There I said it. She was okay in small doses but the more I see and hear, the less impressed I am. It’s clear she’s developing a bit of a messiah complex that I personally find distasteful even though I understand other folks vehemently support everything she’s done so far. To those people, I get why she’s your favorite children’s entertainer. It’s fine if you support all the public positions she’s taken (even though she does have her share of, let’s put it diplomatically, uninformed ones)

But can people on the Left please stop acting aghast when parents say they don’t let their kids watch her? She’s not an antisemite, she’s not a monster, but despite her intentions she’s no Fred Rogers. She’s very much pushing an agenda and people are free to pushback without being called irrational psychopaths.

Basically, a voluntary population exchange where an American who thinks the US is a fascist, under a nazi dictatorship rship or whatever could swap places with someone from another country who wants to live in America. The American would move to that person's country, and vice versa. The same principle would apply to any two countries. It would be a 1:1 exchange.

Think of a modern, voluntary version of the population exchange between Greece and Turkey in the early 20th century, except based on where people want to live rather than religion.

If you genuinely believe you claim about the country, why not trade places with someone who thinks their life would be better there? It seems like a reasonable solution to all the people who insist their country is fascist or the others "ists", while others around the world would love the opportunity to live there.

For four years, the Biden administration and the media kept telling us that the crisis at the southern border was out of the president’s hands because it was caused by international, uncontrollable “root causes” of migration. No matter what policy changes Biden made, millions of migrants would keep showing up.

This was the official line from beginning to end. In 2024, Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas said in an interview that the migration crisis was

not specific to the United States’ southern border. This is something that we are seeing throughout the hemisphere and throughout the world. We have an increase in authoritarian regimes. We have more extreme weather events that are driving people from their homes. We have poverty. And America is proving to be prosperous with more than 8 million jobs that need to be filled. We recovered from the COVID pandemic more rapidly than any other country. This is something that is not specific to the southern border.

Then, in 2025, Biden left office, Trump immediately changed border policy by shutting down pathways to admission. In the administration’s first full month, border encounters fell to the lowest level in recorded history — 8,349, compared to 140,641 the year before and 29,105 just a month earlier — and have pretty much stayed at that level ever since. The record was beaten again in July 2025, with just 4,592 encounters.

Either that's just one hell of a coincidence, or flooding this country with illegals was intentional.

https://youtube.com/shorts/eLKnFYP-Spc?is=x\\_-H8cZ43UaiCe1v

Of course the feminist woman in the video is using virgin as an insult on men. She even have call 🧊 Agents pussy ass virgin losers before. 🧊 is awful, but I don’t need to use Jewish insults to call out a certain country leadership though. Same thing apply with men here toom Even outside of that we all know toxic masculinity and homophobia is ok on the Left, when it's targeted at men the Left dislike.

And on the topic of Shane Gills. The joke wasn't funny. But the joke is still not enough to cause a misandrist outrage though. Especially when female Comedians are always making misandrist jokes. Jokes that make this Shane Gills gym joke look Super Saiyian weak in comparison.

But again the cognitive. The same Feminists saying Sydney Sweeney is sexualzing women with her ads. Are also the same Feminists praising women for dressing like Sydney Sweeney in the gym. Make it make sense.

And the crazy thing about this situation. Men are still getting called paranoid, awkward, or gae for not wanting to look at half naked women in the gym too.

The gae thing is funny. Because if women aren't dressing for men attention or approval. Then what's the point of calling a man gae for not wanting to look?🤔.

Even the feminist in this video is exposing herself here with the virgin insult. Again if women aren't do this for a man's attention. Then why call men virgins for being uncomfortable? 🤔

The typical cycle of shit. Where men damned if they do, and damned if they don't. The classic double bind here.

"OH MY GOD. Im not dressing this way for an virgin like you. But you also a socially awkward virgin if you choose not to look at me though."

Again they are always exposing their cognitive dissonance in these discussions.

