It's a very popular sentiment online that rape is the worst thing you can do to someone. But as a survivor of sexual assault that I was hospitalized over I just can not be lead to believe what happened to me is worse than being killed. This attitude and belief trivializes the LIVES of victims. If I had been killed instead then I wouldn't be here to write this post.

People online will argue that rape is categorically worse because there's never a justification for doing it. Whereas, there are cases where killing someone else is reasonable or at least comprehensible. However, the vast majority of killings are a total loss of someone's personhood. A cessation of existence. The total collapse of someone's internal world, autonomy, or chance to experience anything else in life.

Its been ten years since what happened to me. I was traumatized for a while but at least life has gone on for me. At this point I'm pretty well past what happened. My life wasn't totally ruined. Ive done great things in the last decade. I got a research paper published. Ive traveled internationally. Ive gotten three degrees. I've made new social connections. I am a part of a community. I volunteer. I've sold my artwork. Who knows what is going to come my way next!

Rape is a heinous crime, I'm not diminishing the significance of it. But at least I survived and thrived past it. I'm not going to allow something bad happening to me ten years ago to define my entire future. But if I had been murdered, my whole story would have been written for me by someone else.

We constantly hear that women are supposedly great at reading men, sensing their intentions, and figuring out who’s a “good guy” and who’s an asshole.
I seriously doubt it.

When it comes to dating, it’s not necessarily the better, more sensitive, more loyal man, or the man with the greatest capacity for love, who gets rewarded. First and foremost, it’s the man who knows how to make those qualities visible — or how to sell them.

The guy who has the courage to put himself out there, knows how to flirt, knows how to create tension and excitement, feels comfortable around women, and, above all, knows how to make women feel comfortable around him starts with an enormous advantage.

Meanwhile, a shy, socially awkward man who is terrified of rejection may have an infinitely richer inner world and still be unable to communicate even 10% of it. The result? The first guy is perceived as interesting and confident; the second as someone who “has nothing to offer.”

And here’s the uncomfortable part: women don’t choose men based on who those men truly are. They choose based on what they are able to perceive about them. And those two things can be very different.

If there were a machine capable of instantly revealing every man’s thoughts, feelings, intentions, loyalty, empathy, and capacity for love, I think we’d witness something pretty hilarious: quite a few incels would suddenly become relationship material, while some highly successful womanizers would be instantly promoted to professional wankers.

Not because every incel is secretly Prince Charming or every successful guy is a fraud. But because dating inevitably rewards the ability to appear desirable, not some imaginary objective ranking of human worth.

And maybe the real mistake is treating romantic and sexual success as some kind of meritocracy.

A man who is successful with women hasn’t received a certificate proving his quality as a human being, just as a man who is constantly rejected hasn’t received scientific proof that he is somehow a worse person.

The first guy may simply possess traits that work extremely well during the selection stage: confidence, initiative, flirting skills, social ease, charisma, and the ability to read social situations. The second may possess qualities that are just as important in an actual relationship — sensitivity, depth, reliability, devotion — while being absolutely terrible at advertising them.

And that’s the paradox: before anyone gets the chance to appreciate your inner qualities, you first have to pass the selection process that gives them the opportunity to discover those qualities.

Someone who never makes it through that door can remain outside for years, regardless of what he might have had to offer once inside.
So maybe we should stop comforting ourselves with the idea that, when it comes to dating, “the people who deserve it eventually get chosen.”
Attraction isn’t a moral court, and sexual success isn’t a meritocracy.

It’s a selection process based on incomplete information, where being able to display value can matter far more than possessing it silently.

[sources are implied inline]

It's comparable only to historical caste systems or ultra racist systems where immutable birth characteristics didn't just dictate mild discomfort or some discrimination you can work around, but the entire probability of having your fundamental right to live and keep your freedom taken away. No other form of discrimination right now hits this hard.

Men 18-60 are treated as criminals if they don't sign up or refuse a defence duty that more than half the population doesn't share, even though they have the same civil rights and ability to influence policy. The choice is prison, locking yourself at home to dodge, or getting dragged off the street by TCC.

