First, f trends, if you like it, then go on your merry way. HOWEVER, if someone doesn’t comment on how nice and pretty it looks, oh well. Because remember… if you enjoy it, that is all that matters. Anyway, back to the program.

First, big diamonds are out. Since lab creations have came in hoards, people are going bigger and bigger. So what says class… elegance… higher tier? Welp, the exact opposite. Tiny minimal bands being of 0.5 carat diamonds, potentially natural but could be lab, that’s your choice. Big diamonds don’t have as much wow and mystery to it anymore. Apparently.

Second, oval is out, rectangular oblong diamonds/stones will be in. You bet your Swifty buns old miners cut will be blowing up, along with radiant and emerald cut.

Third, sapphires are going to go big. But inevitably revert back to diamonds in a short time span. Not necessarily for the traditional value, rather for it being a clear stone that does with everything along with the hardness of them.

Fourth, platinum bands are going to be the new “gold” everyone is going to be all about the aged patina.

Fifth and lastly, lab emeralds are going to be the newest kick.

Thank you for your time.

It's objectively disgusting.

All of the bacteria. The chance to get herpes or a stomach bug.

And the smell if they haven't brushed their teeth just a few minutes ago.

I can't imagine doing it. How do people even do it?

He’s a cool actor and all, but every time I talk about how unattractive I am and how I’ve had no success dating, people always say, “Oh, just look at Danny DeVito. He’s ugly, and he’s found someone.” Well, yeah, because he’s a damn famous actor with a bunch of money. Also, I’m not saying ugly men can’t find women. It’s possible, but it’s based on a lot of luck. I’ve also noticed that when ugly men are dating, they’re usually old guys. Back then, I feel like women’s standards were less high. Now it’s really hard. I can’t even get a match on Bumble or Tinder.

There is no such thing as a "non-sexual femboy". Femboy is an nsfw term/category that has been somewhat reclaimed for a very specific and often hypersexualized type of feminine man.

Yes words change and their meanings along with them, but I cant get behind femboy. It still has "boy" in the name, which is demeaning. Also, I really dont like the alternative "Rose-boy" either. That sounds even worse, and still has boy in it. Whats the obsession with boys?? And when you call someone out for using femboy, they'll say what they think it means, which is "just a feminine male."

Why cant you just be a feminine male or not have a label at all?

Femboy has been used to describe any and all men who appear non-masculine or enjoy womens clothing, which is not correct. Anyone who does not reclaim femboy as a kink term should not be using it.

That's like calling every white woman in a mixed race relationship a snowbunny unironically. Or any skinny male (no matter the orientation) a twink. These phrases used to mean something and burying their meaning makes it unsafe for young people who decide to reserve the title, not knowing there is a genuine sexual context.

When people say "immigrants must assimilate" they actually mean acculturate. Acculturation is defined as: The psychological and behavioural changes that occur when individuals from one cultural group come into continuous, direct contact with people from a different cultural group while not abandoning the culture they were born into. Meaning that the person carries their culture with them while at the same time upholding / prioritising the culture of the dominant group. Meanwhile assimilation means: to abandon ones original culture to fit in with the dominant group.

Matt Dusk’s jazz remakes are ass, and I genuinely don’t understand the hype. His voice sounds like AI trying to imitate a 1950s lounge singer, even though I know it isn’t, and it makes the whole thing feel weirdly artificial and soulless. What makes it worse is that he’s taken songs that were already jazz-adjacent and turned them into straight-up jazz, like they needed to be converted into something they already partially were. I’m tired of people acting like turning a song into jazz automatically makes it better. Half the appeal of the original songs comes from their energy, production, and emotion, and stripping that away just to make them sound like they’re playing in a fancy restaurant completely misses the point. Not every song needs to be reinvented as a 1950s lounge performance. Jazz isn’t automatically an improvement, and making a song sound older doesn’t automatically make it classier. Sometimes the original is just better, and slapping jazz instruments on it doesn’t magically make it good.

Why do americans say “erbs” while british people say “herbs”… This is not right…. “herbs” is so american sounding, while erbs just sounds prettier and more proper… This should be switched, and it annoys me that it isn’t, because it doesnt make sense in my head.

