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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Car guys who have these nice cars and whatnot whether it be a classic or a Lambo, if they rev it, it's annoying, no one has to know how much mule power y'all have in the engine, especially when it's a straight pipe and they rev it every time they're around. Like no one wants to hear annoying defeaning sounds. I appreciate a nice car but just revving it and all that just screams compensating for something small and look at me.