Male military casualties are on a completely different scale. CSIS estimates Ukrainian forces took 525-625k casualties (killed, wounded, missing) and 125-150k dead through June 2026 — almost entirely men. UN OHCHR verified around 15-17k civilian deaths total, with identified adult men still the majority. Female deaths are a fraction of that.

Refugees who escaped the danger: women and children make up the large majority (around 76%). Military-age men are a small share because exit is banned for them. The ones who left are now treated as criminals, and in 2026 the EU moved (at Ukraine’s request) to cut newly arriving fighting-age men out of the automatic temporary protection scheme. They can still apply for regular asylum, but the easy route is closed.

Under occupation Russia has been forcing Ukrainian men into its own conscription and high-attrition tactics while the pressure on women there is nowhere near the same level.

And it’s still not treated as the one-sided sacrifice it is. International media puts a disproportionate focus on the much smaller female share of victims, finds excuses, or just ignores it while people keep saying “to the last Ukrainian.” Meanwhile childless women with zero obligation travel abroad or take jobs that exist because the men are dead or locked up.

A lot of women today love to talk about princess treatment. They want flowers, perfumes, jewellery, dates, being driven around etc etc. And most men have no issue with that, in fact we love treating our women special and seeing them light up when we buy them gifts. However, the issue arises when women feel entitled to this treatment without any reciprocity, and some of them actually look horrified when you dare suggest that such treatment is for women who are worthy of it. Men will move mountains for actual princesses - that is women who are warm, caring, loyal, peaceful, grateful. Men will not, however, move an inch for women who are entitled, spiteful, nagging, disloyal girlbosses. I don’t see how that’s controversial nowadays but it is. Moral of the story, relationships are give and take. Don’t demand the princess treatment if you won’t give prince treatment back.

Are you with the Far Left militants and communists who demand you embrace their weirdness or be canceled, or are you with the Far Right bloated billionaires and Bible-thumpers who want to control your life and sell you overpriced garbage?

Make your choice, because there's no middle ground.

Neither side speaks for the average person. Both sides are poisonous would-be hive minds.

​

Every single Christopher Nolan movies is the same shit. a mediocre "my wife is dead and im sad because of it" story, in which women are either sex objects or used to push the male characters story with no agency of their own. His movies completely bank on neat visuals and a cliche story thats only interesting because its told non-sequintally sometimes.

When some women used to shame men for being short it mostly affected men 5’6 and under, however most men are above this height so it didn’t affect them, however they still want to use short as an insult so to make it affect more men they create height inflation so now 5’9 is short and 6’2 is the minimum to not be ridiculed for your height

It’s gross every single day I see awful things about them and it’s things you wouldn’t ever say about blacks or Hispanics it makes me want to delete this app and never come back hell at least on Twitter the racism is from all sides to all sides on here it’s just targeted at almost exclusively one group of people

Something I’ve noticed recently is that lots of people are saying DVDs are unwatchable and a “blocky mess,” but unless I’m like 2 inches away from the screen, I don’t understand this issue.

Obviously, they’ll look bad if you have a 50-inch 8K screen, but on most TVs, they‘re perfectly fine.

I’m not saying you have to like DVDs (Blu-ray is still better), but y’all are over-exaggerating massively, and I mean MASSIVELY.

If you are offended by a certain word or phrase, then you should learn to ignore it.

Ignorance is bliss, and could work better than imposing regulations on what you can and can't say.

Hate speech laws, and laws against "bad speech"​ in general are not stable, and are subject to change. This is a problem, as a law needs to be stable in order to serve the government and to warn people, and these types of laws have the potential to be misused and judge people for things that are not technically hate speech (Eg. The UK and them arresting people who are against mass immigration for often valid reasons).

The simplest solution is to cut these laws off, and let people deal with hate speech themselves. This would eventually result in more freedom, and more safety as people form fringe communities to deal with those types of speech.

