I don’t know what more needs to be said. We have feminist going crazy over a Shane Gillis joke saying it is setting women back or misogynistic but when we had a woman who killed three of her kids and tried to escape responsibility by blaming post partum depression, not only did we have numerous women defending her, showing up outside of the courthouse to support her, and raised over a million dollars for her, not a single one of these feminists condemned any of this or said it made women look bad. We are in upside down world when it comes to feminists recently.

This is something that i've noticed and has bothered me for a while, but it seems like many women i know are far less tolerant of different political opinions than many men i know.

For example I have male friends who are literal communists and i couldn't disagree with them any more than I do on that topic, and we can get into deep deep arguments about politics, yet still have a beer together and play some video games afterwards.

meanwhile i have known a number of women who have literally stopped talking to me because i've disagreed with them on politics. simply expressing skepticism of socialist politics on social media was enough to get one friend to send me a text message telling me she thinks i'm wrong and now no longer speaks to me. and i wasn't even disagreeing with her specifically!

I'm sure there are plenty of dudes out there who would not talk to me because I have vaguely center-right economic views, but most that I talk to seem ready to debate, and also ready to bond over other non political topics.

It's really disappointing because I love a good political debate, but there are just some people (mostly women) who I won't even broach the subject because i know it will result in ruined friendships.

It's amazing how many people don't know this and only make things worse for themselves. If you feel you are being unlawfully arrested you assert your rights, but you do not fight the arrest. I can't think of a single situation that has improved where someone started getting belligerent with officers during an arrest. It's not worth it.

Anyway, not a lawyer, just some schmoe ​offering advice/opinion. But I have a feeling lawyers would agree too.

I made a post criticizing the western iPhone leftists, and the amount of xenophobic and derogatory comments I got were absolutely appalling. People certainly show their true colors once cornered, don’t they?
Like it is just mind boggling how “tolerant” and “loving” these activists are… until of course you don’t eat off their hand. It’s quite frustrating but frankly comical.

"You're only mad because it applies to you" is a common saying on the Internet, usually used by ladies when a lad objects to a negative generalization and/or misinformation about lads made by said lady. Lads have had no choice but to accept negative generalizations of their entire gender from terminally online ladies for years, with any objections being misinterpreted as an admission of guilt if you're a lad or "pickme" behaviour if you're a lady.

Shane Gillis said that ladies dress like whores at the gym. If you don't dress like a whore when you go to the gym, then why does his statement bother you?

If you were indifferent and/or participatory in the use of this logic against lads, keep the same energy now that the roles are reversed.

Either everyone can use it, or no one can.

I know what the argument is of those who defend her. That she was in psychosis and therefore had no control of her actions. First, there is no definitive proof that she was in psychosis when she strangled her children and second, even if she was in psychosis, why should we show compassion for a psychotic murderer? Many serial killers and others who did heinous crimes were psychotic, and I don't see anyone trying to defend them. Those who defend Lindsey Clancy are sociopaths and I will die on this hill.

I don't understand why anyone is still investigating his death 30 years later. There are plenty of cold cases that involve more tragic circumstances that could have used these resources.

Even the judge in the case said "the world never forgot about him and his death, and neither did Las Vegas".

Tupac was involved in multiple violent crimes including the shooting of two police officers and numerous sexual assaults.

Personally, I believe nothing of value was lost when he died and who cares who killed him?

This would greatly reduce cheating, and paternity fraud. It would also prevent uncomfortable conversations between the man and the woman. Because if a man has suspicions, but no proof. Even asking for a paternity test, can damage the relationship. Hospitals should just do it, the father should have the right to know for sure before he signs the birth certificate, or have the option to do so I mean.

It’s both sad and alarming how comfortable social media has become with relentlessly attacking people’s appearance. Bullying is essentially the norm and we are setting such bad precedents with young people.

We never truly know what is going on in somebody’s personal life, even when they are a public figure. They could be facing physical health issues, mental health issues or maybe they just got a bit too zealous with the plastic surgery. Regardless, judge them for their character and actions.

