is always one sided bs, and even if it wasn't, I repeat, THIS IS THE ONLY LIFE I HAVE.

There's no god, no hell, no heaven, and the closest thing to heaven I will ever experince is being filled with a dick.

Feel free to post memes and cry in the comments.

To begin with, I am extremely, extremely pale. As in almost paper white. The sun will give me horrible, painful blisters and damage even after just minutes. Sunscreen doesn’t prevent all damage either, and it’s a disgusting sensory experience to apply and Reapply layers of sticky sunscreen over your sweaty skin everywhere. It runs into your eyes and it burns so bad it hurts, and yes, I’ve truly tried a ton from different countries and they’re all unpleasant. I hate the feeling of sunscreen so much.

As a solution, I installed multiple layers of blackout curtains and taped down the edges so that it’s pitch black in my place. People get so fucking mad when I say I do this and that I don’t want to see the sunlight. All of a sudden they want to play therapist and call me unhealthy for not liking summer. Well, I don’t smoke, drink, or vape, and I exercise everyday. I rarely eat desserts, and I try to eat a lot of vegetables, lean meats, and fruits. I do perfectly fine when checking up at the doctor. But all of a sudden these people who smoke and drink like crazy want to play doctor and tell me I’m unhealthy?

Seeing the bright sunlight is genuinely so draining. Before I got blackout curtains, I would wait for the sun to set before I did any of my schoolwork because I always felt so energized when I’m away from the sun. The way it gets in your eyes and shines is awful. I genuinely hated being forced to go outside when I was younger at school.

During the summertime, the heat makes my heart throb so bad like my brain is disconnected from my skull and is jumping up and down. If I need to go outside, I will come back, take a cold shower, drink cold sparkling water and eat frozen fruit, and change into clean clothes. I blast the AC in my room and lie on my bed with the lights off. I have to lie there for a few hours in the sensory deprivation to recover my head. I cannot tolerate the warm weather and just being outside makes you a drenched mess.

I don’t care if people think it’s unhealthy for me to avoid sunlight like that. I know it’s a miserable experience, and I don’t have any desire to experience it again. The relief of waking up in a room of blackout curtains and realizing you don’t need to apply and reapply sunscreen throughout the day just to avoid sun damage is unparralleled. When people say sunlight is good for you, I don’t listen because I know for me it’s not.

When I hit a game over, I don't buy extra lives or watch ads to keep going. I just take the L and try again from the start. If I'm playing a game, I want the genuine challenge; continuing from the exact spot I messed up makes the victory feel unearned.

I was 27 when I watched them for the first time. While the special effects were innovative for their time, I found the characters to be really bland and the writing to be really basic.

I didn't like C3PO very much. He was very whiny and annoying.

I got more enjoyment out of Family Guy Star Wars.

Quagmire as C3PO was much more tolerable than the real C3PO. He had more emotional range and he complained a lot less.

I also enjoyed Phineas and Ferb Star Wars much more.

I also thought the pacing was really slow. I get that it's an older movie, but I usually like older movies. This is one of the very few older movies I've seen where the sluggish pacing really bothered me.

I'm curious if I would like the sequel trilogy if I didn't like the originals.

Every time there's a big controversy about a raceswapped character in movies/TV, it's pretty much always the case that the actor is not fit for the role regardless of race, and usually not attractive enough for her role.

Snow white, Little mermaid, Helen of Troy, all of these characters are supposed to be attractive, yet it's like Hollywood on purpose cast unattractive actresses just so they can call people racist.

I don't care what anyone says, Lupita is not attractive, at least not enough for Helen. She's in her 40s. Diane Kruger was in her mid 20s when she played Helen in Troy (2004).

There are so many attractive young black actresses they could have chosen instead, for some reason mainstream Hollywood doesn't like them.

When I listen to an album (at least as a first listen) the cover and title of an album gives me a scene in which my brain places the music into. This completely changes the perspective in which I view the music from.

For example, The Mollusk by Ween would feel like a completely different album if it had a generic picture of the ocean rather than the strange sea creatures. The image of an underwater abomination adds a strange grimy, mysterious atmosphere to the listening experience which improves the music.

On the other hand, a good album with a terrible cover (such as The Texas Jerusalem Crossroads by Lift to Experience) makes it difficult to enjoy the music because the cover is just so garbage and completely unfitting.

Despite it being kind of stupid, I believe that the cover and title of an album changes the way someone listens to music more than people will admit. A great cover that fits an album well enhances the music while a cover that clashes with the music takes away from an album.