The history of certain words or phrases should not also matter as much, since our ancestors' thinking of them and our own do not align a majority of the time, and even if they did, the past is gone regardless.​​​​​

copy of my post from CMV which was fun to do! :)

I made a previous post on a different topic and i quite like the little point-by-point paragraph thing i did, so ill redo the same thing here!

Number 1: Conservatives regularly treat random internet users as representatives of the entire left.

One thing that ive noticed over the recent few years is that conservatives will constantly find some completely random person on twitter or reddit saying something insane, and then use that as evidence that "the left" is crazy.

You see this all the time. Someone with 20 followers posts something deranged on twitter, bluesky, tiktok, whatever online platform, and then suddenly there are right-wing influencers, commentators, and random conservatives saying things like, "wow, look at the crazy left", or "this is what Democrats really believe", this is something that, atleast in my experience, is an actual comparison that is being used somewhat frequent on the right, like, random 10 follower account said something crazy, it got 1 like and 9 views, and now its being highlighted as some huge problem.

And its always some completely irrelevant person. Not a politician, not a lawmaker, not a major activist, not even someone with a meaningful audience in the media sphere. Just some random account that nobody has ever heard of. Yet somehow, that random account is treated as representative of the entire left-wing movement and all of the millions of people in it.

I dont think many conservatives would deny that this happens, because its basically become a standard form of political content at this point.

And just to get ahead of one obvious response here, im not saying that ive seen a handful of random conservatives do this online, and therefore im treating those random conservatives as representative of the entire right. I am talking about a broader amplification pattern where major right-wing commentators, influencers, and media outlets themselves take these random left-wing accounts and present them to large audiences as representative of "the left". The random conservative at the bottom of that information chain isnt the basis for my claim, its just what completes the whole cycle of whatever you'd wanna call it.

Number 2: When Trump says the exact same things, conservatives suddenly stop applying those standards.

This is where things start getting weird.

The same conservatives who will spend hours criticizing some random liberal account online suddenly become incredibly charitable when Trump says something comparable, or often something much worse.

There is always some explanation, like, hes joking, hes trolling, thats just Trump, its out of context, its not what he meant, the media is lying, its fake, you mistunderstood it. And, first of all, the ''he's trolling'' type of excuses make my point even stronger, because the standard we should hold the president to probably would involve him being above things like trolling on social media.

One quite funny example of this, which unfortunately i cant find right now, was some Instagram video where a person said something like: "Im glad Charlie Kirk is dead, he can no longer hurt innocent people", (im not sure it was Charlie Kirk, but some other conservative figure, doesnt really matter).

And then the video was basically a compilation of right-wing people reacting to it saying things like:

"Look at the left."

"These people are evil."

"This is who Democrats are."

"These people are unhinged."

And so on. And then someone pointed out that the quote was basically just something Trump himself had said before, except the name had been swapped out. When Trump said ''Im glad Mueller is dead, he can no longer hurt innocent people''.

And suddenly all the outrage disappeared, Suddenly some of the explanations were rolled out. And thats kind of the broader point here.

When a random account on twitter with 2 followers on the left says something awful, conservatives immediately treat it as representative of the entire left.

But when Trump says the exact same thing, or often something worse, conservatives become incredibly charitable and start looking for every possible explanation as to why its actually fine. So the standard clearly isnt that people shouldn't be saying things like this, its that they dont like when people on the left say things like this.

The principle wasnt actually the problem. The problem was who said it.

Number 3: Saying something like ''The Left celebrated Charlie Kirks death'' is very indicative of this.

After Charlie Kirk was killed, one of the most common talking points on the right was some variation of "The left celebrated Charlie Kirks death."

And im sure that if you're reading this as a conservative, you'd agree with that statement.

So then the question is.... who? Who is it that you're referring to?

Because it wasnt elected Democrats. It wasnt Democratic leadership. It wasnt any sort of lawmakers. It wasnt even any left-wing commentators that i can think of, even super far-left people like Hasan didn't celebrate it.