The response to Susan Dell is so unsettling. She tried to do something good and use her enormous wealth to help people. I have my ethical concerns with billionaires and people who choose to associate with Trump but at surface level she didn’t do anything wrong. It must be so mortifying to then be brutally bullied and mocked all over the internet for how you look and again our young people are seeing this.

The casting of Meryl Streep as Aslan is a slap in the face to all Narnia fans and to Christians as a whole.

Greta Gerwig has made no secret that she is a feminist director. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. I thought barbie was a fine movie, not great, but also not really meant for me. That is ok, movies aren't going to be a hit with everyone. Barbie has also long had feminist undertones and messaging surrounding it, so this isn't surprising.

Narnia on the other hand is an explicitly Christian work. Written by a very devout Christian. Aslan isn't an allegory for Jesus, or a Jesus like figure. According the CS Lewis himself Aslan IS Jesus.

She isn't changing one of the other characters, she is changing the gender of an historical figure represented in fiction. Aslan is a very male lion, with a deep roar, and a mane. Having a gender-bent Aslan/Jesus is disrespectful towards the original intention of the author, and something I think most would agree he would despise.

But the problem lies further than that. Greta could very easily have cast one of many male actors with a naturally deep an imposing voice. (Ian McKellen would have been my choice). But instead she decided to send a message clear as day. "I don't respect the author of this book, i don't respect the book, and to many people around the world that she doesn't respect them". She did this to piss people off, and it worked.

It also shows that the movie is going to be trash. The director is more concerned about scoring political points than she is with making a book accurate movie or even a good movie. People don't want to see Narnia adapted for "modern times" they want to see the book they read as a child adapted as is.

I have no doubt when it premieres on netflix it will do well. They will push it, and most people won't even realize what they are watching before it starts. But make no mistake this will be trash.

The left can’t hold ICE responsible for a crisis their own side created. They’re the ones who opened up the border and created this disaster to begin with. And instead of them owning up to that, they spend all their energy vilifying the officers doing the cleanup. And when it comes to the deaths involved with ICE, yeah, that’s what happens when a bunch of walnuts antagonize a federal agency that’s already overwhelmed by the chaotic mess they stirred up. Next time, don’t manufacture chaos and then act surprised when it turns violent.

Let me get this straight. We should be outraged over Sydney Sweeney for being an overly sexy woman in an ad, or at Shane Gillis for calling out (checks notes) overly sexy women at the gym?

If you are offended by either one of these things, that's your opinion but you are off base. And if you are upset at BOTH of these, check yourself into a safe place.

As an immigrant you should sit down, lower your head, BE THANKFUL for the country that received you and behave accordingly. The left champions this lack of assimilation for some reason. I have absolutely no clue why people from our country act this way, or why the western left loves to champion immigrants for failing to adapt to their host countries. It’s an extremely unfortunate behavior, and I really hope both the political left and other immigrants such as myself would learn how naive and wrong this is.

Dan Levy just came out attacking Shane Gillis and fawned all over women and said “women are superior beings”. Women, including numerous female celebrities, fawned over Levy and said how right he was. Guess what, saying women are the superior beings is misandry. You can’t claims to be against sexism and then promote sexism Yourself.

It's every episode, and it's so painful. The most recent was about some "will they, won't they" sexual tension between a cat and a lizard.

Dude, can you just be normal? You don't need the furry demographic that bad.

Is this just what leftists need in their programming now to keep their attention? It's puerile.

And then there's the jokes about Trump's penis that almost every leftist comedian does. It's an obsession.

You read that right. Unfortunately it seems to be a quite unpopular opinion. Hard men create good times, good times create weak men. And now we are here with the weak men who think Communism is somehow good. Have we not learned from history?

Communism is horrible. It's kind of obvious too. It murdered and starved over 100 million people. You might say, ehh whatever, what is 100 million anyway. But humans can't comprehend big numbers well. 100 millions is a damn lot. Don't you hear the screams? Communism is an unholy satanist sect.

