Everyone on Reddit loves the romantic idea of a revolution. intellectuals writing manifestos, students protesting, politicians giving speeches, artists making propaganda, etc. Cool. But when things actually get difficult, somebody has to be willing to take the risks.
Historically, young men have disproportionately filled that role because they’re generally the people most willing and able to endure physical danger, hardship, uncertainty, and sacrifice. You can have 10 million people who agree with your movement. If none of them are willing to put anything on the line, you don’t have a revolution. You have a very passionate Facebook group.
And no, this isn’t saying women, older people, or civilians are irrelevant. It’s saying that movements which completely alienate or dismiss young men are eventually going to discover that you can’t replace commitment and courage with hashtags.
The uncomfortable question isn’t “Who has the best ideology?” It’s “Who is actually willing to sacrifice for it?”That’s where revolutions are won or lost.

Liberals will perm ban, downvote, and cancel all conservative ideas and politics postings and Redditors if they disagree with you. Then they will attack you personally.

Conservatives openly welcome other ideas even if they disagree with. They will challenge the liberal Redditor's ideas, acknowledge any decent points they make, but respectfully disagree where they find differences.

I’m not saying simply on their second offense, or even third.

But if a defendant is repeatedly being let off, and reoffending, there should be a point at which, if a judge lets them off again, the judge who let them off should be held liable.

Because there’s a certain point where it is obvious that a person is simply too dangerous to be allowed to wonder society. Doesn’t matter if they’re legitimately insane, or simply an evil human being, once they have proven this, it’s the justice system’s job to handle them.

I’m not saying they should just default to life in prison, but if not a prison sentence, restrain them in a mental institution.

And once they have crossed said line, and a judge decides to go easy on them again, then that judge has proven they do not have the safety of the public in mind, and should not be a judge anymore.

Again, I’m not saying the judge should be arrested, but at minimum, they should lose their status as a judge. Possibly even lose their license to practice law altogether.

Restaurants should stop treating their posted closing time like the time the employees are supposed to be completely finished with everything. If a restaurant closes at 10, the doors should close at 10, but the employees should be scheduled and paid until 11, or at least 10:30, to close the kitchen, finish paperwork, restock, and actually leave without having to sprint around like lunatics. This would solve one of the most annoying things about dining/working at restaurants: the 30–60 minutes before closing where employees are visibly rushing to clean, turn things off, stack chairs, or make customers feel like they’re committing a crime by still being there.

I used to work in a pizzeria, and I would’ve gladly stayed an extra hour and gotten paid if it meant we could actually close up during that time instead of constantly scrambling to close at 10 and causing chaos every single night. If I could take that stress back, I would. And with the current system, restaurants will inevitably end up having employees work extra unpaid minutes anyway, which can add up to several hours over the course of weeks and months. We wound up staying until 10:30 or even 10:45 sometimes when we were backed up. I’d much rather have a system where that hour is officially scheduled, paid, and expected instead of pretending everyone is going to magically have the entire restaurant spotless at exactly 10.

It also makes financial sense. You’re giving employees another paid hour, you’re eliminating a huge amount of unnecessary stress, and you’re potentially getting more customers because people know they can actually walk into a restaurant at 9:30 without being treated like an inconvenience.

It seems like a pretty obvious solution to a problem restaurants have somehow decided is just normal.

I have ran into so many men who are completely unaware of female anatomy. barring the whole "men cant find the clit" jokes, theres also the amount of men ive met who dont understand how periods work, the reproductive system, or even what the urethra is.

and every time this gets brought up, the argument becomes "they didnt teach us in school!!", but im sorry, do you lack any curiosity? do you lose the ability to retain more information after you graduate high-school? have you seriously never thought "maybe i should Google this"?

HIV was originally an animal virus that made the leap to humans, at about the same time that gain of function research was really taking off, during the arms race with Russia. At the time that the epidemic first started, a LOT of people were saying this, especially in the community where the disease was prevalent. It was commonly believed that AIDS was created specifically to kill that specific group of people. At the time frankly, this is what everyone who smoked pot or was involved in any kind of counter-culture activities (protesting wars or corporate pollution) adamantly believed, and while rarely published, it WAS in fact a very widely held unpopular opinion at the time. If you didn’t think that the government created AIDS in the 1980’s you would get labeled as a “tool” or a “square”.

Back then there was no social media, and very little alternative media except for the occasional call in radio show where it could be discussed. Anyone who tried to actually PUBLISH this opinion would be radically censored, and attacked by the media and “experts”, even though at the time, supposedly nobody really knew where it came from or what was causing it. It’s worth mentioning that the director of the NIH at the time was Anthony Fauci, who just pled the 5th about Coronavirus more than 100 times. It’s interesting that he was in the position that he was for as long as he was, and that these pandemics both occurred during that time.

