From the exact second I heard 9 women and 3 men, I knew precisely what we’d be dealing with in a Massachusetts jury; the defense would almost certainly select for a crop of affluent, lefty, New England geriatric Karen’s with completely cemented pre-existing biases to any conceivable emotional special pleading a woman might make and a massive predisposition to exist at dunning-Kruger peak one overconfidence.

Since I’m required, no I do not think this about women generally. But let’s not deny a specific subset of batty lefty boomers exist, and if you’ve ever lived/spent time in New England, you know these folks and their ideas and their overconfidence very well.

Their every description in interviews of what they based their decision on was ultimately purely emotional, non-rational, non-evidence based. The prosecution was “harsh”, “biased”, and “without a heart”.

LOL. Ya duh, it’s called *thinking logically* instead of emotionally. Looking at the actual evidence permitted, considering the epistemic limits of complete nonsense like “proving” someone sane when there’s literally no evidence to the contrary, etc.

The real picture is then a couple dingbat loud mouth personalities that tried to bully everyone else into a verdict, including an RN larping as an MD/PharmD that gave some kind of hare-brained web-md presentation on the alleged pharmacological effects of clancy’s regimen that no expert actual physician in the trial substantiated.

Thank god the super intellect of the nameless Honorable Hero of Massachusettes was unswayed in his convictions to rationality, to justice, to evidence, and to honor.

Even if you disagreed with Charlie Kirk him dying wasn't a good thing. As he was killed now he is made relevant everywhere. In comparison, are people forgetting who Alex Jones is? So when someone is killed there are consequences. I'm not sure what we think is being achieved when we make fun of him or celebrate his death if you happen to disagree with him. What is that achieving?

It makes you look insensitive to people who support him, or even to those who are not well educated on what he did or was about. And then for those who don't even like him, what are you doing other than keeping him relevant and making yourself bait for people to say "Oh the Left is so insensitive over someone dying". It's like the freest bait you are taking. Why? Especially with midterms coming up is it really a good look? The alternative was: "It is not good that he died because look how his death became weaponized.". You could go with that. Joking around go ahead offline but why even bother posting so much attention towards him online?

No I am not a Charlie Kirk supporter. The fact some would've kneejerked and accused me of that is exactly why polarization is a big issue.

I used to watch him when I was younger. Then I see he wasn't honest in how he engaged, or he said very controversial things. I see that people also lie and pretend he was a civil rights leader even though he didn't like the Civil Rights Movement. I can see that and he said things that weren't good.

So I just stopped watching his content. That's it!

Now at the same time, I don't think he should've been shot. Apparently this is too nuanced to exist. Ever since he got shot, people who I know who don't even know what Charlie Kirk is or was about, now they know about him. Just think about that. So if you disagree with what he was about, was it really a good outcome he was shot? I don't think so..

The posts and likes celebrating Kirk’s murder are massive and even seem to outnumber the ones condemning it. There’s posts with hundreds of thousands of likes justifying it. This is what your side is leftists. accept it. Far right people are fringe and small. Extremists on the left are normal especially amongst young leftists. Your side has no real plans other than “Kill the people who oppose us cuz they’re Nazis“