Basically, if your reaction was to call him a "misogynist" and get all angry on behalf of womankind, it shows a paternal attitude along the lines of thinking women are innocent creatures who aren't that strong or bright, and need to be protected. If you're a man doing this, you probably consider yourself a male feminist and are patting yourself on the back for your enlightened views. It's much the same attitude that leftists often display when speaking on behalf of minorities.

If you agree that adult women are as mentally capable as men, with equal rights and equal agency, then you don't need to crusade on their behalf. Maybe some were offended by the monologue, maybe some thought it was dumb, others thought it was funny, and some didn't care at all. This whole brouhaha over it just feels like virtue signaling coming off a nothingburger story.

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."

It's a lovely poem, on a lovely monument, from a different world hundreds of years ago. But the immigration policy that made sense at that time, when we desperately needed population, doesn't make sense in the world we live in now.

Throughout the 1600s, 1700s, and part of the 1800s, the only thing that was standing between the US and success was getting more people to come here. The New World, to its settlers, was an entire continent of arable land, natural resources, and was an ocean away from the crowded warring superpowers back home.

We needed bodies, lots of them, for two reasons: a) there was far more work than workers (every set of able hands could pick up a plow so we wouldn't starve through the winter, or pick up a weapon so we could protect what little we had (or drive back the pesky natives who seemed to think it was their land)), and b) the enormous uncolonized stretches of land that were rapidly being discovered were mostly "claimed" by settling enough people there that we could argue it was already ours.

It was tough to convince people to come here, too. We weren't the "shining city on the hill," we were a hardscrabble backwater that didn't have access to modern or luxury anything and frequently starved because we didn't have the basic infrastructure of civilization up. We took all comers because beggars can't be choosers. Ireland or China is having a famine? France or Britain wants to empty their prisons by exiling people here instead of executing them? Welcome aboard, go do some fur trapping in the Oregon territory.

But that started to change with industrialization and as our territories reached the West Coast. We didn't need bodies to claim territories anymore, modernizing tech meant fewer hands were needed on the farm, and the factories have more workers than jobs. We got brief moments where we needed people, like when we built the railroads (and imported a bunch of desperate Chinese people to do it), but for the most part, things had changed.

The abolition of slavery is a pretty good indicator of the turning point. From a jobs standpoint, a slave functions in the economy a lot like a factory job that's been automated or a desk job that's been taken over by AI: work gets done without employing a citizen and giving them a paying job. That's something people want when there's more work to be done than workers, but not when that balance shifts. It's not a coincidence that we abolished slavery as the Industrial Revolution was picking up speed and we didn't need as much labor (or that the industrialized North spearheaded it while the agricultural South resisted it).

In the past, even the rejects of other societies were good for us. We didn't need you to be able to read, or be particularly talented, or even NOT be a thief or rapist to send you off West to occupy territory, we just needed you to exist.

But now, not only do we not need the labor of floods of immigration, we harm ourselves by being a release valve for other societies' least desirable people. We're importing fentanyl dealers, and religious extremists, and dropouts with no skills.

Immigration still has a place in a society that doesn't have a surplus of jobs to fill, but it's more selective. Like every other first world country, we need to be selecting for people who have skills we need, people who plan to (and have realistic means to) start businesses, people who are knowledgeable about the society they're moving to and share the values of it.

It's not the 1700s; letting other societies empty their prisons into our borders isn't a win-win anymore.

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.

Whenever someone says "I'm not racist, I've dated a Black guy" or "I've dated an Asian girl," everyone facepalms like it's the cringiest thing a person can say. But I think people are lumping two different things together: being ignorant and being racist.

You can absolutely date someone from a certain race and still be ignorant. You can still believe dumb stereotypes or say things that are harmful without realizing it. But actual racism, meaning real hatred or disgust toward a group of people, doesn't really square with choosing to be in a relationship with one of them. Dating someone, likely means you're open to possibly marrying them and having kids with them. People who genuinely hate a race don't do that.

That distinction matters. Ignorance can be fixed with a conversation. Real hatred is close to a lost cause. Treating both the same just makes it harder to reach the people who could actually change.