It’s also interesting that Obama banned gain of function research in 2014. In order for it to be important enough for a president to ban it, it must have been happening. Right? If there were no gain of function research occurring, why would Obama bother to ban it? Love him or hate him, agree with his policies or not, I don’t think that Obama was typically just writing executive orders with no purpose. Please don’t make this political I didn’t come to debate other domestic policies or politics.

I REALIZE that there have been dozens of studies saying that this isn’t how AIDS jumped to humans from chimps, and I’m not a virologist or expert in these things, just a paranoid old pothead. The problem is, it seems to me that these “experts” say whatever they get paid to say. So while I’m open to hear your opinion if you disagree with me, it’s not going to change my mind by showing me published papers from the “experts” that say something to the contrary. The “experts” have proven themselves to be tools. And while I really like Tool, I don’t like tools, if you get my drift. Or “dig” as we said in the 1980’s.

Came across a TikTok video of a woman with a weird looking face obviously caused by some disorder. It's obvious that this woman isnt attractive like at all even by societal standards and this woman knows she looks unfortunate looking. Its just weird seeing people say she's pretty when deep down she knows she's not. Its actually quite insulting cause its obvious they are only saying that to be nice. Now im not saying call her names cause thats unnecessary but no need to actively lie about ones looks to their face.

So first of all to address far right i am not stating in any way of form that ultranationalism is harmless. Far from that. It can produce racism, ethnic persecution, authoritarianism and political violence.

The point is that there is a particular kind and sharply growing far-left politics that takes the language of universal human rights and then just abandons those principles when social media flavour of the month arrives. If people committing the violence are considered part of an oppressed group - the green light is on. October hamas attack wiping out 1200 souls in a day is considered resistance by the same people who couldn't even find Israel on the map two weeks before. And for the one a bit less washed - you can believe Israel has committed serious crimes through recent history and still regard the deliberate killing of Israeli civilians as morally indefensible. Those positions ARE NOT contradictory. Israeli civilian is not a legitimate mass killing target because of historical israeli government oppression. If you abandon this principle, you abandon human rights principle and you're not left leaning human, you're just terrorism supporter.

And, of course, it doesn't end here. Far left anti-western sentiment grows everyday. RegimeS that oppose western imperialism are praised and criticism of regimes are, surprise.. just western propaganda. Such statements usually lead to apologism to historical regimes like soviets, maoists, stalin's regime, north korea, assad's Syria of current regimes like iran or Russia. ​and the underlying problem is always the same - ideological relativism: liberal democracy is judged by its failures while authoritarian regimes are always judged only by their stated intentions, leaving all the atrocities behind, incompatible with any kind of universal human rights they strive so hard to align with.

I'm not religious in the slightest so I'm not huge into the God-based arguments. Also even when he's not arguing religion he still doesn't usually make good ​points. Regardless he's still fun to watch. How he manages to get some of the guests to come in his show, I have no idea, but it's amazing that people agree to do it.

I still haven't even figured out if he's just trolling or not.

It sounds so ridiculous and insane I fail to see why anyone would think this is a good idea. Like why tf would anyone want to let out a bunch of rapists murderers and pedophiles to go victimize people. I agree that the prison system should focus more on rehabilitation. I also agree that we need to end the war on drugs and give those suffering with addiction treatment resources rather than sending them to prison. But prisons serve a purpose, They keep violent people away from the general public so we can live in a safe society. Prison shouldn’t be to punish criminals, it should be used to prevent them from victimizing more people and potentially to rehabilitate criminals if possible. We can make prisons be luxurious like 5 star hotels for all I care as long as these people aren’t on the streets harming people. But we need prisons and the idea that they shouldn’t exist is very extreme and out there for me.

a few days ago, in response to the news that bruce campbell has a current life expectancy of 5 more years, i posted on the mark my words subreddit and predicted that his death will be treated with the same gravatas as dolly parton's death is now. most of the comments were extremely sarcastic.

frankly, i refuse to believe that so few people would be upset about campbell's death. campbell is an icon. he's the man who brought ash williams to life. aside from that, he's been in many beloved projects. plus, he's an absolute nerd icon. he's been a regular at conventions for years with convention goers paying good money just for the chance to be in his presence. he's also just a really nice guy.

i know it's typical to talk about how celebrities don't care about us so we shouldn't give a shit when they die. however, i will care when bruce campbell dies. and i refuse to believe that i'll be the only one.

and i know someone in the comments is gonna mock me for heaping so much praise onto someone who doesn't even know who i am. well, i'll have you know that i met him at galaxycon last year. so, he actually DOES know who i am. HA!

Anyone who doesn't agree, has not lived in an apartment complex where irresponsible parents and pet owners live. Spend a few years of hearing constant barking from hair-trigger dogs. Screeching children all collectively outside and causing problems that hold up other services of the apartment from getting to you.

