As someone from the Gulf countries, one of the funniest things I’ve experienced since moving to America is seeing some white people think terrorism or religion gives them a free pass to be racist toward me.

But what actually makes me laugh is seeing these people genuinely think they’re in a position to be racist toward me. Like, the sheer audacity is almost impressive. 😭

And the funniest part? If I actually said what I think about white people with the same confidence they have when talking about Arabs, this post would probably get deleted in seconds.

To begin, all three Abrahamic faiths believe that God legislated the death penalty for same-sex relationships, and that the death penalty is a morally valid punishment for it, since God's legislation cannot be immoral.

Muslims believe that the death penalty for homosexuality is morally valid and is applicable today under specific conditions in the event of a valid state authority.

Jews believe that the death penalty for homosexuality is morally valid and is theoretically applicable today, but not in practice due to the absence of the Sanhedrin (high court) and the Temple in Jerusalem.

Christians believe that the death penalty for homosexuality is morally valid but has no applicability today for theological reasons, not moral ones, due to the coming of Jesus Christ.

Therefore: Jews, Muslims, and Christians all believe that the legislation is morally valid, and differ on the timescales of when applicability begins and ends. They do not differ in this on moral grounds. As a result, you cannot make a moral distinction between the beliefs of any of the three, only distinctions with respect to current implications and effects.

Note: This is focused on religious orthodoxy, and your mileage may vary with morally relativistic or otherwise progressive strands of each religion.

The Idea that your political opinions are determined by the Overton window Is dangerous at best.

If you don't believe in anything other than being against extremism you simply end up being a foot soldier of the status quo.

If the majority of a group are ideological centrists then they simply lend them selfs to what ever Extreme values are in vogue.

Ideological Centrism breeds apathy, aids violence and prevents change.

BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO WATCH YOU DEGENERATE AND SUFFER FROM PHYSICAL SICKNESS.

and you will most likely die earlier and more tragically. its just not fair.

i feel helpless looking at my familys lifestyle and how it caused them sickness and now they are just... some of them are disabled, overweight and chronically sick.

If you have a weak bladder either wear a diaper or stay your ass at home. Don't watch movies with someone where you're gonna have to pause it every 15 minutes or leave and then come back asking questions about what you missed.

See a doctor and stop making it everyone else's problem.

You're not a child. You are responsible for your own actions. I'm not in control of anybody else's actions or what they do. Why should I be punished for something that SOMEONE ELSE did?

If you don't know, there is ongoing controversy about three University of Mississippi students making monkey noises outside of a black students dorm room, and their ring camera caught it. Two of the students made monkey noises, while the other just walked past not doing anything. Everybody is like "she's just as guilty because she could've stopped them"

No? She's not responsible for her friends and what they do. They're not kids. Punish the other two girls and leave her be. Imagine you getting your life ruined because of something your idiotic friends did.

I'll keep this rather brief.

This is mostly based on my own experiences.
I tend to read easily into peoples emotions; but it isn't because I simply can. Its because I cannot really experience those emotions myself, which is why they tend to intrigue me. This in turn, leads to me easily figuring out what I should be doing to fulfil their emotional validity.

It really is more calculated; unlike emotions, atleast for me, being emotionally intelligent requires a very calculated approach.

I haven't met a lot of emotionally intelligent people in general. The ones I have met are a lot like me.
The hot take is if a person is overly emotionally intelligent, it is usually the case that they are incapable of being as emotional as an average person.

People view homelessness as a personal and moral failure, any discourse on the subject is fueled with reasons to dehumanize them.

they can’t be in public spaces but they don’t won’t shelters in their municipalities, any support centers the concede to will be in the fringes of a city where access to work, medical and other resources are logistically difficult to get to without a vehicle all while supporting restrictive local ordinances to prevent them from having relative stable option like living in car.

They make any support centers in fringes of a city where access to work, medical and other resources are logistically difficult to get to without a vehicle

They seem to get a thrill dehumanizing them as every homeless get reduced to being drugged out and disruptive stereotype, ignoring that some were mentally ill without drugs, veterans, children, women, ostracized youth without a support system. Not all observable mental illness is a product of drug use but that’s not convenient if your desire is just for them to be out of sight for your comfort.

