Any posts criticizing men is quickly removed. Meanwhile there’s at least 5 women hating vent posts on the front page. They allow politics when it’s shitting on women.

If u were to say this about any other group it would be considered derogatory.

Eg. Not all blacks but always a black person

First, the last thing I want this to devolve into is gender war slop. This applies equally to men and women.

If you find there are no hot, smart, ambitious, etc. people where you are... you have to ask why you are there. No Columbia law student is at a loss for brilliant, ambitious potential partners. No dedicated gym rat is struggling to meet physically attractive peers. Your city isn't lacking hot people. You just don't know them.

Now, I understand up until 18 you don't have a control over this. Fair. But after that... it is up to you to get out. You can't complain about the lazy townies if you are also a townie.

EDIT: Seems to be a lot of confusion about what I am saying. This poster summed it up perfectly

"They are very clearly just talking about actually finding the kind of person you want to date, not actually getting to date them. This post is for the people out there claiming "there are no good men/women anymore."

Kindoff obvious but i dont see that many people talking about it.. But the united states rlly need to focus on what they need rather than what some out dated book tells them what they should do

I'm fairly traditional. Not everyone will see things my way and that's fine. For myself I live by a pretty important set of rules regarding women.

Be gentle. Be respectful. Listen to what they say. Let what they say give me pause and think. Don't restructure my entire life around bending over backwards for them.

Yes, if it's within my power to not make a woman uncomfortable with a small gesture that doesn't inconvenience me too much? Why not be a good person and do it.

No, if the inconvenience is too high, I won't. My life does not revolve around making women (or men) comfortable.

Women should have a reasonable expectation of safety in our society. Not attacked, harassed, and the like. No, society does not owe them the absolute feeling of safety in public spaces.

Example. I'm walking down a road. It's evening. A woman is walking in front of me. Do I go to the other side of the street? Maybe I do. Maybe I don't. My life does not revolve around making this woman comfortable. I weigh my inconvenience against discomfort. Maybe I do sometimes if I have energy left at the end of the day to care. Maybe I don't if I don't. Will she go and talk about 'the creepy guy who stalked her'? Maybe. I will never see her again. What do I care.

I listen to women. In person and online. If there's small adjustments I can make, I make them. If there's demands for big adjustments, I consider and don't always make them. That's life.

Same for dating (for you unmarried dudes that are afraid to approach). Some women online say 'don't approach, she's trying to have a good time'. Some women say 'a respectful approach is fine'. I fall in the latter camp. Approach. If she gives a no, back the fuck off. If she goes home and tells a story about 'the creepy guy who approached' what do you care? You're not going to see her again. Any women who say 'don't approach' ignore. You're looking for a partner and your entire life does not revolve around making women the most comfortable they can possibly be. A respectful approach with a 'back the fuck off' on a rejection is acceptable.

Life is discomfort.

In our cursed dating age people like to weigh their options, and this is their way to keep you on the bench. Every serious relationship I’ve had got physical within a month or less. Don’t jump through hoops for randos.

So many people think it isnt??? like it pisses me off SO much if a women hits me back im gonna hit her back,. Also this saying is implying women are too weak to make their own decisions/protect themselves. (also i think it isso dumb we arnt taught we shouldnt hit no one for no reason). i didnt mean men should be able to abuse women btw yall are getting the wrong message

They’ll say “men and women are equals with equal capabilities, except men have considerable physical advantages”

And then turn around and claim that that’s not the same thing as thinking men are superior

But think about it. If two things are equal, except one is better in a broad area, then those two things aren’t equal.

You will never overcome patriarchy and misogyny with this view intact.

I am apart of Gen Z myself and I whole heartedly believe that our generation is full of snowflakes. For context I am a female who is a democrat, as well as a bisexual person. The only reason I'm putting that on here is because I don't want people to read this and automatically assume I'm some asshole who's in their 40's coming to shit on gen z, feminists, and the lgbtqia+.

Anyways, in this day and age our generation gets labeled as "snowflakes" a lot. When I first heard this term I didn't understand it, and thought it was just old people talking out of their ass. But now that I've taken a step back to look at our generation as a whole, they're right. We get too offended way too easily. It's so normalized for us to say "You're doing that because I'm of my gender." and "You're doing that because I'm [insert race]" or "You're homophobic." It's so common to see people using their gender, sexual identity and/or their race as leverage to prove a point. Like, no the store clerk isn't asking you to leave because they're homophobic, they're asking you to leave because you just shoved shit in your pocket.