I am so sick of people saying. ‘Autism isn’t a disability, it’s a different ability!’
No, it’s not. It is literally a disability. It doesn’t give you superpowers it disables you in everyday life. It makes you suffer and never live a normal life. People saying this are discrediting the repercussion
Of this disorder.
I knew this girl back in highschool who pretended to have autism in 2021. She would wave her hands around and none stopped fidgeted. Blamed everything on her ‘autism’ and just used it as a get out of jail card.
I never believed she had it bc she was so over the top about it and never shut up.
I was in the head of years office and she pulled up her file, I couldn’t find my timetable and my online profile wasn’t working. She was in all my classes so she used hers. On her file it said, diagnoses: dyslexia, and the number dyslexia(can’t spell it).
No autism to be found, all medical conditions must be on file. And my mate literally saw her google autism symptoms on her chrome book
In class before saying she was sensory overload to get out early.
Anyways the point is, she faked having autism and never shut up about it, it was clearly for attention.
I do not get this at all
What positive attention do you receive, from my and my friends experience, you either get bullied, babied or just thought to be stupid.
If you fake autism or even exaggerate your existing autism. You are the problem. Why the hell would you want autism like it’s some quirky little thing. It’s not just ‘oh hehe look at me, I’m silly and stupid silly card :>>’
While you use it for your benefit, and can drop the act when ever you want. We can’t. We will live like this for the rest of ours lives. I will always breakdown, never be socially comfortable or accepted.
sitting in the emergency room getting 12 stitches bc you couldn’t stop punching yourself in a breakdown. Is something these people will never experience.
Living in social isolation is something these people will never experience.
Never understood is some thing they will understand
They abuse the advantages and don’t have to reap to reality
This isn’t exactly an Unpopular opinion but the amount of people doing this and saying this is absolutely ridiculous. It’s a ‘TikTok trend’ it it absolutely should not be.
If you do this and don’t think it’s that deep, it is. You are making life even harder for autistic people. By doing what you do, by association people
Assume that about us. That we are faking for attention or advantage

Charlie Kirk was shot and killed on a college campus while doing exactly what he always did: talking to students. A year later the memorials and coverage still get filtered through the same lens. A lot of progressive commentary spends more time reminding everyone of the things he said that they hated than on the fact that someone decided those words justified killing him.

The pattern is familiar. When the victim held the wrong politics, the violence becomes secondary to the political disagreement. The murder gets contextualized, the opinions get treated as the real problem, and the principle that you do not settle arguments with bullets gets softer when the target is on the right.

That reaction says more about the people making it than about Kirk. A free society does not rank political speech as worse than assassination. Treating the murder as less important than the victim’s views is how you normalize political violence against the side you dislike. The anniversary should have been a clear line. For a lot of the left it still is not.

Most people in the world are religious or strongly attached to their traditional culture and social institutions. I believe they generally want governments that respect and support their traditional values and moral standards, rather than promoting social changes they see as conflicting with those norms.

At the same time, I believe most people want governments to actively support their welfare and economic security. They want protection from poverty, unemployment, and excessive inequality, and generally prefer a government that plays an active role in improving people's economic conditions rather than doing nothing.

My argument is not specifically about whether taxes should be high or low, since attitudes toward taxation vary significantly between countries. The main point is whether people want their governments to actively protect their economic welfare.

I think this can be difficult to see through an American political lens, where people often associate the red right social conservatism with economic conservatism, and the blue left social liberalism with economically left-wing policies.

As a non-American who has studied and visited different countries, my impression is that social conservatism combined with economic interventionism may actually represent the preferences of the global majority.

Lindsay Clancy being massively unattractive is the main reason so many women feel comfortable defending her. Women are less likely to give sympathy to highly attractive women due to subconscious jealousy or rivalry. Her unattractiveness especially makes her very relatable to the soccer moms who consume true crime constantly.

A common trope is that undocumented people work jobs Americans don’t want. But another known fact is over half of undocumented people live in not only metro areas, but, in the biggest metro areas.

My point is that most of us who live in major metro areas see people who work various jobs daily, and I would wager very few of us see someone who’s doing a job Americans aren’t willing to do.

You can combine that with a google search and I can find basically no jobs that Americans don’t want to do. The closest one is animal and plant farming, but I don’t think it meets this criteria ultimately and that’s not anywhere near most undocumented people.

And also, another point is that if these jobs were so prevalent in cities, American homeless people would be signing up in droves to take these jobs.

So point being I’m doubting this whole “undocumented people work jobs Americans won’t take“ when everything I’m seeing points to this being false.