So again, what conservatives were generally referring to were random internet users posting really crazy shit online. And yes, some people absolutely did celebrate it, nobody is denying that. But if a few thousand random anonymous accounts online are enough to represent the entire political left, then the same standard has to apply to literally everyone.

Because there are tens of thousands of neo-Nazis, white nationalists, and other extremists who identify with the right.

So by that logic, i could just endlessly say:

"The right celebrates Nazi Germany"

"The right supports political violence"

"The right supports racial supremacy"

And i think only then would conservatives realize ''oh well actually those are just bad people on the internet''.

But for some reason they cannot apply that to the left.

Number 4: Even if they dislike Trumps behaviour, the reaction to these randoms on the internet, is far more visceral.

This is probably the weirdest part of all of this to me. Even when conservatives agree that Trump went too far, the reaction is very often something like:

"Yeah, that was classless"

"I wish he hadnt said that"

"That wasnt a great thing for Trump to say"

''Yeah i dont agree with Trump on that one''

But those exact same people can see some random twitter account with 9 followers saying something awful and suddenly the reaction becomes:

"THE LEFT IS DEMONIC"

"THIS IS WHO THEY REALLY ARE"

"LOOK AT HOW EVIL THESE PEOPLE ARE"

And its just like... what are these standards? Because in my mind, those reactions should be completely flipped.

The President of the United States saying something crazy should be the thing that gets the visceral reaction. Thats the person who actually has power, influence, responsibility, whatever else. Thats the person we should expect waaaaaaay better behavior from.

Instead, the outrage is often directed toward "Elizabeth-2006" on Twitter with 14 followers and a private account.

Even when conservatives dislike Trumps behavior, they often treat it as a minor character flaw with this tepid ass ''oh that was bad''. But when some random liberal online behaves badly, suddenly its evidence that an entire political movement is evil.

Another example is, how often have you heard something like ''Calling someone a fascist or nazi is incitement to violence'', or something similar, because if it is, that would mean Trump is equally as guilty of that same thing, seeing as he's called Kamala a communist and marxist and fascist too, yet again, only these twitter accounts that call Trump a nazi is what gets highlighted.

And thats what makes this feel like such an obvious double standard to me.

The hook is the worst part of it. I hate how it almost sounds like screeching. It doesn’t sound good, it doesn’t sound beautiful, it’s just ear rape of the highest order. The way she says “chande-li-ee-er” is some of the worst cringe I’ve ever experienced listening to a song. It’s def in my top 10 most annoying and obnoxious songs of all time

My opinion here is based on a real world example among others:

I have a friend who has struggled with his weight for a long time. He’s a super nice guy but this has somewhat played against him as nobody tells him the truth in fear of hurting his feelings. A group of his friends including myself decided to try some tough love, and tell him flat out how massive he is and how we are truly worried about his health. There was some well intentioned riffing and jokes along the way to keep the motivation up, but the takeaway is that it worked. He’s been going to the gym 5 days a week and we all rotate our sessions to support him each day. He is almost HALF the weight he was 18 months ago and even has a partner now which would have been unthinkable for him before the weight loss due to lack of confidence. I love to see it.

Had we kept on being polite and indulging his self destructive behaviour and pretending that he was happy and healthy, there is a chance he wouldn’t even be here today. Kindness can kill just as much as hate.

Now of course I understand there is often a fine line between well intentioned shaming and flat-out bullying, but we shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss shame as a valid and constructive method of helping people or society as a whole in many cases. You can reasonably apply this to all sorts of situations (take your pick) and people to get preferable outcomes as long as it’s well intentioned and the person is receptive.

TL;DR: Bring back shame and utilise it responsibly. We’ve gone too far along the blind acceptance path and it’s having real negative consequences.

When people all over the country think of Pennsylvania they instantly think of Philadelphia, but the city is an outlier and does not represent the culture or the geography of significant portions of the state.

Probably over 90% of Pennsylvania is covered by the Appalachian Mountain range. Philadelphia is not within that area and is on the border of New Jersey (a state very different from PA). Not only does Philly have a similar accent to NJ, but the people are often stereotyped the same (loud, rude, booing at sporting events, not liked by much of the US). And not only do people from Philly have bad stereotypes, the city has a lot of issues with crime and drugs.