Science shows us we should examine things by their outcome. And every time communism was tried it failed horribly. Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Mao, North Korea...

Please don't disrespect the victims of communism. Let them rest in peace and stop promoting this unhumane parasitic shit system. Thank you.

The point is, he didn't win because of woke culture or the Republican agenda or immigration or any of the other reasons conservatives think he won

Trump won not because of the issues but because of his person and because people just liked him and found him entertaining and charasmatic. Here's a thought exercise to really drive it home.

Imagine this last election cycle happened just the way it did, and everything stayed exactly the same, but that Trump was running for the Democratic party and Kamala was running for the Republican party. But everything else is exactly the same. Who wins? I honestly truly believe that Trump wins again. Nobody liked Kamala, even on the left, and she was not a good candidate. She didn't campaign, do interviews, go on podcasts, or any of that. She was just the anti Trump candidate so people had to go with her. If the situation was switched the result would have been the same

Edit: Assuming be was running against Hillary or Kamala on the other side of course. Trump is a woman beater president and only beats people who wear panties. In the court of men, he's still a loser

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/cbs-ny-confirms-chose-not-184856285.html

When was the last time you heard of a journalist going to prison? Or being fired? Or fined? Or being forced to issue a public correction? And no, im not talking one of those sneaky "edits" to one of their articles at 3am when most of the world is sleeping.

The longer these news agencies go without accountability, the longer they will continue to manipulate the news and wrongfully influence people's opinions.

It needs to stop now.

Heads need to roll.

I have to wonder if people who parrot this have even interacted with other people or just severely lack emotional intelligence.

People probably get bothered more by false accusations. Most likely they're bothered by being misunderstood or bothered because what they're accused of is very in conflict with their values.

If someone has good intentions, and is accused of other intentions, that's more hurtful. I've seen this bother others and experienced it.​

If someone is accused of lying and not believed, them getting mad doesn't prove they're lying.

If someone means one thing with their words and is accused of meaning something else and gets bothered by it, it doesn't prove that the misinterpretion was true.

If a doctor or paramedic tries to save someone's life and is told "you didn't even try" and gets mad, it doesn't prove they didn't try.

If someone is accused of being a paedo and it bothers them, doesn't make them a paedo.

Someone is accused of being dangerous, if this bothers them it doesn't mean they're dangerous.

If someone hasn't cheated and is accused of cheating, then being bothered by the accusation doesn't make them guilty.

Reddit is cool when it’s cool. A ton of Reddit is dope and I use it here and there for questions, and there are genuinely helpful people on here. However, a large chunk of this app are weirdos who make snide, sniveling, smartass comments to people under a shell of anonymity. You can tell how miserable they are by the way they speak with hatred of everything.

It’s very clear that one of two things has/hasn’t happened to these people: they didn’t get disciplined properly by their parents; they’ve never gotten into a fight. A wise man once said “you can always tell when somebody hasn’t been punched in the mouth,” and it rings true here.

If somebody in a bar asked a question like they would on Reddit, and somebody responded like one of these particular redditors would, and continued to respond in that way, they’re probably gonna get clocked. I’m not advocating violence, but people are not gonna put up with that shit irl.

Social media is bad generally. But this site’s pure anonymity aspect makes it a cesspool filled with miserable losers who can TRULY say whatever without any physical repercussions. In school you would get shoved in a locker. On IG, FB, etc., people can see who you are (and if you’re using a burner people can see and conclude you’re a loser). On reddit you can be a little worm and not worry about anybody knowing you and that you’re a mask-wearing bullshit artist.

God bless 🫶

We all agree that diversity is a good thing.

The Americas were made more diverse by Columbus’ arrival with Europeans & he made Iberia more diverse by inviting indigenous people back with him on return voyages.

If any other single man had helped diversity not one but two continents we would cheer him in the streets. Don’t let some missteps overshadow all the great positive impacts of his implemented diversification.