It’s a common take these days to hate on BMI as a measurement. I get it. It doesn’t factor in body composition well. It wasn’t designed for its current uses.

But let’s be realistic. Very few people actually strength train. If you do, you already know this about BMI. Maybe you even get a DEXA scan regularly to track your BF percentage. But for everyone else? It’s so much easier to do a simple, quick calculation - and for the medical establishment do that - than it is to do a full-body scan which involves radiation.

it’s hilariously obvious if you’re high BMI because of a lot of muscle, and it should not be used in those cases. It’s a tool. And tools should only be applied in the right use case. But it’s a useful one for a lot of people that I feel gets undue hate.

I am speaking of this as an artist.

When I say the phrase' at least it's better than Ai' is backhanded I do not mean that AI-generated material is better than humanly made, I am saying it seems like people are using it more as a 'compliment' instead of trying to critique or give feedback on art, especially beginners.

This doesn't only apply to beginners though, I have also seen the comments of it on posts that are, usually, deemed as 'less admirable,' aka just borderline, semi-repulsive, fetish stuff if we want me to be more explicit.

While yes, in art, there is no rules, there is however baselines and recommendations that could be done. By saying ' At least it is better than Ai' it almost undercuts what the artist is putting out there. While yes, there is a limit and a line that needs to be made when giving feedback on someone's art, but when the person is actually asking how their work was, saying that its better than Ai does not help them at all.

While Generative AI, yes I've been talking about generative specifically, can be reduced to a lot of mind numbing creations for people, it almost seems like people are putting it on a pedestal it should not be on when almost relating it to art that has work into it.

Because we men are expected to initiate, pursue, carry everything. But the reframe, refocus on everything else in life is highly beneficial once you do thi.

it jjust makes it look like you actually never cared about the protest and just wanted an excuse to do some GTA type stuff irl

burning down mom and pop shops is not sending a message youre just ruining lives

EDIT: clarification. get violent against the right people i understand the value in that. but thats the ultra wealthy, politicians and leaders. not the immigrant run corner store owner you beat up while stealing her life savings

The word has been given a tremendous amount of power. It's become the boogeyman of words. The only word that is considered inherently dangerous regardless of context and intent. Treating it like other slurs would be far more reasonable.

Edit: I got this take from my black flatmate. I'll let him know what a racist piece of shit he is.

Second edit: A serious mind challenges ideas; an insecure one attacks the person expressing them. Insults are the refuge of arguments that cannot stand on their own.

You can act like the sky is green, want to believe the sky is green, engage with people who believe the sky is green and tell people the sky is green but not be able to believe it despiteyou doing all these things. The same can be said for any belief based religion

Racism is prejudice or discrimination against a group of people based on their race. That is the literal definition.

Everyone is free to date whoever they want, and you don’t really have to justify your preferences to anyone. But to act like excluding an entire race of people based SOLELY on their race isn’t racism, that’s just cognitive dissonance.

You haven’t met all the people of that race. You haven’t seen all the people of that race. So to say “ I wouldn’t date any white/black/asian people because XYZ” is in fact racist.

However, this doesn’t mean having that preference is inherently negative or evil. You may struggle to find cultural similarities or even just feel like someone of your own race would understand you better.

So TLDR: Excluding an entire race from your dating pool solely because of their race is racial discrimination in the ordinary interpersonal sense. Whether it's malicious is a separate question, and whether the preference reflects racial prejudice or social conditioning depends on its underlying reasoning. Having the right to make that choice doesn't automatically make the choice free from racism.

Edit: I must add people are conflating “I don’t like dark skin” with “I don’t date black people”. Those are not the same statements, do not be disingenuous.

Non trophy hunting only.

Vegans who oppose hunting at least stand on their principles and are true to their cause, but if you tell someone who kills an animal and harvests its meat, and makes use of the body that they are bad people, right before heading to the grocery store to buy meat you do not deserve an opinion on the matter.

While people may be limited or have a harder time in the world, whether it is social situations or business, because they are female, LGBT, black, disabled, or something else, telling them that continually and making it a societal given robs them of their internal locus of control and instills doubt in them which will in turn actually hurt their results more than if they blindly went through life never knowing that.