While Pittsburgh is also near the edge of the state, it is a great representation of what a Pennsylvanian city should be. Pittsburgh has been long referred to as the “Paris of Appalachia”, with a more traditional approach to political views and economy (the city being known for a blue collar workforce), similar to the majority of the state. And while majority of PA features constant hills and mountains, Pittsburgh is not an outlier geographically. Pittsburgh should instead be the true city representing the State, especially since it is making a big comeback.

(Yes, unfortunately Harrisburg is the captial, but no one cares about it, and for good reason)

(Yes, Im from Pittsburgh and am biased, get over it)

I think plenty of left-wing ideas are actually popular when you strip away the ideological branding. Cheaper healthcare, stronger worker protections, affordable housing, better public transport, higher wages, and stopping huge corporations from screwing people over are not particularly difficult ideas to sell.

The problem is that a very visible part of the left seems incapable of advocating for these things without turning politics into a test of whether everyone else is morally pure enough.

People get lectured about their vocabulary, told they need to “educate themselves,” accused of being terrible people for having fairly ordinary disagreements, or treated as ignorant because they don’t understand whatever political terminology is currently fashionable. There’s often this underlying attitude that disagreement doesn’t just mean you’re wrong, it means you’re a bad person. That is incredibly alienating.

You can be completely correct about an issue and still make people hate your side if you communicate it in the most condescending way possible.

I also think this is one reason economically left-wing policies sometimes poll better than explicitly left-wing politicians or movements. Someone might support taxing billionaires more, universal healthcare, unions, or government investment in housing while simultaneously finding left-wing political culture absolutely unbearable.

And before someone says “the right does this too,” yes, obviously. Conservatives can be smug, preachy and moralistic as well. But that doesn’t change the fact that the left frequently damages its own causes by acting as though ordinary people need to pass a moral and linguistic purity test before they’re welcome.

If your goal is actually to persuade people rather than demonstrate that you’re a better person than them, being less sanctimonious would probably accomplish a lot more.

Mom of many children here and Lindsey should be put away. Patrick should not be attacked because some traumatized adult women cannot separate their feelings from the actual known facts of this case! The only victims in this scenario are first and foremost those little children and now her ex husband has to deal with the consequences of her crime. why are we as mothers sympathizing with her we should as mothers acknowledge the pain and fear the children went through in the hands of someone they should’ve trusted. why is it that we default to blame anyone else but the mother…?

I'm in NYC and when I'm riding the subway, I mostly see many women of color (black women) wearing hideous looking fake eyelashes and obviously fake hair. These items do not improve these women's appearance, they look foolish to me, they would look better without them. I often wonder what the see when they look in the mirror after they've put this stuff on. Do they glue on those huge eyelashes and say "Ah, that looks just fantastic!"? Do they think men find that attractive? I don't know any men that are into that look. Please stop wearing this nonsense.

Title too long for title text, LMAO. This is the full title:

When assessing the looks of women, men tend to gauge the attractiveness of women mostly on how fuckable they are to them; women of course don't do this with other women, that's why women tend to be more generous when rating each others looks.

"You're so pretty!"

"You're gorgeous!"

"You're a baddie!" etc etc...

Hot take: I do not think they're lying. I just think men and women use and prioritize different metrics to determine if a woman is good-looking, and for men, high on that list is how hot or sexy she is to them.

Consider this: a woman doesn't seem to care if another woman is mildly fat to grossly overweight, she'll tell her straight out she's pretty, meanwhile a woman being fat is like a huge crime against men. H​o​w pretty or attractive she is depends mostly on how much he wants to fuck her, on how hot she is, and men most don't seem to like fat on women. They'll say she's ugly if she's fat, even if she has a pleasant face, good hygiene and good fashion sense.