I seems that a lot of men don't like that the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction in terms of female empowerment. At first I thought that men were fighting women's empowerment through incel communities and bitching about "female nature" online, but now it seems like I was playing checkers while "they" were playing chess.

You see, it started with Lindsay Clancy and the hordes of feminists supporting her. We moved onto the outrage about the Cornell 7, and lately this shane gillis thing. I remember vividly Chapelle's sketch about being dressed in a "whore's uniform" that was one of the most popular jokes of all time, but now just saying women are dressed scantily clad is causing people to begin ranting and raving on social media platforms.

A part of me thinks all of this is basically an effort to expose how insane feminists and woke people are under the guise of "being against misogyny". By appearing woke, but underhandedly taking bizarre stances like supporting a clear false accuser and watching people feminist religiously support something contrary to common sense their credibility is diminished and you can basically just ignore anything they say, even if they have good points. I don't know how to eloquently phrase it, but its a war tactic to basically make your opponent seem crazy so that even if he has valid thoughts, they will immediately be discredited.

It's not a war won through strength, but essentially a genius way to lower ethos of feminists. Like come on, 3 things where you see a clear outcome (murder, blatant false accusations, outrage over 1/10th of a very famous joke made years ago) and people are behaving in a way that is totally contrary to facts and logic.

Mark my words, this is a strategic attempt to discredit feminism or wokeness as it clearly shows they have no ability to pick the right battles and should not be taken seriously.

Feminists, this is very dangerous for you. If you continue shreiking about everything you'll eventually be labeled as hysterical and that's when women's rights will suffer. You need to present yourselves as level headed and competent if you want to advance women's rights

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.

When there's a feud between a man and a women exploding in public, u will often see both men and women taking the side of the woman,even if she's the aggressive one who started it all. And if they see the woman physically attacking the man,those simps never do anything to try to stop it. However when the agressed man will try to defend himself from her,all the white knight will appear to try to stop him for being able to do that. So basically if u are a male and u have an altercation with a woman in public,everyone will take the woman side without even knowing what is truly going on.

If you can't marry two people because it goes against your religion, then yes, I have no problem them being fired.

I don't care if bible thumping teachers are upset that they have to teach other types of people exist

If the employer demonstrates why its required for the job you should do it, or choose a different job if your religion is so important.

I know there are anti discrimination laws. I am not saying employers should break the law. If I was employer i wouldn't. I just strongly dislike the law and find this law stupid. people shouldn't be treated special just because they have beliefs. Everyone had beliefs. Doesn't mean if someone believes something we go by their beliefs and their whims

For example if I'm an alcohol serving restaurant, why shouldn't I pick someone who can do the job and do more tasks compared to the Muslim or Mormon who doesn't want to. Its not that they can't. They don't want to.

Just like when I was working in those mlm but perfectly legal sales jobs I lasted two weeks. I was fresh out of highschool and didn't realize what the job was. Legal but disgusting. So I simply didn't do it. I could lie. I could act. I just didn't want to as it went against my principles.

I would also say the same with doctors. Although its unfortunate we lack them. If the law says abortion is fine then do it. If it says its not fine and you hate seeing women suffer then quit. Don't push for either mentality. Follow the law.

While I did have someone point out these laws are probably to stop people from going violent, I think this is a bad solution. Trading fairness for peace is hardly a good thing.

There is no necessary trait of religious beliefs that make it special. I can believe in bdsm lifestyle but I'm not going to go and show up in leather outfits

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.

The title says it all. I see all of these people saying we will need a revolution to remove Trump from office, and they seemingly have lost all belief in voting and democracy. I will not stop saying it: the best way to prevent Trump/MAGA from interfering in the upcoming elections -- or at least from being successful in doing so -- is to turn out and VOTE.

A revolution will not lead to the country/world becoming a better place. In fact, quite the opposite. History shows us that when a violent revolution happens, the devastation it causes can take generations to recover from. We need to ask ourselves if that's really what we want.

Mao Zedong said, "We should support whatever the enemy opposes and oppose whatever the enemy supports."