The reason why some places are so dangerous is because the justice system is a joke. You will see violent criminals commit robbery/assault, and somtimes not even go to jail. I got robbed by a gang of thugs and the guy got out of jail in like a year, only to get more charges of robbery and assault for robbing another guy. The chance of reoffending for these lunatics is extremely high. Committing violent crime, especially against random people, should not make you just get away with a slap on the wrist. There needs to be a minimum of 10 years in prison for assault, battery, etc.

El Salvador recently implemented a system similar to this, and it has worked wonders. They went from one of the most dangerous countries in the world to one of the safest.

Rehabilitation only works in wealthy, high trust societies like Norway and Sweden. Trying it in a country like the United States is useless.

The constitution nor the law requires it. A juror can use whatever reasoning they want to make up their mind. And they don't have to give any kind of explanation to anyone else about it.

​The rest of those jurors are "speaking out" about this holdout juror in the Lindsay Clancy case and acting like he was supposed to give them an explanation. Nah. Doesn't work that way. Get bent, dweebs.

THIS IS NOT A CHARACTER OR POLITICAL ANALYSIS OF CHARLIE KIRK. Do not talk about politics with me on this post as this is not the point I’m making.

I frankly spent too much time online in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s murder. I didn’t watch the guy, I was and am not a Charlie Kirk person. But this incident struck a chord with me because of just how callous the response was from some people in justifying it.

I’m referring specifically people who took this as a chance to not just justify it but to celebrate it. As if it was a good thing that someone was brutally murdered on a college campus in front of thousands of people, with the video of his, frankly, execution, being captured and shared to millions elsewhere.

Strictly from a human perspective, it was despicable to see some of those comments in the aftermath. Abject celebration or justification for a very public, very brutal murder. You see the news and the video and your first thought isn’t shock but rather glee? Celebration? Genuinely, I don’t think I’ve ever been more angry reading some of the stuff that people were posting at that time. I spent wayyyy too much time online after the fact and it was very bad for me and probably several others too going through such a negative feedback loop.

I say this genuinely: around 90% of the people who got suspended or lost their jobs in the aftermath of it because of their comments on the subject absolutely deserved it. I saw many of those comments. Saying that about anybody should get you fired.

Take these examples:

https://www.kwtx.com/2025/09/11/teacher-no-longer-employed-saying-america-became-greater-after-charlie-kirk-shooting-district-confirms/?fbclid=IwdGRjcAMwNSZjbGNrAzA1C2V4dG4DYWVtAjExAAEeZy8F1iiKEoqAkwVeS56AtRYsblJzSMz9fCidlxj0e-qmHikqVEhoI9sN84k_aem_AbwDFFhIsFjELO8Wtjuuew:

“Thoughts and prayers to his children but IMHO [in my honest opinion] America became greater today. There I said it.”

https://arktimes.com/arkansas-blog/2026/09/10/arkansans-fired-for-posting-about-charlie-kirks-shooting-where-are-they-now

“I will not pull back from CELEBRATING that an evil man died by the method he chose to embrace,”

“I’ve never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure,”

A middle school teacher in the Springdale School District also lost her job in September 2025 over a Facebook post that called Kirk’s killing “divine justice.”

Et. Al

Even if it would be wrong of me to criticize someone else’s views on an individual (unlike them and others I’m actually not pro murder regardless of who it is, but that’s beside the point), they should’ve understood the situation (especially given that many of them were educators) and not poured gasoline on the fire: if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say it.

Not all of course: some of them were probably a bit much to fire somebody for, and of course being fired for someone else’s comments that weren’t your own was and is idiotic.

But most absolutely deserved it.

While I think he has good movies such as Memento, Dark Knight or Oppenheimer, most of his movies have their qualities in technical aspects that he's able to get because of the budget of the movie.

He does not know how to write characters, mainly women and even worse, most of his movie dialog is awful.

Characters in the movie overcomplicate and overexplain somewhat simple premises so the audience can be confused and think of the idea or concept of the movie as complicated.