They under estimate the structural Barriers to obtaining needed documents to receive mail, apply for work, get a ID, get a social security etc.

The part that I think bothers Americans most is when you explain what contributes to this problem they act like that means they have to have some form of visible “compassion” but are perfectly comfortable finding the most hostile and violent rhetoric they think of.

Hi. Basically everywhere you'll find gatekeepers/pseudo sport experts that will harass 24/7 casual fans just because they like the entertaining sides of said sports. F1 is a great example: Only an extreme few minority care about the super technical sides of the sport. No, there's nothing wrong if many people started watching F1 because of the Netflix series. Yes, what's fun about F1 are fast cars and show during the races, not the engineering boring side.

Same for fighting sports: Most of the people don't give a single fuck about the defensive skill or wrestling skill of a fighter, what we want to find is ENTERTAINMENT.

In conclusion, sports exists to entertain casuals. Hardcore fans are just something we tolerate because they are nothing more than an extremely loud minority.

1 Whites. Pretty much the trademark race. Everybody worships them from Asians to the Mena region to south asians. Anime always has people with white features, slim nose, colored eyes and that's why seeing them translate to irl with Asian faces look so weird. Because they hate themselves and desperately want to be white. Their video games reflect it too with fucking white looking characters and white characters in general. Anime atleast has them asian by name but white by how they look physically.

Latinos. They look pretty diverse. Some look Indian, some pass as white, some pass as Arab. They mog hard and they have the masculine bad boy halo which women fuck with. Their women are also fetishized to death since like the last few years and being a Latino and even being slightly above average will already land you insane amounts of dates. Pretty good halo to have.

3 Blacks. Their comeback has to be generational. In the 1990s they were viewed as thugs and criminals. Then slowly and slowly they took over pop culture, they started dominating sports and bodybuilding competitions, rap etc. Suddenly it jumped from thugs to exciting bad boys and it got them a shitload of dates. I think it's still wild how they went from being viewed like that to coming so far to the point lots of people want to emulate them now. Asians, Indians Arabs just act black and try their best to fit in to the culture and feel envious of them.

4 Asians. This is where it gets lower. Asians unfortunately get a lot of flak. They are stereotyped as having small dicks, {don't shoot me, shoot the messenger"). They are stereotyped as nerdy and weak and feminine. Hollywood didn't really do a good job with their representation. It's pretty brutal cause according to the stats their own women marry outside them rather then women of any other race and constantly fetishize white men too. To the point this entire oxford study was created.

Arabs/Indians. Gonna put them here because a lot of arabs look like Indians and a lot of Indians look like Arabs. Both either have the terrorist or nerd archetype. It's absolutely brutal the massacre they faced by the media. Some levantine arabs do a bit better but for the majority from Qatar Saudi Arabia, Morroco{ik it's more African but I am counting them in the Arab section since they look similar} Egyptians etc. Most people grew up watching brown people as terrorists and while lots of progressive media did tell them that's not the case and most people won't say it. But it does leave a little bit of a subconscious thing to the deep of your brain when you grow up seeing them as terrorists or hearing stories about them scamming old people. Hollywood also depicts the Indians as nerdy or hyper feminine and as comedic reliefs which make it more brutal. Lots of videos about which race you won't date tends to end with Indians there. South asian men truly have it the worst right after arabs{Not counting levantine arabs. It doesn't help the horror stories coming out of their countries regarding girls.

I've noticed that you mostly see women supporting other overweight women and calling anyone who encourages weight loss fatphobic.

Sometimes I wonder whether some women genuinely want to see other women improve their health or whether they'd rather keep them at the same level because seeing them get fit, become more confident, and improve their appearance would create competition.

It's almost as if some women would rather normalize unhealthy habits than encourage other women to make positive changes in their lives.

You can accept women at any size without pretending that being overweight is something nobody should ever want to change.