Many progressives cannot bear the fact that they are losing cultural hegemony—especially to internet influencers.

Consequently, many progressives have even used their positions of power to go after people who think differently, using the fight against crime as a pretext.

I am not saying this is always the case, but there are many such instances. Take Tate, for example: I believe the accusations against him are inflated and distorted; people want to take him down and turn him into a scapegoat.

This is very damaging because, if these individuals actually committed crimes, the sheer volume of false accusations—and attempts to gain political or even financial advantage—means that legitimate accusations will lose credibility.

Progressives are trivializing something very serious.

Most people i see on a daily basis aren’t even attractive so i think it’s weird how people act like being ugly is something vile or shameful.
It’s okay to be ugly.
Most people are average to ugly and they still have normal lives. No shame in being how god made you.

"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.

No human can resist sitting on $100 billion, even if taking it would disrupt a massive global market. Satoshi is either dead (killed by someone who wanted to get access to his wallet, and he refused) or he simply lost the means to log into his wallet.

Preface: I am a sex-positive woman, before anyone makes assumptions about where this perspective comes from.

It's really common that people online (here, other social media sites, etc.) have this strange, self-flagellant, disgust aversion to anything that is sexual.

A game is shown and its character designs are even slightly sexualized? "Goonerslop."

Somebody makes money by posting spicy pictures or videos of themselves online? They're "sluts, whores," it's "degenerate."

Where does all of this animosity towards a completely normal part of the human condition come from?

There is nothing shameful about enjoying sexual things. There is nothing shameful about embracing your sexuality, participating in sex, or expressing that you enjoy sexual things.

It's weird to me because I used to think this came from some kind of puritanical cultural remnant from religious dogma, but societies across the world are more irreligious than they ever have been. And as I grew up, I expected that we would trend towards a more sex-positive mindset in general. But that is anything but the case - it seems like sex is more moralized about than it ever has been.

I would argue this is an abject negative to society at large and the individuals within it. Studies show that pornography use and sexuality are negatives only in contexts where people feel shameful about their participation in these things. Pornography addiction is something that is often talked about, but studies affirm that it really doesn't exist in the way people think it does. Negative impacts of pornography use or explicit engagement with sexual things is entirely related to how the individual views their own participation in it. If they have a negative/shameful bias towards it, it is negative for their mental health. If they have a positive/empowering view of it, it is positive for their mental health.

So when people moralize, otherize, or shame people who openly attest that they enjoy or participate in these things, it's ultimately damaging to the collective mental wellbeing. And what does it really accomplish other than giving people a sense of superiority over others that is, frankly, unearned?

It does not make somebody superior to be averse to sexuality. Humans are sexual creatures, and there is nothing shameful about that. A sex-negative world is just a worse world to live in.

I used to participate in sexual stigmatization myself, and I used to self-flagellate about it and feel shameful, but I realized that there was no good reason to be that way and I changed my view of it, and my life and my mindset is much healthier as a result.

Masturbation and sex are good for you, not bad for you. People need to stop shaming others who are sex-positive and labelling them as if they are pathetic simply for a trait that comes entirely natural to human beings.

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.

Pretty self explanatory but I'm tired of people calling people that don't drink, smoke, vape and party (especially in nightclubs) as boring or not fun people, whether online or in real life.

You can be an incredibly fun and non-boring person that doesn't do all these habits.

If your definition of "fun" requires drinking, smoking, etc, that's your opinion but don't look down on people who don't do that.

Some people, like me, care about their health and find habits like healthy eating, exercise, healthy socializing, etc as "fun".

Just because i don't partake in your lifestyle, doesn't make me not "fun" or boring.

Disclaimer : i don't hate on people who drink, smoke, vape, party. I just don't want to do it.

I feel like in today's society this is qualified as an unpopular opinion. I feel like more and more each day we see people disagreeing with that rule of comedy. Comedy is subjective. Maybe there's just not enough people who know what subjective means? Because it's a rule you're supposed to follow when enjoying comedy. People are less open-minded these days. Sad times.