And all that you'll tell us is "well, move elsewhere and find places where families are more friendlier and pets are more tamed!". That's not a solution, that's detouring the problem. People, particularly single individuals, should be allowed to have their peace and we shouldn't have to wait until we're seniors to earn that privilege.

Because everyone deserves that. Nobody should have to deal with any barking or noisy children at like, oh, midnight hours into the morning.

There's nothing discriminating about it either because there's thousands and thousands of apartment complexes that all accept children, because they aren't legally allowed to bar them because of some stupid act that says so. I don't see the problem of specialized units where people who prioritize private, peaceful and solitary living to have their space. All of you families already have the rest of the buildings.

To the trolls; grow the fuck up.

As mean as it sounds it doesn't make sense that those that are not obligated to protect and die for a country get the same rights as those that are obligated to. Ukraine comes to mind.

I don't get how even after the war it makes sense that the people that fled and had no obligation to stay will come back and have the same rights as those that were forced to stay (given they actually remain Ukraine after all this)

I have seen every single episode of both shows, and I can say that South Park, ever since the pandemic specials, has just become poorly written and insanely lazy, most of the episodes dont even focus on the main characters anymore, instead it became about Randy and his weed farm and **HE WHO SHALL NOT BE NAMED**

And they frequently repeat the same joke of "Yeah we know South Park sucks now... anyways here's 5 more episodes of **HE WHO SHALL NOT BE NAMED**"

Like imagine the amount of hate Family Guy would have gotten if it devoted 2 seasons in a row to making the same 5 jokes about **HE WHO SHALL NOT BE NAMED**

Family Guy at least knows what it is, and it at least focuses on our main characters instead of having **HE WHO SHALL NOT BE NAMED** as a main character

How tf did South Park win an Emmy over Smiling Friends, Rick and Morty, and Bob's Burgers?

most people have heard the “brush teeth twice a day for two minutes,” or something similar, but i feel as though the majority of people (largely the US, where i’m from) overlook how important brushing their teeth is and only focus on cosmetics. e.g. bright, white teeth that are perfectly shaped, not crooked, etc.
if your teeth have disease or infection, your health is screwed in my opinion cause your oral health determines the health of the rest of your body.

i am also often surprised to hear how many people have had cavities in their youths (excluding things like a genetic condition, etc. or poor dental care access—those are a different issue). but so much talk on rather things like braces, invisalign, etc. and being scared to go to the dentist.

tldr: more people should be discussing oral health as much as they discuss skincare, hair care, general physical health, etc. maybe even more so than them.

The s’mores flavor is superior and I feel like the only reason people like the strawberry is because it’s like the basic flavor that people tend to keep in their home or it’s the first flavor most people try and then they just never branch out I personally never have liked it tho all fruity desserts taste funky to me

It's such a common news story, people complaining about the cost of gas. No matter who is involved, it seems like a quarter of every news article is about consumer fuel costs at the pump.

Look, this is NOT political, it has been like this for many many decades; on AVERAGE a gasoline-powered American car uses about $1400-$1500 in a full -year- of gas. That's actually pretty damn inexpensive globally speaking. Yet media/people freak the hell out about gas prices fluctuating. Prices at the pump spiking or dipping affects the average American by maaaaybe a couple hundred bucks annually.

But comparatively, again, on AVERAGE the US spends about $15,000 on healthcare per person (compared to an average of about $6000 annually per person in other developed countries).

The average American household spends about $26,000 annually on housing. This should be like twenty times more common of a news story.

No matter who is in office, if we really cared about the bottom line financial impact on average people, gas costs are like 8th to 10th place in our budgets, after a long list of shit nobody freaks out nearly enough about.

But somehow we've turned the giant numbers on gas station signs into a fucking scoreboard. Price goes up, one group of people points at it. Price goes down, another group points at it. Everyone waits for the number to move so they can declare that it proves whatever they already believed.

After decades and decades and decades, I'm just so tired of daily media freakouts about gas prices fluctuating, no matter who caused it on what party.

It's like indexing consumer spending on the cost of movie tickets. There are so many bigger issues.

EDITS: I get that the cost of oil matters for global transportation, that's not really what I'm talking about, I'm specifically talking about news stories with people complaining as they fill up their car. I do appreciate the thoughtful initial posts on the price of oil for various industries.

(Also, personally, I'm far left wing, don't assume)

The new space force uniforms that were recently released are absolute bangers. They are sharp, refined and modern/futuristic looking. Exactly what you want in a military uniform. Because they are basically a remote/office branch of the military there is no reason that they shouldn't elevate fashion sense above all else.

