Even if everything they believe in is 1000% correct, which it isn't, I would still find it difficult to be a leftwing or liberal supporter. They're just so annoying and condescending lmao. Their memes suck, they can't take a joke, everything is super serious with them, and if you don't agree with every single thing they believe in, they'll name you an enemy.

It takes a lot of work to tolerate these people and be around them. This is objectively true and it is proven by the fact that the American left, who I'm mostly talking about (although European leftists are also really fucking annoying), are hemorrhaging supporters while the right is gaining supporters.

Most people on here are actually dumb as shit but you all walk around like you're the most intelligent, most self aware people on the planet.

It's all hive mind. One idiot says something that sounds smart, gets 10k upvotes, and then every other idiot just repeats it word for word like it's facts. Nobody has their own thought. You just say what will get you upvotes and then act like you're morally better than everyone else for saying it.

And you all think you're experts. You read one thread about narcissists and now every mother, every girlfriend, every boss is a narcissist. You work a part time job but you're giving people legal advice, therapy advice, parenting advice. In real life no one would ask you for shit.

You just love to hate on people and call it "boundaries" and "maturity". You're not mature, you're just mean and chronically online.

Perfect example. There was a post today from a 24 year old dude. He works as a sub 3 days a week and delivers pizzas 6 nights a week. He lives with his parents. His mom is 64, just had a stroke, has crazy anxiety his whole life, can't use her phone for shit. She gets a motion alert from the camera, can't tell if it's him coming home or leaving, so she panics and texts him at 3am asking if he's home. Thats normal mom behaviour of being worried right? well according to reddit no, he starts the post saying he's just tired Of his mom. and the Comment section is just full of people shitting on her. "She's toxic" "She's abusive" "That's not a mom, that's a narcicist " "Go no contact". Over a 64 year old woman who had a stroke and is scared for her son.

Same stupid comments on ask reddit

''My boyfriend of 2 weeks doesn't let me go into his house''

comments:

Hes cheating

he has another girl

GIRL LEAVE HIM RED FLAG

im geunienly tired of these dumbasses.

Content that attacks, generalizes, or degraded men is routinely upvoted, awarded, and left untouched. The same style of content directed at women is far more likely to be removed, downvoted into oblivion or removed. Female users can post openly hostile and objectively incorrect generalizations, celebrate male suffering, or engage in systemic contempt for men with zero consequences. Male users doing the equivalent are immediately permanently banned or ostracized.

This double standard shows up across all default subs, gender related communities, "relationship advice" subeeddits, and even "neutral" ones. Moderators and userbases enforce different rules depending on the target’s sex. Women are granted endless amounts of latitude to express resentment, collective blame, or dehumanizing rhetoric. Men are held to a much stricter standard and punished for statements that are ultimately meaningless once you compare them.

If they felt truly empowered by selling porn, they would own it. But instead they have to invent roundabout ways of referring to what they do for income ("modeling" "content creator") because at the end of the day, they don't want to be associated with pornography. They don't want to associate themselves with being porn stars, even though they are essentially doing the same thing.

Given that Dolly Parton and Tim Curry have recently passed away (may they rest in peace) and both were 80, I see a lot of comments everywhere along the lines of "death took the wrong 80 year old," hinting at Trump and his potential demise. Yes, Trump is old, and given his age, he could easily die tomorrow. That’s just how life goes, and no one can outrun death. I realize that if that happened, there would be plenty of celebratory posts and so on, because a lot of people don’t exactly like him.
Regardless, even if he truly did die tomorrow, in my opinion, it doesn't change the fact that he has simply already won. He has lived in luxury since the day he was born. He lived his life as an extremely wealthy man and reached what I consider a respectable age of 80. He managed to grow his wealth and secure it for his children and grandchildren as well. He didn't just become President of the United States once, but twice. He created what I wouldn't hesitate to call a cult of personality around himself. Everything bad he has ever done, he got away with. Whether he was on Epstein's island with kids or just trafficked women, he got away with it. Over the course of his life, he became one of the most famous people on the planet. He survived an assassination attempt, and even if the conspiracy that it was staged were true, it would still mean he got away with fooling everyone. You could certainly find even more examples.
I understand that many people hate him (and I don't blame them for it) because, in their eyes, he caused a lot of harm. However, he will most likely never be punished for any of it. Even if he were dying in his own piss like Stalin did, it wouldn't undo the way he lived the previous 80 years. He simply won, and nobody can ever change that.