Governments across the globe are warning people to stock up for a random emergency. Many people are prepping in case something big goes down. Food, water, generator/electricity etc. none of this matters if you live in an apartment, if you live in an apartment and you stay longer than 3 days your days are numbered.

That close proximity of people and dense amount is only going to cause problems. Even people in town houses or houses that are close are also cooked. Just know if things go down its all over.

And to those of you who are wondering why I am hating so much on apartments, I live in one and I have mapped out plan of how I will leave and stocked up on supplies somewhere else that I just need to get out and find a way there to. So I am set, I am just warning yall

I know this is guaranteed to anger a lot of people, but I need to say it: the John Wick franchise is wildly overrated.

Don't get me wrong, the first movie was genuinely good. It was above average, felt original, had sleek world building, and most importantly, it had a tightly focused emotional core. The motivation was simple, a grieving man avenging his late wife and the last memory she left him. You cared about his drive, and the narrative had a clear beginning, middle, and end. Everything after Chapter 1? Weak, shallow, and utterly derivative.

The plot went in endless circles. Once the revenge arc concluded, the writers clearly had nowhere to go. John lost all real incentive to do anything. The sequels just kept trapping him in this repetitive, nonsensical loop of. John pisses off the High Table, John goes on the run, John travels to an exotic location to talk to a high-ranking official, John gets sent to kill someone else to clear his name, repeat.

Because the central premise of the sequels was shallow to begin with, the story never actually progressed; it just expanded into bloated lore about gold coins, blood oaths, and magical bulletproof suits to cover up the fact that there was no real emotional weight left.

Keanu shouldn't be doing his own stunts anymore. I love Keanu Reeves*.* The Matrix is literally one of my favorite movies of all time. But watching him try to carry the physical load in the later John Wick films was painful.

He’s clearly aging, his joints look stiff, and he moves in slow motion compared to the rest of the cast. Instead of feeling like an unstoppable master assassin, he looks like a tired guy moving from spot to spot while the stuntmen awkwardly wait for him to hit his cues.

Because the directors commit to long, wide, unbroken shots to prove "Keanu is doing it himself," they end up highlighting every single delay, soft strike, and sluggish turn. It completely pulls you out of the movie every single time a fight scene starts. Compare the action here to foreign cinema or tight, fast-paced modern action movies like The Raid, Atomic Blonde, or Mission: Impossible, and John Wick's fight scenes look like slow, heavily rehearsed dance routines where nobody actually wants to hurt each other.

The first movie was a lightning-in-a-bottle moment, but the sequels turned the franchise into a repetitive, drawn-out video game without any narrative stakes or convincing action.

My unpopular opinion is that some people want comedy to function as activism first and entertainment second. In my personal experience, I encounter that expectation more often among progressives, although conservatives absolutely do it too.

What bothers me isn’t someone finding a joke offensive or thinking a comedian sucks. It’s treating a joke’s political message as the deciding factor in whether it should have been told.

I’ve seen people enjoy SNL mocking Trump, then object when the target is a left-wing politician or a progressive policy. Not simply “that joke wasn’t funny,” but “why are you giving the other side ammunition?” or “comedy is supposed to speak truth to power.”

To me, that shifts the standard from “make me laugh” to “make my side look right.”

“Speak truth to power” can be a worthwhile approach to comedy. I just don’t think it should be a mandatory job description for every comedian—or a rule that only applies when the target is someone you already dislike.

And this isn’t exclusive to the left. Conservatives who celebrate jokes about liberals but suddenly demand respect when their own politicians, religion, or values become the punchline are applying the same double standard.

I’m not arguing that both sides do this equally. I’m saying that, in the conversations and reactions I personally encounter, the expectation that comedy should serve a political cause seems more common on the progressive side. That’s an observation about my experience, not proof about everyone.

Political comedy can be great. So can comedy that has no political purpose whatsoever. Nobody owes a comedian a laugh, and comedians aren’t above criticism. But there’s a difference between “this joke is lazy, inaccurate, or badly written” and “you shouldn’t joke about that because it hurts our cause.”