With the sexism thing, yes misogyny is real and I have experienced it firsthand. But just because women have experienced sexism, doesn't mean that it makes it right for us to be sexist towards men. I've heard so many of my friends and other women say "Women are better than men." Which is so stupid, because those same people identify as feminists. Which, being a feminist means you believe all genders are equal. Just because you've encountered a man who is a piece of shit, doesn't mean all men are pieces of shit. Personally, I have recognized that one person or one group doesn't represent all people of that category and I think everybody in the world should live like that or else we're going to end up having more stereotypes than we do people.

Same thing for racism. People care way too much about their race nowadays. I think it's stupid to let your race identify you. Okay, you're Asian? You're also an artist, a dad, a husband, being Asian has nothing to do with who you are. I believe it's the same for African American people, Hispanic people, and any other race. You shouldn't identify yourself with your race, you should identify yourself with what kind of person you are and how you treat others.

All of that to say, I think as a whole we should all chill out a bit. Instead of viewing everything as some motivated passive aggressive comment that has something to do with whats in our pants, the color of our skin, or who we're attracted to, we should look at it as a rude comment. Not everything is motivated, some people are just assholes.

It was a decent movie, but nothing crazy. I saw people overly analyzing it, like it had so much detail, but all it was was a dude who wished for love and ended up taking advantage of the situation. Basically, he was the villain, but there’s really not much to it besides a few cool jump scares. The way people were talking about it made it seem like it was the best horror movie ever. I actually think Weapons had a much better story. Hell, if you compare it to old horror movies, it’s not even up there with The Shining or The Thing.

These mods are pissy. A great convo with nearly 50 comments about punching down removed. Who runs this sub? Hot take. They suck.

I’m not cussing left and right in my daily conversations mind you, but I’m also not stressing when I do. Recently I’ve seen people be vocal about not using cuss words, and that’s great for them if that’s how they choose to live. But they always talk down on the people that do. Instead of using cuss words they will use darn, crap, flark, etc. I just find a humor of still using filler words that sound like the cuss words they hate. Why even use them if you’re so against cussing. It’s like saying the N word but replacing the n with a w. It doesn’t make it better.

There’s a billion different privileges they could have access to.

-Pretty privilege
-Height privelage
-Weight privilege
-Age privilege
-Wealth privilege
-etc

This is all to say that reducing the value of people’s opinions because of their skin colour or sex is pretty stupid (some would call it racist/sexist).

Because ultimately you can be white, or a male and still be less privileged than someone else.

Cow meat is one of the worst foods one can eat. Its absolutely terrible for the environment, way worse than basically everything else. It is also one of the worst for your health also. Therefore, I think it only makes sense to eat it if someone really loves it, is passionate about it.

People who asks their steak well done, do not like steak. Otherwise they wouldnt ask it well done. It matches with experience, people I know who have well done steak, normally dont care much for steak.

I believe people should be more thoughtful about their consumer habits. I dont think its reasonable to ask everyone to stop eating beef, as good as it might be for the environment, I know it wont happen. But, if you really dont care for steak that much, to the point of having it well done, its better to just accept how nonsensical it is and stop eating it.

I for example, dont care much for fashion, so Im not gonna use fur clothings and etc. There are a lot of foods that I dont eat, not purely because they are unhealthy, but because I dont care enough for them to justify it. People who dont care much for steak, should do the same. Its actually even more important, as it has a high carbon footprint

edit: The environment shouldn’t have to suffer just because you’re pretending to enjoy steak.

Almost every person who drives a pickup truck on the road seems to be the worst kind of driver. They are either too slow, too fast, or aggressive as hell like they are top dog. Alot of them also don't use their damn turn signals either.

Next to them would be jeep drivers, but I come across more trucks than I do jeeps so they are the top example when it comes to shitty drivers

Edit: to clarify I'm talking about Pickup trucks not tractor trailers/18 wheeler

As title says. I see so many people nowadays commenting and shaming people for their sexual history and it’s usually “progressive” people saying this. It’s more directed towards men and I find it very weird how you’d judge a guys worth based on how many women they were able to fuck. Never sat right with me…

I've noticed a pattern wherein the same people repeatedly wind up in these situations. There is a type of guy who repeatedly befriends women with romantic intentions, and a type of girl who repeatedly has guys do that to them. Sometimes the genders are reversed, obviously.