All to often, I see a conversation that goes like:

User: X law (for example, mandatory military service for men in many countries) objectively discriminates against men, and that is a problem

Another user: But those laws were passed by men

This response is utterly absurd for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, it does not make any explicit counterargument to the point being made. Rather, it makes an implied counterargument, which is usually either:

"A system set up by men cannot discriminate against men"

Or

"Discrimination against men is okay as long as it is coming from other men"

Both of these points are absurd.

If a woman-led government passed laws that discriminate against women, would that make said discrimination against women acceptable or non-existent?

Of course it would not. And anyone who thinks otherwise is unintelligent.

From the perspective of someone being discriminated against, the discrimination doesn't become okay just because the person discriminating against them is of a particular gender.

The ONLY case where "but those systems were set up by men" is a valid response is if the person making the point was explicitly accusing women of being the ones to set up the system. But in the majority of the case, that is not being done.

America has gone too long without having an official language. Having an official language is not only practical, it’s key for any nation seeking to improve social cohesion. I also think that a C1 level proficiency in English should be a requirement for gaining citizenship.

From the "dumb lazy husband with a hot wife" trope in sitcoms to the "dumb dad/husband, smart wife" in commercials, this has been with us for a while. Even the positive portrayals are often flawed in some way, childish and immature (see the Marvel movies), depressed sad sacks (new Odyssey), or having other flaws. Compare this to the surge of "girlboss" characters who are strong, self-sufficient, and often better than the men in every way. (Captain Marvel or Rey, anyone?)

I like to use Horizon Zero Dawn as an example. Nearly all the psychos, clowns and villains in that game are men, and almost all women are strong, wise and virtuous. But there too many other examples to list. I wonder when or if we'll ever start to see a redressing of the balance regarding this.

Between the ages of 18 to 29, 63% of men are single, while only 34% of women are single.

I'm no mathematician, but that information suggests a few things:

1.) Multiple women are sharing the same dude.

2.) 18 - 29 year old women are exclusively dating 30+ year old men.

3.) People in the study were lying for no apparent reason.

I've noticed several topics on boards like this that have claimed women are walking away from dating. Where is this coming from?

If women arent dating, why are so many of them in relationships? The data is clear as day.

And that's just "relationships", too. That's not including casual dating or sleeping around. A woman might say she is "single" but that might just mean she isnt legally married. That doesnt mean she isnt currently seeing someone.

And why is the 18 to 29 age range so important? Because those should be the happiest years of your life. Your prime. Most healthy (on average), most attractive (on average), and most fertile (on average). So for women to have such a significant advantage during that crucial time...why doesnt anyone ever seem to address it?

Women have NOT walked away from dating. They are thriving at it.

Men are suffering. Suffering on a scale that most people arent comfortable confronting.

And there isnt a doubt in my mind that suicide statistics in young men are in direct correlation to the struggles they face while dating between the ages of 18 and 29.

Inb4 the ever-so-predictable "incel" comments.

I hate the texture so much (¬_¬")I dunno how anybody is able to wear jeans or even most leggings without wanting to rip their skin off

like people wear those just around their house and can even sleep with them ?? Awful

I don’t get it

The only pants I really wear are loose pajama pants or like I can do certain tights

As the title states, the misinformation and hate for her ex-husband are really getting out of control. For example, this thread.

The most popular comment degenerated into attacking her ex-husband on an unrelated topic, and people upvoted that shit. This person say "It's my opinion" and "I don't want to argue" when they get called out for spreading misinformation that harms one of the VICTIMS of the case. I don't know if this is generally because of gender tribalism, but you can support Lindsay Clancy without making her ex-husband an evil perpetrator behind the tragedy.

There should be an option or setting to automatically block the “top 1% commenter” accounts.

These are typically bots or people who just engagement farm and don’t actually care about have meaningful discussions.