Ignorance can often be power when it comes to self-confidence and a can-do attitude, because the person has no reason to assume they’ll be told no. Thus the person high in industriousness will do their very best and, even though they may be discriminated against for x y or z, have no fear of that discrimination, and that confidence will take them far.

Knowing your odds of achieving something go down because of an immutable characteristic about you creates doubt and robs you of confidence, and often times beats the spirit of defeatism into you before you even really have a chance to give it a shot. And so it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. Even if it is true.

Spoiler warning don’t read this if you don’t want to get spoiled. Even my favorite anime, FMAB, doesn’t have as many hype moments as AOT. I still get chills watching the scene where Reiner is revealed as the Armored Titan and betrays everyone. Erwin’s speech and him risking his life so Levi can take on the Beast Titan were also incredible. I’ve watched some of One Piece, Naruto, and Bleach, but I didn’t like them, and none of them had scenes like that. It makes me wonder if we’ll ever get an anime like AOT again, but I just don’t see it happening.

I believe people should remain neutral until there's evidence. I've been SAed, I am not entitled to being believed if I tell people. The instant reactions whenever there's allegations online baffle me. Headlines will say X allegedly raped Y and the internet will get mad if you don't call X a rapist.

Story of mine: I had this really good friend. She was like a sister to me, I believed everything she told me. Told me her ex raped her. I comforted her and cut contact with that ex (we were also friends). Flash forward a year, she says the same thing about a new ex, also a friend of mine. I got suspicious and talked to her old friends (including the first ex). She made everything up and apparently has a reputation as a pathological liar. Fucked me up and gave me serious trust issues

Never took the victim's word at face value since . I remain neutral, period. I'm not going to treat the victim specially unless I have a good reason be believe them. I don't know, so I'm not going to act like I do

I know “veganism” can be a pretty polarizing topic, and I’m not here to argue that everyone who eats meat is always this terrible person. Most people eat meat because it’s normal, convenient, and it's something that they just enjoy. But I think there’s an ethical question worth asking: If we can live healthy lives without consuming animals, how do we justify causing animals to suffer and die for food? On top of that, when the meat industry is the leading cause of animal habitat loss and one of the biggest contributors to climate change, how can we ethically justify eating meat?

We generally agree that unnecessary suffering is something we should avoid. We also recognize that animals can experience pain and fear. The difficult part is deciding whether our enjoyment, convenience, or traditions are enough to outweigh those interests. I’m not saying the answer is obvious, especially when factors like cost, access, health, and culture complicate the decision. But I think those complications are reasons to have a more thoughtful conversation about our food choices not reasons to avoid the question entirely since it seems to me that most people are very apposed to having much of a discussion about veganism.

So, for people who disagree with veganism, how can we as a society continue to justify animal agriculture and eating meat?

The desire to escape arrest should not itself be criminalized, provided the suspect does not commit an independent offense in the process. After all, the need and desire for freedom is a fundamental part of human nature. Attempting to or actually running away and escaping arrest shouldn't constitute a crime, in itself.

EDIT: What I mean to say is that if you get arrested for a crime, you'll still be punished for said crime, but trying to run away from arrest just means no additional charges for the attempt. If you're guilty, you're still guilty.

A big inspiration for this is Germany, Sweden, Austria, Belgium, and the Netherlands. The underlying principle is that the human desire for liberty is so fundamental that a prisoner should not necessarily incur additional criminal punishment merely for attempting to escape confinement.

It makes no sense to downvote them when OP wants a question answered that is directed towards them.

It is odd to downvote the answers to a question when the whole point of the post is to get answers. Why should I go all the way to the bottom of the comments to get genuine answers to a question that I specifically clicked on because I was curious?

The best person you know has somebody else paying some or all of their bills.

That's how they're able to be the best person you know. No one who is struggling to survive can be the best person you know unless they're about to die. This is just my observed anecdotal evidence. Now, who that person is paying those bills is subject to debate.