I don't mean to suggest men and women can't ever be friends. I have successfully formed friendships with women. But sometimes it's not meant to be, and people try to force it anyways.

I once had two friends trapped in such a relationship, and it annoyed me. I kept recommending the guy lose weight, be honest with her, etc, but he ignored such advice. Also, he admitted this had happened to him before previously.

This girl was extremely flirtatious by nature. I noticed another guy in her orbit under a similar spell. With my friend, I felt as though her flirtatiousness was a strategic part of her business relationship with him; the other guy seemed to be just for companionship.

I feel it would be better for everyone if they all just stayed away from each other. It has happened to me before that I could tell a girl I didn't like ultimately sought more than friendship with me, so I just avoided her. I didn't need her help with our university homework, nor emotional validation from her.

Conversely, I have liked a girl who did not reciprocate. I talked about it with them. In once case that ended the friendship; in another case, our friendship just kinda went on hiatus for a couple years, and now we're cool.

I find it so weird when someone dies, for example an innocent child, or a mother of 4 and people will send the photos of their bodies or videos of their deaths to thr family while mocking them. I also find it gross how people will mock someone INNOCENT who died. I can understand if the person who died was a POS like a child killer, but I dont think an innocent man who was killed deserves to be mocked, especially right after he died. Lacking basic empathy for people is normalized, and you'll get called "sensitive" for having it. Like no- lacking compassion is NOT something to be proud of little Jimmy.

I’ve noticed something in conversations about gender, particularly when women discuss violence, sexual assault, and abusive relationships that lot of men interpret these conversations as personal accusations against their individual character, even when nobody has specifically accused them of anything.

I think a lot of people have become incredibly invested in the idea that being a “good person” is something they fundamentally are, rather than something they demonstrate through choices. They seem to want to believe that they were simply born good.

Whenever I see posts about sexual assault, I’ll frequently see men respond with something like “I could NEVER do something like that. I would NEVER hurt a woman.”

And there’s a difference between being incapable of doing something terrible and choosing not to.

Rapists, abusers, and otherwise harmful people aren’t a separate species. They’re humans too. They aren’t born with some identifiable characteristic that permanently separates them from everyone else. They’re people who make harmful choices, usually while rationalizing those choices to themselves.

That doesn’t mean everyone is equally likely to commit sexual violence, or that everyone secretly wants to. It means that your moral character isn’t established by declaring yourself fundamentally different from people who do terrible things.

You’re not a good person because you’re inherently incapable of being a bad one. You’re a good person because you consistently make choices that reflect your values.

If you acknowledge that harmful people are humans rather than an alien species, you have to acknowledge that being a decent person requires ongoing self-awareness, accountability, and a willingness to recognize your own capacity for doing bad or immoral things.

It’s much more comforting to believe, “I’m one of the good ones, so none of this could possibly apply to me.”
I think this is partly why conversations about women’s safety become so unnecessarily personal.

A woman says she takes precautions around unfamiliar men, and some men hear, “She thinks I’m a rapist.”
But that’s not what she’s saying.

She’s saying she cant reliably determine a stranger’s intentions or character by looking at him, so she makes decisions based on uncertainty and potential consequences.

But instead of recognizing that, a lot of men seem to become preoccupied with establishing their own innocence.

And then the conversation isn’t about women’s safety anymore. It’s about reassuring a man that he’s a good person.

And to be clear, I don’t think men have a monopoly on this behavior.

But it seems this dynamic is super visible in gender discussions because conversations about male violence, entitlement, and women’s safety often become about whether individual men should feel personally offended.

Being a good person doesn’t mean you’re incapable of doing something wrong. It means you’re willing to acknowledge when you could be wrong, examine your behavior, and make different choices when necessary.

You can be a man who would never knowingly assault a woman and still acknowledge that women cannot identify dangerous men on sight.

Honestly, one thing that bothers me about dating is how the responsibility of making the first move almost always falls on men.

We're expected to approach women, start conversations, ask them out, and know how to flirt without seeming awkward or creepy. If we're too hesitant, we lack confidence. If we're awkward, we have no game. If we're too forward, we're creepy. And if rejection hurts, we're told to get over it.