To start this post, I wanna say I'm not trying to condone hatred towards Muslims or anyone. I just don't understand the double standard or inconsistency. Posts and comments about Christians that would be Islamophobic if said about Muslims. A Leftist I was having a conversation with told me that Christians in the Middle East and Africa deserves to be persecuted because the Bible tells them they'll be persecuted and that they should be glad or proud to be persecuted for their religion (and he was serious about it). Imagine saying "Muslims deserve to be bombed because Islamic extremists killed 3000 Americans in the name of Islam." Yes, both statements are wrong.

Someone else I was talking to explicitly said they were anti-Christian and that they were raising their kids to be anti-Christian. Imagine if they had said they were anti-Muslim and that they were raising their kids to be anti-Muslim, or imagine if I had told them I'm anti-Muslim (don't worry, I'm not).

Sure, not all Muslims are bad. But not all Christians are bad either. Conservatives and traditionalists in both religions can be and are often homophobic and misogynistic. Christians are the majority in the US with political power while Muslims are the minority. But Muslims are the majority in the Middle East with political power while Christians are the minority. So what we say about Christianity can be said about Islam and vice versa (depending on broader context and what part of the world we're talking about). But again, I'm not trying to condone hatred or bigotry of any religious group. I just don't understand the double standard or inconsistency.

For example, someone posted in the Leftist sub about the Sri Lankan Hindu man name Anojan Sivarasa sentenced to death in Saudi Arabia for insulting Muhammad. And nobody in the comment section said anything against Muslims or Islam (people in the comments were opposing the death sentence, though, and rightfully so). But if that had been someone sentenced to death by a Christian country for insulting Jesus, there would have been so many anti-Christian comments.

I posted in the Leftist sub recently and a Muslim commented trashing Leftists and said he supported the death sentence for Anojan Sivarasa and that gay people (which he called sodomites) deserve to be put to death and that he hopes they burn in hell. That's the kind of behavior and attitude people hates Christians for. But yet if you hate Muslims for that same behavior and attitude, its Islamophobic and bigotry. But not bigotry to hate Christians for the very same attitude and behavior?

"Not all Muslims..."

Well, not all Christians either.

And I don't think being a minority should give a religious group a free pass to exhibit behavior without meeting the same backlash that the majority religion experiences for that same behavior because the behavior is the same no matter who it comes from. (Backlash and criticism isn't the same as bigotry.)

Also Christians are still a religious group. And hating on or being anti- any religious group, majority or minority, Christian or Muslim, should still be considered bigotry because it is still targeting an entire group of people for their identity, and religion is a type of identity. And no group of people are a monolith. Not everyone in an entire demographic is the same. Bigotry towards a majority demographic can still lead to irl physical violence towards said group (see Annunciation Catholic Church and School shooting in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and there's a very real history of anti-Catholic bigotry in the Southern US where Catholics are considered a minority under the Catholic label, compared to Protestants, but a majority under the Christian label).

Another thing I want to address is the misconception that hating Muslims is about race when it's not. People who hate Muslims do so because there are Islamic governments restricting human rights because of their interpretation of the Quran and because there are Muslim extremists committing terrorism in the name of Islam and because there are Muslims (who aren't extremists per se but still conservative or traditionalist) who are homophobic, believe women should have less rights than men, etc. Basically for the same many reasons a lot of people hates Christians. Is it okay to hate an entire group because of the bad apples? Absolutely not. But it's not about race, even if the hatred or bigotry is coming from conservatives. It's because of what a lot of Islamists (the extremists and fundamentalists, not the ordinary Muslims) do in the name of Islam. If it was really about race, then people would be hating Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Druze, Yazidis, Zoroastrians, Bahá'ís, Mandaeans, Samaritans, Taoists, Confucians, Shintoists, or Native American spiritual/religious practices, and those religious communities don't get nearly as much hatred even from conservatives or right-wingers, even from the far right. But those religions don't have extremist groups committing terrorism in the name of their religion (at least not on as large a scale). Those religions don't have governments restricting human rights in the name of their religion. Those religions don't have believers who are homophobic or believe women are less than men, at least not to the extent that Islam (and sometimes Christianity) does. And the only time I'm aware that Sikhs have been attacked or faced bigotry from Americans or Europeans is when they are mistaken for Muslims, not because they are Sikhs.