It could be their boss paying their bills. If that person is lucky enough for their boss to pay all of their bills that's a rare thing in this Society. It could be welfare disability because that's actually a thing that happens a lot there's like 150 or so thousand people on disability and Welfare is higher. I think I haven't researched those numbers. This is just my hot take. It could be a partner that's also very common. Partnership is the one of the best ways to overcome how economically hard it is to survive. It'd be so cool if we weren't forced together this way. I think if we were able to live freely on our own we would be able to understand what love actually is but we cannot know that in our current economic situation. If it's not a partner, or a boss, or the government, it could be their parents, that is also very common. That is so common, I don't even need to explain it: future societies will find this text and they'll never know what I meant by parents will be the thing paying for some of their bills. But when it comes to those who pay their own way - where did they get the money? Did they get it from a boss? Did they get it from a partner? Did they get it from an investor? Did they get it from the government, in the form of an entitlement of any any kind payment, adjustment, settlement, or award? Did they get it from a parent in the form of a inheritance or just "I'm a special baby" payment? ... where did they get the money?

They took it from someone.

Either legitimately or illegitimatly.

We can be awarded money in payment for goods and services by members of the public absolutely. Its a very traditional way people accumulate sums.

They can gamble for it. Wherein "the only losers at least consented to the game" reigns... except we know that we live in a society where gambling is an addiction and there are a lot of desperate people desperately trying to leverage what they have to improve their situation. Sounds very ethical.

They can take it by force. Are there criminals that steal? Absolutely. But far more common are the people who take your money by withholding what they should have given you for the services you provided. And they do this intentionally to make a profit. And they form a corporation around doing that. And then invest money in advertising that your services that you're underpaid to give are better than the services of the peons of other corporations.

And those people will use the money that they take from you to not give you a good life. While you're serving them. And maybe you need government assistance to be part of your subsistence.

And we let our tax dollars go to a government that rather then taxing corporations which are not employing enough of our community members to prevent theft in their stores, and raising their prices and blaming it on thieves, they're not paying enough to live in the communities that they operate in forcing their employees to need subsistence from the government or other entities.

And we act like this is normal and right.

And like I'm the crazy one? I feel crazy.

Obviously I'm only talking about the poIiticaI part, the rest of the stuff is reasonable to censor. But this sub is filled with endless gender war stuff or takes about how it's absolutely OK to mistreat this or that group, usually trans people. These seem inherently poIiticaI, yet they are allowed.

I made a post a while back about how if a boss wants you to do worse work that takes longer, he/she should also pay you more. It was flagged as poIiticaI.

What we decide to treat as controversial, poIiticaI, offensive or otherwise verboten defines and limits the range of possible debate. As such, no forum in which disagreement is expected can ever hope to be truly apoIiticaI.

Disclaimer: Please don’t take this as a hateful post, obviously there are women who are completely straight, but I believe that’s way less than you think.

Think about it. They like to call each other beautiful, hug each other, cuddle with each other, etc. Hell, women could straight up impregnate each other and still try to claim they’re just friends. It’s wild. I have no desire to do any of those things as a man with my friends. There’s also been instances where women go to bars together, get drunk, and start kissing. It’s also worth noting that roughly 62% of women don’t think their husbands are sexy, as well as the fact that 60-70% of women who identify as straight prefer lesbian pornography. It would also explain why so many women say that they rarely ever see attractive men when they go outside. You’ll never see a gay man saying that he rarely sees attractive women when he’s outside. Furthermore, it would explain why so many women support LGBTQ+. because they themselves are overwhelmingly LGBTQ. That's why they're so uncomfortable and outspoken when someone is hostile to the LGBTQ community: because it's hostility against them deep down.

It’s 2026. We have centuries of scientific progress, yet we’re still entertaining supernatural nonsense without a shred of verifiable evidence.

Religion, karma, astrology, manifestation, spiritual energies. BAN IT ALL.

Millions of innocent people suffer while horrible people prosper. Starving children, terminally ill patients, victims of war. Apparently, they just didn’t pray hard enough or manifest the right energy.

Enough. Abolish the whole circus. Reclassify every supernatural belief as fiction and put it on the shelf between Harry Potter and Game of Thrones.

No more treating mythology as truth, superstition as wisdom, or imaginary forces as explanations for reality.

The supernatural belongs in the fiction section. Period.