What makes this frustrating is that these are skills people develop through experience, yet men are generally expected to be the ones who practise them. Imagine being inexperienced with dating, finally working up the courage to approach someone, and having the interaction go badly. Even if the rejection itself is perfectly reasonable, being laughed at or humiliated can make you afraid to try again.

Eventually, some men become more hesitant because they're afraid of getting it wrong. But when they struggle to approach women, they're criticised for lacking confidence or social skills. It's a vicious cycle: the less they try, the less experience they gain, and the harder it becomes to improve.

I also think this dynamic can give some women an unrealistic perception of their own dating skills. Being able to judge whether a man is good at flirting doesn't necessarily mean you'd be good at flirting yourself. Knowing what you find attractive isn't the same as knowing how to attract someone.

Men and women often have different experiences because men are expected to initiate, while women are more often in the position of evaluating those who approach them. If women had to make the first move just as often, they'd probably experience the same nervousness, awkwardness, and rejection that many men face. Some would be good at it naturally, while others would need time to improve. That's normal.

Of course, women have their own challenges. They deal with unwanted attention, question men's intentions, and sometimes worry about how men might react to rejection. Nobody owes anyone romantic interest, and men must respect boundaries. But there's a difference between rejecting someone and deliberately humiliating them. Not every awkward approach comes from bad intentions; sometimes a person is simply inexperienced or nervous.

I'm not saying men shouldn't improve their social skills or learn to handle rejection. We absolutely should. But there's a difference between taking responsibility for our behaviour and being expected to carry most of the responsibility for initiating romantic relationships.

Why should men have to do most of the approaching, take most of the initial risks, and face most of the pressure to get things started? And why is it considered normal for men to pursue women, but somehow unusual for women to pursue men?

If a woman likes a man, there's nothing wrong with approaching him, starting a conversation, or asking him out. It doesn't make her desperate, and it doesn't make him any less of a man.

I'd like to see both men and women make more of an effort instead of treating initiation as a man's job. Dating would feel less one-sided, both sides would have more opportunities to develop their social skills, and perhaps people would become more understanding of the vulnerability involved in putting yourself out there.

Ultimately, dating should be about two people finding each other, not one person being expected to do all the work. Men shouldn't always have to be the pursuers, especially when they're also expected to handle the pressure, rejection, and criticism that come with it. If both people are interested, why shouldn't both have the opportunity to make the first move?

This was inspired by another post I saw- someone asked "is it bad for a child to wear a shirt that says "without god I am nothing?" I think this slogan embodies one of the main issues in Christianity. It is-or at least can be-a very anti-life religion. At its extreme It entirely devalues life, raises ideals above life, and worships death. I suppose the Crucifixion is an appropriate symbol then. Looked at from this perspective, it appears as a nihilistic death cult.

Many Christians spend their entire lives looking forward to the next. Thats the same as looking forward to death, as there very well may be no after life. The entire narrative is essentially a denunciation of human potential. The mythos goes that "the world is fallen, and human nature is sinful". Its a really convenient narrative for elites, which is why conservatives latch onto it, but thats another topic for another day.

Christianity has nihilism baked into it. Its like a salesmen who invents a problem to sell a thing. Christians claim life is meaningless without their god, yet people found meaning before their god in life itself. Now that the product has been bought, by the majority of society, its become an addiction.

By elevating god to such a high level, it sets up the individual for a great fall. If god were merely a curious scientific question, and not an object of worship this wouldn't be an issue. For instance, its entirely reasonable for early humans to ask themselves "is there a god?" Its another thing entirely to tie all meaning to something like that, however.

For instance, I dont tie all of my existence to the big bang which is the source of all life, its just a fact thats interesting to me. Why cant god be like that? Would a god really want to be the sole source of meaning? I dont think so. But the Christian god does.

Many Christians cannot fathom a meaningful life without god. Love, art, beauty, recreation, all of it is pointless to them without god. And god is just an idea thats never been proven to exist. A person may or may not believe god exists, and theres nothing wrong with that. However, is it wise to elevate god to the primary source of meaning? No. Because then, if that source of meaning falters, your life becomes pointless.

And this fragile setup is a big cause of nihilism in our society. People are increasingly becoming disillusioned with it as knowledge advances. This creates a problem, one I've experienced first hand and found my way out of. When I abandoned Christianity as a youth, I too fell into nihilism and despair. It was not easy to construct new forms of meaning. I floundered for a long time. Drugs and mindless rebellion- as opposed to constructive rebellion- and misconstrued form of hedonism filled the void.