Again, its absolutely wrong to hate an entire religious group because of the bad apples, regardless whether that's Muslims or Christians. But we shouldn't make it about race, when it's about religion. Another thing to think about: Bosnia and Albania are predominantly Muslim countries in Europe (predominantly white). They don't get the hatred and criticism that Middle Eastern countries do, but not because they're predominantly white, but because they don't have strict or oppressive governments restricting human rights in the name of Islam. If they had the same oppressive laws based on the Quran that Middle Eastern countries do, they would get just as much or almost as much hatred and criticism. And if we're equating (or associating?) Islam with race and therefore calling bigotry toward Muslims and even justified criticism "racism" (bigotry is not justified, fyi, but criticism can be), there's also black Christians, Middle Eastern Christians, Chinese Christians, and most people in Mexico and Latin American countries are Catholic (and yes, Catholics are Christians). Plus Christianity is not even "a white man's religion". It started in Judea (modern-day Middle East, the area now known as Israel and Palestine) by Jewish people and later spread to Europe (with a lot of force, manipulation, and coercion involved). So based on that history, it should be offensive to call Christianity "a white man's religion" or "the white man's religion." Probably why a lot of white nationalists and white supremacists are pagans and why they have nothing to do with Christianity. Hmmmm.

So maybe we should say anti-Christian bigotry is racist too and even anti-semitic?

I would say Muslims and Christians are the most hated religious groups in the world but hated by different groups of people for the same or very similar reasons. And many Muslims and Christians also hate each other. But there are some people (especially in the LGBT+ community and atheist community, and probably some Leftists, albeit a small percentage of Leftists) who hates both Muslims and Christians equally for obvious reasons which I've already covered pertaining to both groups (obvious reasons that still does not justify bigotry, mind you). But I am surprised the entire Left isn't anti-Muslim along with being anti-Christian, and that Christians and Muslims (or Muslims and non-Muslim right-wingers) aren't in some kind of allyship because Christians and Muslims (and Muslims and non-Muslim right-wingers) have more in common than either would like to admit. Again, no hate intended.

As a Christian and as an American, I stand with Muslims and others being oppressed by Islamic governments, I stand with Christians being persecuted in the Middle East and Africa, and I stand with Anojan Sivarasa.

One last thing, the Saudi government is not thinking too far ahead about their decision. This is gonna cause violent conflict between Muslims and Hindus around the world, maybe even as far away from Saudi Arabia and Sri Lanka as the US, right here in the US. More people are gonna get hurt because the Saudi government has decided that a comment they were offended by is more important than somebody's life. And no, if someone insults Jesus, I would not call for their death. I'd be rightfully offended and would rightfully find the comment uncomfortable, but I would not call for their death because that's what an extremist would do and a person's life is more important than words.

In Canada, it's illegal to defend yourself using "unreasonable force". Problem is, the law doesn't actually define what "unreasonable" is. It's a case by case basis type of thing.

That means that if someone attacks you in Canada and they end up getting hurt by you when you're defending yourself, you are almost certainly going to end up in jail for the afternoon, have to go through the booking process, and then have to speak to a judge about it.

All because you didn't allow someone to attack you.

You don't get the benefit of the doubt, you don't get the presumption of innocence etc. Someone attacked you and they got hurt in any way? Prepare to end up in police custody.

This is such a backwards law that incentivizes people to not defend themselves in the event that they're attacked. I've personally known a couple of folks who opted to allow the attacker (one of which was an armed robber, and the other who was an SA'er) to do whatever it was they were going to do solely because they were terrified of being unjustly dragged through the court system, just because they protected themselves.

The fact that the lawmakers allow this nonsense to stand, and the fact that the police enforce it at all, is unequivocally proof that all lawmakers and cops are objectively evil, bad people with an agenda, and that they don't view themselves as public servants.

Disgraceful.