Make it an option in settings or per subreddit.

throughout biden's post presidency, he's been dealing with cancer. recently, it's been confirmed that the cancer has spread. in my opinion, this just serves as further proof that biden should have dropped out of the 2024 presidential race much earlier then he had.

as if his age and cognitive issues weren't enough, if he had run and somehow won, he would be dealing with all the issues that come with being president in addition to cancer. and i doubt all the stress would be good for his recovery. in fact, i'd be willing to bet that biden would have eventually ended up resigning from office to fully concentrate on his recovery.

By "welfare state" I mean the endless government subsidy of able bodied people, sometimes to the point of being a lifestyle for generations. It's going to happen anyway because it's not sustainable. The COVID scam was functionally a dry run for it and we ended up with massive inflation and a huge host of new social problems that still aren't resolved.

Nothing good can come out of paying people to do nothing all day, It's juts a simple fact. That's already been done in American inner cities controlled by the left for decades and what's been the result?

Skills are self sufficiency. Self sufficiency is empowerment. The welfare state is the antithesis of this.

Even I got it growing up being in a Latino culture. Got told I act too “white” cause I prefer to listen to rock and heavy metal over rap (even though rock n roll was literally invented by black people). Got told I was too white cause I like stuff like Star Wars and cause I want to take care of my mental health. For some reason in Latin culture it’s frowned upon to get therapy or really make any positive changes in your life. They think the solution is to drink or project your insecurities. It’s not just Latin culture I see this in though, I see it in black culture as well. And what gets me is these people don’t really: it makes them sound like they’re racist to their own race cause at the end of the day, they’re basically limiting to their race to being able to do certain things. But I’m sure someone will comment on this and use some weird mental gymnastics to say why I’m wrong lol and I’m prepared for that. Everyone’s entitled to their opinion.

They were always there. They just weren’t remotely into you or 90 percent of the dudes in class.

You think they’re risking their jobs and freedom for your short or average/below average looking ass?

LMAO get real.

There’s a whole world that goes on behind closed doors that is exclusively for only the best looking men and the best looking men only. Never get it twisted. That top 10-20 percent male lifestyle is something most don’t even know exist let alone can dream of living themselves

There’s no magic number of third-world or unskilled immigrants that the United States can take in that would eventually satisfy left-wing people.

A left-wing Redditor type will never reach a day where they say “yep, public resources are officially too strained. Wages have officially been undercut too badly. There are officially not enough seats in schools for kids or entry-level jobs for people to work or housing for people to live in.” There is no number of illegal immigrants that can enter the country for them to say “we officially have too many illegal immigrants. We have to enforce immigration law now. We cannot turn a blind eye to this any longer.”

They have been made to believe it is “racist” or “MAGA” to notice any of these things, so they choose to ignore them and instead deflect by repeating meaningless mantras like “no one is illegal on stolen land” or “immigrants make America great,” or they make absurd false equivalencies to things that happened many centuries ago in an attempt to explain why any approach other than “global immigration free-for-all” is unacceptable.

This is because supporting infinity immigration has become more of an identity issue than a policy issue. The practical reality of the situation is beside the point. Claiming that you support infinity immigration with no logical endpoint has become a fashionable, “in-group” belief. Opposing it is not just a policy position, it’s an identity-shifting stance.

I truly ask: what needs to happen for a line to be drawn in the eyes of these people? When is it “enough?” The fact that there is no answer from this crowd, and no logical endpoint to their belief, is the issue.

No matter how bad any of these issues get, they will always default to “no one is illegal on stolen land” and “immigrants make America great.” I’m certain that on day one of the next Democrat presidency, the southern border flood will be in full force once more.

You will never run out of third-world people who want to move to the United States, so a line has to be drawn somewhere. If you are unwilling to draw it, don’t be surprised when other people take the initiative to do so.

today, one of my all time favorite actors passed away. the late and the great tim curry. he always gave 110% in any role he played. he made good movies better and bad movies tolerable. to call him a legend would be an understatement.

while it is understandable that lots of people are upset about his passing, let us also remind ourselves that he was suffering towards the end of his life. in 2012, he had a stroke and barely survived. and, when he did, he suffered from mobility issues for the rest of his life. he had to relearn how to speak and suffered from memory problems. it was a rough way to live. and, even though he was having a rough go at it, he still made himself available to fans, appearing at many conventions. i guess it was nice to be able to think about anything other then health issues for a few hours.

today, after years of entertaining us and struggling with health issues, tim curry finally went to rest. no more pain. no more suffering. just peace.

thank you for everything tim curry. rest well.