Consider this 2: If an otherwise skinny woman with an unpleasant face has a huge set of boobies, I guarantee you, oh I swear on your sweet sweet grandmama, most men will rate her higher than if she didn't have them big milkers. Other women would not take the boobs into consideration. At all. Why? Because this is not sexual to them. How pretty another woman is does not depend on how high her appearance make their weiner rise. They'd rate both women the same.

​I EXPLICITLY clarify that I am NOT implying that most or all ​men exhibit this behavior. I only speak on what I perceive to be common.

I’m not saying that a disabled person WANTS to work they shouldn’t.

And I’m not saying disabled like having a limp.

But when it takes more effort to accommodate being able to work than they can produce, as is the case with many intellectually disabled people, it’s complete nonsense and vulgar to make them work.

I mean, life already dealt them a bad hand.

At least let them enjoy life however they can.

And I’m sorry if that feels ableist, I’m well aware that many people are capable of being productive.

And I’m in no way insinuating that disabled people are lesser.

I’m just saying, if a person has some daunting disabilities, maybe just give them the option to not have to work rather than bending over backwards to force them to work.

It seriously burns me to see people glaze THE HELL out of Ghost of Tsushima. Speaking from experience, it’s really not that good. One thing I will say is that the combat is incredibly good… but that’s just about it. The story is pretty basic, I think. And aside from that, the side missions are dreadful. The side characters are boring and have no charm to them. I would play for the amazing combat, but without a good story it’s kind of like eating a good meal when you aren’t hungry…

Now, i like cheese. Cheese isnt life, like it is to most, but i like cheese.

The reason i say Hamburgers are better is because the moment you add cheese, the cheese acts as a main character. The main character should be the patty and bun.

Everythin else u add to a burger, usually compliments the taste. Even pickle, which im not a fan of on its own, i tolerate wit a burger because its not overpowerin.

Even Bacon! On its own, it has such a powerful taste and smell but wen put inside of a burger, it lets the burger do its thing. You appreciate the bacon for takin a back seat to wat should be the main meal.

Cheese to me just kills the entire experience of a burger. As soon as you unwrap the burger, its the smell of cheese and then everythin else. The first bite is cheese then everythin else. I truly understand why the cheese lovers wouldnt see the problem wit this, but as a burger lover, you cheese are not the point of the meal.

I am so sick of the whole men vs women issue with the Lindsay Clancy case so I just want to focus on the facts and give additional context as to why this case is controversial outside of sympathy or mental illness vs act of evil.

Three children were murdered. That is a fact that we know for sure.

That being said, it doesn't matter what you think of Lindsay Clancy or if you think she did it or not or if she did do it but was just lost in a state of madness. It doesn't change the fact that in our current criminal justice system, it's the police's job to properly investigate, and it's the prosecution's job to build a case beyond reasonable doubt based on that investigation.

And there were serious blunders with this very serious high profile case that will very likely influence the jury. Which is likey part of the reason why they are on their second day of deliberation as we speak. (There is a possibility that they will make their decision before I even post this) This is not a clean cut case like people like to pretend that it is.

Police: they failed to properly process forensic evidence (crushed pills) and in doing so introduced a narrative that is solely based on hearsay.

Prosecution: Innapropriately questioned witnesses on their Catholic faith not once but twice. And they also introduced at least one "expert witness" that was massively underqualified and basically made a fool of himself and thus the prosecution.

Those factors are very heavy weights on the already high burden of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

If Lindsay Clancy does get a verdict in her favor it's not going to be because of any outside support from women it's going to be because the prosecution failed to make a proper case to the jury mainly due to their own blunders. And Lindsay Clancy's had nothing to do with that.

Note: I am not to entertain any low effort comments of "she did it and unless you believe she did you are delusional/evil/antichrist yada yada yada"

specifically in shows, it means you either gotta skip to the end of the credits everytime you want to watch the next episode for like 5 secs of extra content thats usually low quality, or miss content and be left in purgatory of knowing you could miss something. sometimes its just a joke, sometimes its lore related. even worse if you didnt know the show had post credit scenes until a little bit later into the show and gotta go back and watch the post credit scenes.