It took me a long time to find new values. I eventually found them in liberty, equality, solidarity; essentially egalitarianism and humanism. That, coupled with a compulsive need to create art and experience the beauty of nature. I can experience the sublime and the feeling of being a part of something bigger by engaging with the physical world. It doesn't even have to be somewhere particularly magnificent, though that helps. A simple blue sky is quite beautiful if you really look at it long enough with an empty mind, and to think of all sentient beings that lived and died just for me to see the sky. Its quite mind boggling.

But, many people dont get to that point. They sink further into the morass of drugs, alcohol, and or mindless consumerism. Capitalism throws gas on this existential fire because there is no community. Once the drugs stop feeling good, and you've bought all funko-pops you can buy, where else do you go but back into the cult? At least its a community. Its a sad cycle to see, and I cant blame people for going back. But, that doesn't mean a retreat is necessarily good.

Before Christianity, people still thought their lives had meaning outside of religion. As far as Ive read, in the pre-christian world religion was more of a means than end. You prayed to the gods or the ancestors to win a battle, or get better crops- and so religion ostensibly existed to further life. That and it fulfilled certain glitches of the mind.

Under Christianity the idea is inverted- life serves religion. I think people need to reverse this trend. Whatever ideology or religion we adopt should serve life, not the other way around.

God cant be the meaning of life. If god exists, then god should be merely be a fact, like the big bang. God could be a source of meaning, but one that enhances life. If god makes life better, then its useful. If not, then its useless. God or the big bang, it doesn't really matter- thats only the beginning of life. Its not the point of life.

1. 100% protection against unplanned pregnancy, STI/STDs and other health complications from sex
2. Zero financial cost because you don't need to buy contraception
3. Can focus on academics and career without the distractions of romance issues from sex
4. Avoidance of emotional baggage and regret (because women develop emotional connections to their partners more than men they're more likely to get their heart broken way worse (than if she didnt have sex) after sex if he left)
5. No worrying that he or she will dump you after getting what they wanted (sex)
6. Nobody will think you're a whore/slut
7. More likely to find a partner who respects you, your values, and morals and doesn't use you

Reddit acts like a person (usually a woman) filming themselves in public is the absolute worst thing ever and how it makes them horrible and conceited and how much of a drain they are on society and etc etc, they always get REALLYY uptight about it. I just dont get it. being in the background of a video im probably never going to see doesn't matter to me whatsoever and 99.9% of the time they arent remotely in my way.

You know those DJ videos where there's like a dozen people all in their business touching stuff? In what world is that ok? If someone was out busking with a $4000 violin or saxophone, nobody would be in their face touching their instruments. That's a $4000 instrument. Well those turntables are also $3000 dollars, and \*objectively\* more sophisticated.

If you break a string or reed, it's $20, you replace it and the show continues. Someone spills their drink on your console or thinks they're being funny and flicks a fader, that's thousands of dollars gone.

Its like the more contemporary the music, the more acceptable it is to be a jerk. Image you went to a concert hall and there were just 30 people in the front, fighting and yelling at the performers. Those people would be crazy. But if it was rock concert or pop singer? Totally normal. Nobody should be near the stage ever. Nobody does that at a movie or other type of show. Why's it ok at a concert?

Technology and human beings will always lean towards the options that are convenient. The internet became more convenient than going to a library. E-readers became more convenient than buying a bunch of physical books. Airplanes became more convenient than long road trips. Fast food drive thrus became more convenient than sitting in restaurants. iTunes and Spotify became more convenient than having a ton of CDs, etc.

People use AI art because it's quicker than hunting down someone who CAN make art the way you like while charging you several hundred dollars to do it and not having it done for weeks.

People make AI videos because it's more convenient than hiring actors, buying a camera, setting up a location, and filming several takes and editing.

AI will make creating movies, art, music, and gaming more convenient and cheap for creators, this is how it's been since the beginning of time.

Jobs? They always come and go. The rickshaw had to submit to taxi drivers. Elevator lift operators had to submit to push-button systems. Telegraph operators had to submit to fax and email. Video stores had to submit to streaming.

You can NOT like it all you want, but it's not going anywhere and complaining about it is like complaining about the weather. Hate all you want but the storm is coming regardless.