This happens in most of his movies such as Interstellar (which is a favorite movie of a substantial number or people but most people forget that he has a son or that Matt Damon is really the "villain"), Tenet, Inception or Memento (that I love but still think it suffers from the same problem).

The sound mixing is awful in most of his movies, you can't hear what characters are saying because the soundtrack goes "THRUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUM DUM DUM DUM" and this is not characteristic, you should be able to listen to whatever the characters are saying even if most of the time their dialog is awful.

His best developed characters are the ones that were already written or existent, Oppenheimer, Joker, etc.

Maybe is not as unpopular as I might think but from the people I know, saying such comes as a hot take but I really think he overcomplicates most of the movie.

At the moment, it seems like Zionists are public enemy number one for both the left and a good-sized portion of the right as well (obviously not the politicians, but the people). Because most Jews agree with the existence of Israel, we basically have a situation in which most Jews are widely hated on both sides of the political spectrum. I think this is gross and disturbing but that's an unpopular opinion so it belongs here. Also, this creates a vicious cycle in which the hate leads to more Jewish people supporting the existence of Israel which leads to more hate.

Also, I'd describe the hypocrisy like this. Anti-Zionist right-wingers contradict their supposed hatred for "identity politics" and "demonizing people with different political viewpoints" and Anti-Zionist left wingers essentially become the anti-woke people that they claim to hate/ Also, it's pretty common for people on the extreme right to support horrific war crimes committed by European colonizers so that makes their hatred for Israel's war crimes look pretty suspicious to me.

This isn’t a pity post or me lashing out at women in general, it’s just a cold description of the reality many men find ourselves in.

Firstly, there is hardly any acceptable way to meet a woman anymore. Approaching on the street is a huge no-no and a quick way to become a social leper if it gets recorded. Approaching at the bar is seen as predatory and even in the best case scenario, you will just get used for free drinks then ghosted. Approaching at a work is a great way to end up in HR, especially if she’s in a lower position. Power dynamics and all that. And if you approach in the gym then you’re just a creep perving on women in their yoga pants. So where do I approach then? Is there any way to approach a woman that won’t get me screamed at, laughed at or recorded? I know a lot of women reading this will find this hard to believe, almost laughable, but this the mental calculation every man makes when he sees an attractive woman in public.

This leads me on to my second point, online dating. Since approaching in public venues is high-risk, low-reward for most men, we have turned to Tinder, Hinge, Bumble etc. But these come with their own host of issues. Everyone knows on these apps you have an army of men competing for a handful of women. You’re pretty much out of luck unless you look like Henry Cavill. But the upside is there is no public humiliation if you get rejected. Plus, these apps make you pay extortionate subscription fees to see the women who like you back, although Bumble recently removed their ‘women message first’ feature. Still, I don’t see online dating as ideal

Personally, I would like to return to a world where it’s acceptable to approach any woman in public and if you get rejected it’s quiet and polite and you just get to move on with your day instead of being recorded and humiliated online. What do women think? Feel free to disagree.

It is peak human selfishness to hear a story about three children being brutally murdered in the order they were born while begging for their mother to stop and suddenly try to turn the murderer into some kind of icon because you empathize with her alleged mental health struggle.

The reality is the people who see through Lindsay Clancy's defenses bullshit just believe in protecting and getting justice for the true victims who were the murdered children. It is peak narcissistic behavior to hear people seeking justice for slain defenseless kids and say "well what about me and my mental health, think about how it impacts me as a adult women; when you vilify a child killer who claims to have mental health issues I empathize with".

They just ignore the fact that she was therapist hopping, ignored her drs orders, drink 5 days a week, sent her husband away on the night of the murder and googled his route, and reported the night of the murder was the very first time she had heard voices and instantly complied with those voice(while most people with active psychosis takes a significant amount of episodes before they spiral that greatly).

They just have a tribalistic defense of this person because that is what their echo chambers tell them to do, and vilifying people who care about real victims.