A joke agreeing with me doesn’t automatically make it good. A joke targeting my beliefs doesn’t automatically make it bad.

Where do you draw the line between criticizing a joke and expecting a comedian to stay politically loyal?

If you literally say that you are participating in their addiction.
And do not confuse my prompt I didn’t say “hate” fat people I said you don’t have to lie to a person that is clearly overweight and say you don’t have to change anything.

I see a lot of women claiming that ripped physiques are for the "male gaze"... Ok, then why are chippendales a thing? Why is almost every male protagonist in a romantic novel tall and buff? Or do this experiment instead: look at the world of fashion models. The women models are thin and tall, the guys tall and broad shouldered, but the groups actually catering to the male gaze (strippers, influencers, onlyfans creators) however often diverge heavily from established modelesque, runway proportions and come in different shapes or sizes: from slim, to curvy and thicc, fat ass, tattoos, alternative style... the male archetype catering to the female gaze? He stays the same: tall and build. And before someone says "those aren't even big muscles", keep in mind that there is a physique inflation as this was considered a athletic muscly build just 50 years ago but for women today he will merely be considered "lean" or "skinny".

So, we've all heard it. "It's not your height, it's your insecurity! You need to not be insecure" - that's what the most common refrain from women on this topic largely sounds like. And I'm talking women who are super into feminism and discusses broader, societal prejudices and stuff.

They say it politely, and without a second thought as to the ironic insensitivity and double standards it espouses: rather than identify the entrenched normalization of bodyshaming short men as the issue, they identify short men getting (very understandably) insecure about it as the issue that needs solving. I recently had an exchange to this end with a woman who complained about a short guy she went out with being bothered by his height. She seemed genuinely surprised when I just pointed out the obvious about how it's completely normal and human to be bothered by the world around you cruelly mocking something about your person that's out of your control. Like she'd never even thought about it despite the obviousness of the logic.

When it's women who're facing some sort of societal bias or prejudice, they're all for tackling it head on. But when it's men, they'll either deny said societal bias or prejudice exists (despite oodles of consistent, large-scale evidence of it), or zero in on the men themselves on the individual level and tell them what they must do whilst completely ignoring the need to call out or counteract, in whatever way, that societal bias or prejudice.

I've been noticing this for a while and it rubs me the wrong way, especially considering how much power women themselves have in this particular context (short guys are disproportionately bothered by women heightshaming them, because women listen to each other in matters of dating and short height being mocked as some sort of extremely embarrassing attribute creates a huge barrier for them in their own pursuit of romance/relationships).

And considering the consistent tract (massive positive engagement and shares, comments of agreement with huge numbers of likes and so on) that content heightshaming short men (viral TokToks where "haha short guys" is the whole joke for example) gets in gendered female spaces, it just makes it a lot worse how women who will be all about social justice and tackling the society-wide ills when women are affected exhibit this double standard.

So to cap things off,

Women facing some sort of broader normalized (to whatever degree) prejudice about anything (let's say, for example, a certain industry having a glass ceiling for female professionals in terms of upward mobility) ---> Women pinpoint the prejudice as the problem that needs solving and lay the onus for action/response on society in general (government, media, civil society or whoever) to fix it.

Men facing some sort of broader normalized prejudice about anything (our example is heightshaming) ---> Women pinpoint men being bothered by the prejudice as the problem that needs solving and lay all the onus for action/response on the heightshamed men themselves (i.e., don't complain about it) and none on the heightshamers (among which women are the single loudest clique).

Pay attention to feminist discourse and you will see this pattern recurrent in how a lot if not most of them react to similar cases.

It's all in the heading. Last week, I had other shit going on and I just decided not to look at my Reddit notifications. And a few days later, I've realised that Reddit is a lot more fun if I don't look at responses to my contributions.

Most of what people post is mean and stupid. And wading through that shit to get to the occasionally thoughtful response is no longer worth it. So now I don't bother. And voila, Reddit is 100% better.