When I imagine a space force this is exactly what I picture. Some simpletons might complain "oh they look like the bad guys" from some space adventure movie. But that is fine. Seriously, who cares. The bad guys normally have impeccable fashion sense. The "rebels" normally look like trash. Do you really want your military looking like it had its uniforms designed by John Fetterman?

And of course it is going to have a black motif, it is the space force. What were they supposed to be? Cyan?. Black is the color of space.

Finally, if you object to them looking "evil", shouldn't we reclaim that look? They are amazing.

Gender equality isn't like a team sport where you must make the opponents lose to win.

"Not all men, but always a man" is stupid, so is claiming that males are actually the oppressed gender.

Feminism should not marginalise economically disadvantaged, gender non-comforming, POC, or SOGI minority men, because they're also oppressed by the same patriarchical system. Feminism is about liberating women, men and other people alike, from oppressive social norms and rigid "scripts" of how things should work, removing obstacles from living a freer life, not "retaliating" against males. I have seen some self-proclaimed "radical feminists" bad-mouthing marginalised males, in the exact same way the patriarchy oppresses them. It's not resisting the patriarchy, it's reproducing it.

Feminism should recruit more male allies, not alienate them.

The "anti-feminism" side is also stupid I don't want to elaborate even. They see the most extremist of terminally online "radical feminists" (I don't consider them radical feminists, I consider them cultural feminists which is a conservative current in feminism) and say something along the lines of "hey see, feminists are unhinged", while the vast majority of real feminists are nothing like these "team sport minded" ones.

We want the norms, scripts, and "rulers" (measuring a human's worth) gone, not men gone...

Edit: Males are privileged as a sex-class, but this class is not the only axis of oppression ("women are the oppressed, males are the oppressors, end of story"), and not immutable. Targeting all males, including those who are already marginalised by the same patriarchy precisely because they deviate from its expectations (like, being feminine, submissive, SOGI...), does no good to feminism.

Now do I think all of gay culture sexist? No. But I've noticed it can act pretty sexist and in this example it has to with how it rationalizes the popularity of more libertine lifestyles among same sex attracted men. It essentially believes that it's popularity is a byproduct of them being men and that men are inherently bound to be more sexualy libertine and that is not in the nature of men to engage in committed monogamous relationships.

It also believes that is the women who are the ones who are inherently romantic. It assumes that there is an apparent nature of both men and women that makes it that only the woman ensures that the man doesn't enter more libertine lifestyles. How is this not a sexist generalization of both men and women? not only that but it also feels like a way to dodge acknowledging how much the popularity of these lifestyles are a byproduct of culture more than anything. I have also seen people say that the popularity is also a byproduct of oppression but not only do I find that speculatory given the limited visibility but I also find it hard to believe that someone who values a committed monogamous relationship would Resort to something so anti thetical to that this also feels like a away to dodge acknowledging how much the sexual revolution and urban libertine subcultures from the 60s and 70s influenced gay culture.

People are more than their sex humans are complex creatures a person is not bound to act certain way just because of what is in their pants. For something that is considered progressive this is essentially just woke sexism.

Even if you post something informative, funny, important, ect... if there is a smidge of AI in your post than you'll just a bunch of "AI SLOP" comments and it invalidates your entire post regardless what it is. Worse of all is that people now lump video editing and photoshop into it. So even if you take the time and create a flyer using any sort of design website, it gets called AI because you didn't draw it yourself I guess?

In principle we all agree that it's good to ensure a space is reserved for Accessible parking. Currently it seems everywhere needs 4 or 5 of them and they're always empty. It's also the case that a lot can become Accessible parking only parking if it's filled up. I think in the event the lots full it should be okay to use that parking space, because everyone's being equally denied access due to capacity. Provided there's not some condition where it's one space at the top of a hill or something. Which could be labeled as 'hard' accessible only reserved.

There ought to be tiered levels of reservation. Give them one hard one and the rest are fair game if there's another one open(might conflict with my full lot rule). I don't know exactly. They don't need all the spaces all the time.

“A study of people below the age of 30 on September 11, 2001, who had considerable exposure to the air at Ground Zero found that 20.1 percent had developed cancer by July 2021. “Many of the cancers documented in this cohort,” the authors wrote, “are relatively rare in the general population and especially in younger age groups.”

After the attack, government officials were eager to get the city back to work. “Given the scope of the tragedy from last week, I am glad to reassure the people of New York and Washington, D.C., that their air is safe to breathe and their water is safe to drink,” EPA administrator Christine Todd Whitman said just a week after the attack. New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani largely echoed that sentiment while urging rescue and recovery workers to wear masks. In the 25 years that have passed, it is clear that the decisions made to return the city to normal as quickly as possible have had the opposite impact, prolonging the tragedy of September 11 for many of us.”

Excerpt From
“The other victims of 9/11”
Lukas I. Alpert
New York Magazine