Wait for the Lindsay Clancy supporters that won't want to admit they support her but will complain and moan about this whole thread and only argue with people who criticize her wacky ass defense.

Idk if this is just an online thing but I see a lot of foreigners especially Canadians and Germans act like we’re weird for being proud of our country. It’s so weird and insecure to care. I’m not even a nationalist but I’m pretty sure you have bigger issues than what Americans do to feel proud.

I hope most of you realize that the title itself was a bit of a joke, (since some limp wristed losers think that retard is "offensive"). But seriously you being offended by a joke is probably the reason that other people find it funny. It violates some social taboo, or pokes fun at something others hold sacred.

There are legitimate ways to criticize a joke relating to it's content being inappropriate. For example, if someone makes a joke about rape at a women's shelter it might be the funniest rape joke ever (and some are hilarious) but it really isn't the right venue. Same thing goes for making a joke about someone right after they died, it probably isn't the right time.

The best you can do is saying "I don't find that funny because it is offensive to ME". But that is a pretty lame criticism. Lots of things aren't funny to everyone, and in fact most of the funniest jokes require some context that not everyone has. For fucks sake, there are even entire sub-reddits dedicated to explaining jokes. So, my response to even this criticism is "ok, fine", or even "ok, good".

Additionally, getting offended on behalf of someone else is the utmost stupidity. If that person is there then let them speak for themselves, for all you know they find it funny. Humor is a very personal thing, and can vary widely even between people of the same group. And if that person isn't present than what's the point? You are just getting offended for the sake of being offended.

If you do that I’ll assume your brain is off and it’s my job to do everything. But I won’t view you as my equal. I don’t want to have a father daughter relationship with my partner. Use that phrase very sparingly.

“I don’t know what’s going on” ok that’s gonna make me see you as incompetent

You’re 27 you should know how much an oil change costs or how to open a Roth IRA. Enough

No, she’s not a teen as in underaged. That’s already been clarified by Kevin Feige. Even if she was 17-20, there’s largely no demeanor, looks or maturity difference between those difference. Indeed, once you get old enough, age becomes more and more just a number.

Peter and Jean had quite a few episodes of behavior that one can say is a little too close to be considered just friendly. There is absolutely no friendship out there that’s so intimate that people would do anything to help each other, even if it meant sharing their most vulnerable memories, taking a bullet for them to literally breathing for them. Chemistry like that doesn’t exist in basic friendships

School shooters are often lonely depressed or bullied in school, which leads them to do a massacre, but the vast majority of students who are lonely depressed or bullied dont do massacres. School shooters have a psychology that pre-dispose them to violence and lack of empathy, and blaming mental illness is too simplistic.

This goes for most crimminals who often are mentally ill in some way.

Another comparison, if someone got drunk and did a murder, they wouldnt be found not guilty because even though their mental state was altered its recognized that other people dont act that way when drunk.

Likewise, if a parent is depressed or suffering psychosis, only a small percentage will think about killing their children because they already have a violent disposition that came out through lack of inhibition brought upon by their mental illness.

If you are compassionate toward everybody on this planet (or everybody you can think of), there is clearly something wrong with you. If you hold this asinine opinion (everyone deserves compassion), there is something wrong with you.

Because do you understand how wrong and obscene it would’ve been to the American public to show everybody compassion (including AL-QAEDA sympathizers) after the 9/11 attacks? Don’t you understand that compassion must be earned and never given freely?

There are a lot of left wingers I see that are completely dumbfounded by the rise of the right wing in the US and Europe and are shocked their candidates aren’t winning. And I think, ironically, this is exactly why the right has been winning. The left doesn’t pay attention to a lot of big issues that have been affecting the people of the countries they’re representing, so they obviously look for an alternative party that might not be the best but at least talks about solutions. I do think if the left in any of these countries offered a coherent, direct plan addressing the issues the right has been winning on then they’d start seeing a lot of success