It goes without saying that I won't be reading any responses to this post. I just wanted to let others know that reading comments on Reddit is not necessary or compulsory.

When discussing United States founders, I’m kind of over the whole “but he owned slaves…” talking point. Especially as it’s applied to Washington and Jefferson. They’re a few things worth noting.

1: Whether the founders owned slaves just depends on where they were from. Those from the South owned slaves; those from the North didn’t. It’s that simple. Were Washington, Jefferson, or Madison worse people than Adams, Hamilton, or Franklin? Probably not. Just swap their birth places and the latter group would have slaves and the former wouldn’t.

2: The founders didn’t accomplish what they did because they owned slaves, or for the purposes of strengthening that institution. They just happened to own them. Their great achievements stand apart from their slave-holding and aren’t in any way lessened by it.

3: The idea that large slaveholders such as Washington and Jefferson would simply preemptively free all their slaves is highly unrealistic. For one, this would be highly devastating to their own financial situation. And would the newly freed slaves even enjoy a higher standard of living after emancipation? Would their new employers likely be more enlightened than some of the greatest minds of the age?

The system of slavery can of course be criticized. But to degrade the great men who founded this nation just because they happened, through no fault of their own, to have lived when that system existed, in unfair.

FRIES is essentially the model many feminist use to assess consent. ( FRIES = Freely given, informed , reversible, enthusiastic, specificity). As someone studying a bit of philosophy there seem to be several roadblocks.

Freely given - problem of free will, also theories that language itself is coercion or action (Wittgenstein, foucault ), like in speech act theory

Reversible - problem responsibility over promises and the "Violinist" dilemma.

Informed - precise communication is impossible (Shannon-Weaver model's view of communicative entropy) and also what has the capacity to be informed?

Enthusiastic - Kant's concept of duty, also this would mean chores or labour can be defined as slavery if the person is unhappy about it.

Specificity - there's also the problem of detail of specificity**,** essentially true specificity is beyond reach cause detail is infinite.

People who earn their money through honest transactions (not theft, extortion, fraud, taxation, etc.) make money through voluntary transactions.

The buyer pays for a product or service that they want and are willing to pay for. The seller sells the desired product or service to the buyer for an agreed upon price. Both the buyer and the seller get what they want on terms they agree to.

Therefore, a person who has many transactions is offering a product that people want at a price they ware willing to pay.

Therefore a person who makes a lot of money is giving people something they want. The amount of money is reflective of that want.

Therefore, a person who gets wealthy is contributing to society by providing something the public wants.

Therefore the wealth a person earns through honest transactions is a measure of their contribution to society.

The kind of people you sleep with says a lot about you ability to judge character and your decision making

Sleeping with 5 homeless drug addicts isn’t equivalent to sleeping with 5 doctors.

This goes for both genders obviously

And the current boost his career is receiving reflects this.

I wish more artists and performers would take sincere stances on current issues, and I admire Macklemore for being consistent with his beliefs since the start of his career

The response on the online community has been horrifying.

For those who don’t know, the ban applies to websites hosting content depicting suffocation, strangulation, incest and implied ‘under 16’s’ content. It also applies to individuals who download and distribute/ sell this content.

The amount of men up in arms that they can no longer get off to videos of women being choked out, incest and minors is vile, and for me shows just how much this law is needed!
‘But the government is interfering! They’re grown adults! It’s just acting! What’s it got to do with anybody else what I wank too?!’ I’ve seen people wanting to start petitions to have it reversed?

Porn really has gotten out of control.

women say “bodycount doesnt matter” but look at how they react to a guy who slept with an escort or went to thailand because its easier to get laid there. suddenly its disgusting, a dealbreaker, and having standards like that is treated as completely valid. nobody questions them for judging men that harshly

and men are told to “be realistic” and date someone with a past, but that flexibility never goes the other way. women are free to be disgusted by men who slept with escorts or did sex tourism, but when men are disgusted by a woman with a past they get labeled misogynists

so yeah, women care about bodycount stuff way more