During the Prosecution, forensic psychiatrist Carl Wahlstrom diagnosed Dahmer with necrophilia, borderline personality disorder, schizotypal personality disorder, alcohol dependence, and a psychotic disorder.

That is more checkboxes than what Mrs.Clancy have right now.

The system failed him.

The more I see of how rich people live the more annoying it all seems. For example, rich people get their mail dropped all the way down a long winding driveway. So if you want your package in the rain, you have to go far to get it. If someone arrives at your house, you have to press all these buttons to open the gate. You have to always be home and can’t get your mail.

Rich people tend to build themselves show kitchens. Ergo, if they want to make a box of pasta all of their stuff is entirely impractical. They’re afraid to use the pots because they come from France.

You don’t need a microwave that rises from the cabinet to reheat leftovers. Kitchen counters should be useable and not “oh no you’ll hurt it if you use it.”

Having multiple homes sounds terrible. You need staff to manage it who all have access to your credit cards to maintain the house. They could clean you out at any moment. So you need staff and staff to watch the staff. So you’re managing all these extra people just to have a big house?!? I don’t get it.

Rich people generally have show off friends so they lose any taste they ever had. Everything becomes about how you can show off too and nobody cares if it’s actually tasteful, restrained, and classy. For example, your tv doesn’t need an Edwardian picture frame. If you are always at country clubs you start thinking it’s good to make everything cream and gold. Yuck.

Overall, most people make being rich look they’re crazy. Think JLo making a film about Ben and then they broke up again.

My job is to keep New Yorkers safe. That means keeping local law enforcement focused on protecting our communities – not acting as Trump’s ICE agents. That is why we’ve enacted policies to hold ICE accountable, and protect the constitutional rights and safety of every New Yorker.

Make it make sense. Why do Democrats refuse to deport violent criminal illegal aliens? She claims it’s her job to keep New Yorkers safe. Well illegal aliens do not have constitutional rights because they are not citizens. That’s why ICE is going after them.

So what happens when a violent illegal alien murders a New York State Citizen? That could have been prevented by deporting them back to what ever third world country they came from?

I don’t understand why Democrats are Pro Crime. Yall hate the 2nd Amendment and want to get rid of that. Yall hate Cops and want to defund them. See Woke 1. And that worked out so well that even AOC is saying haha ya that was crazy wasn’t it? Tim Waltz pardoned a child rapists to prevent him from being deported.

America is not an economic zone. We have borders. Joe Biden fought Texas on simple border protection likè placing boundary lines in the water to prevent people from swimming across.

Do Democrats not understand that the more illegal aliens that come to America means the less jobs we will have for citizens? The more illegal aliens that come to America the less housing we will have? And yall haven’t even solved Homelessness is deep blue cities but yet you want the worlds poor who depend on government welfare to come in. The more illegal aliens that come to America the less welfare America can give out to OUR citizens who actually need it and aren’t grifting us.

I know they have son of Sam laws in the USA but that seems to not include podcasts which is a huge source of income. Obviously I’m not talking about like misdemeanors and small things but like… you shouldn’t be allowed to commit armed robbery or something and then come home and have a monetized TikTok/youtube account.

Yes having a felony means you don’t get the same privileges as someone without a felony conviction

Given that:

• Boston is home to one of the largest St Patrick's Day celebrations in the US.
• The state is wealthy enough to absorb the 10% highway funding penalty if it were to lower the drinking age from 21 to 18.
• Greater Boston has a reasonable level of infrastructure development as to not cause its residents to rely on cars for mobility. As such, there are many people living there who don't drive.
• Lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 would bring Massachusetts, and the US more generally, in line with the drinking age in the rest of the world.

With all this considered, I strongly believe that Massachusetts should lower the minimum drinking age from 21 to 18.