HOW does this get hyped as one of the GOATs of all anime?! I don't understand!

It's a good show and well-done battle shounen, but that's all it is. I would've hated anime if this was representative of all anime. People are free to like it because art is subjective, but I hate that it always gets named as the perfect starter anime when it fucking SUCKS as a starter anime.

It's great as a starter anime if you know the audience member likes action and battle shounen. Otherwise, it's so mid.

FMAB is an anime that plays it safe and pulls its punches at all costs. The start of the original 2003 series, at least the start, does a far better job at connecting you to the characters and focusing on their psyches and the philosophical and psychological ramifications of the dark themes the story explores. It's not as manga-accurate as FMAB, but it does so much of a better job of making your care about the characters.

FMAB, like I said, is a well-done battle shounen, but that's what it specializes in. It's all about the action and the optimism and the power of brotherhood and friendship. It doesn't care to dive deep into the dark subject matter it explores. War, genocide, human rights violations, etc. are all major themes and concepts in the series, but FMAB loves to wrap things up nicely with a bow and cut to the action and then the comedy.

I vastly respect anime and all works of fiction that incorporate a vast range of genres and emotions. I like when things oscillate between light and dark. Sometimes a story calls for fucked up and depressing, other times it calls for fun and light-hearted. I like when a work can do both. FMAB is not one of those works. The show and manga (FMAB is more accurate to the manga than the original 2003 manga interpretation, which deviates in plot) largely wants to keep an optimistic, happy-go-lucky fun action story going. That's great, except you can't possibly tackle the dark subjects like genocide and do it justice while forcing everything to remain light-hearted. It just does a disservice to the work and all the ideas!

Take the very infamous Shou Tucker arc. Shou and his daughter Nina only are featured in a single, rushed episode in FMAB, but in FMA, they're featured in 2 and integrated into the main story before their arc is concluded. In FMA, you're given the time to bond with them and care about them, especially Nina, as Ed takes the exam, before all hell breaks loose. FMAB rushes through this then forgets about it, then gets praised for being so deep and impactful when it skips over all the good storytelling and psychological depth in favor of forgettable boring shounen action.

People are free to like FMAB, as all art is subjective. It just kind of annoys me that this basic battle shounen gets exalted as one of the anime greats and "gateway anime" when it's so far from that. There are so so so many more impactful, deeper anime, and also so many more entertaining, happy fun anime. FMAB is in a sour spot and bored the hell out of me. It was one of the first anime I ever watched and it was so forgettable, yet it's constantly being recommended to those interested in anime. If it was the first anime I watched and advertised as representative of the medium, I would've thought the medium was shallow and only cared about action. The contrast is even starker considering that its 2003 precessor was infinitely more interesting!

EDIT: Sorry that was a drunk rant^ lol but I do largely mean it

A big theme of being in my mid 20s was listening to how annoyed my friends were with their parents pressuring them into getting married and having kids. All my friends would talk about how the worst part of going home was listening to their parents guilt them about not having a family yet.

IMO, that is a necessary part of parenting. You should be encouraging your kids to settle down and reproduce when the time is right. In fact, you’re really the only people in their lives that can do it. It’s your job. Furthering the human race and your genetic line is generally a good thing, it’s what we’re biologically programmed to want. Parents should encourage that in their kids when they can.

The unfortunate reality is that having a family is time sensitive. You only have a short window to make it happen. You can live to be 100, but you really only have about 15 years to make it happen. For women there’s a hard cap when it’s just not safe or impossible to have kids, and for men the older you get, the less likely it is you’ll find a woman willing to have kids and settle down with you. Your parents should be there to create a sense of urgency, and make sure you know that you need to at least be thinking about it.

And I of course don’t mean putting back breaking pressure on your kids, or constantly reminding them or telling them they’re a disappointment if they don’t have a family. I just mean occasional, gentle reminders. Making sure it’s at least on their mind. Because I also had friends that never thought about a family at all, their parents never talked to them about it, and then they turned 32 and started panicking.

And I definitely don’t think every single parent should do this. Some people just aren’t fit to have kids for all kinds of reasons. I only mean the parents of kids who could reasonably be expected to have a family.

Grilled cheese and tomato soup is a terrible combination. It doesn't go well together, and canned tomato soup is terrible.

I love grilled cheese. If I have fresh tomato, I'll put a slice on before closing the sandwich (I cook both sides at once, then put them together) grilled cheese goes well dipped in a good marinara (think the good semi-chunky stuff that you get with mozzarella sticks) tomato soup? Hard pass.

I'm Gen X and bisexual, and when I was young, we had a lot of fun flirting. I loved flirting with both men and women. I often got rejected by women, and men would sometimes get upset when I turned them down, but that was okay. Men would very often try to seduce me, too. It was all very enjoyable and carefree. We'd wait and see what happened. The anticipation was both agonizing and exhilarating at the same time. We'd let desire build naturally, and when it finally came, things could get really hot.

Nowadays, dating feels like a capitalist marketplace run by dating apps, where everyone is looking for red flags and benefit. Apparently, you're supposed to have sex by the third date. How horrible it is to have shedulded sex by the third date!

It feels like nobody knows how to flirt for the sheer pleasure of it anymore. Nobody seems to fall in love naturally; instead, everyone is checking boxes on a list. Nobody courts anyone anymore, even though courtship can be incredibly fun, especially for men. Women often enjoyed being courted, and men were willing to invest time and effort even when things didn't work out.

All of that has been replaced by a transactional, capitalist approach to dating. And I don't think it's anyone's fault in particular. People who offer simplistic explanations and blame one sex or the other are missing the point. The real problem is the dating apps themselves, which are designed to keep people using them for as long as possible rather than help them find a partner and move on.

We should create a government-run dating app that actually helps people find compatible partners, without trying to maximize pro the fun offits or keep users hooked for as long as possible.

Being sober is infinitely better. Never understood the hype. It's either ridiculously mind numbing to the point of annoyance and discomfort or it's just paranoid discomfort. Getting high sucks ass. I genuinely do not understand how people enjoy it or make marijuana their whole reason to live(or so it seems with so many young folk).

I can afford any kind of toilet paper I want and I would still buy cheap Scotts single ply toilet paper over any ultra soft one. First of all, I can use so much of the stuff, totally protect my hand in it, and still hardly make a dent in the roll. The rolls last forever. I also like to wet the paper before I wipe and it holds up way better to that than the soft ones do, which like totally disintegrate in your hand when you do that and increases the danger level of the wipe. It also leaves behind way less stragglies than the soft TP does. On top of all that it's not a pain trying to flush them if you end up using too much. They flush down every time even if you fill the bowl with the stuff.

I get slightly annoyed when I'm looking through people's stories and see someone celebrating the birthday of a member of their family. Except the member of this family cannot fathom or understand social media, nor do I imagine they would care about it.

I can't imagine your pet or baby or infant would understand why you are posting them or sharing it online. And I don't think that your senior grandma would care if you wished her a happy birthday on social media.

None of them can see it on that platform. What's the point? I also think posting anyone (excluding pets) without their consent on your story is weird, even if it's for a birthday. I don't think we should be posting pictures of babies or seniors on the internet in general.

…pledged to criminalize automated phone trees and outsourced phone services. And I think that said politician’d win in a landslide! Left, right, confused, everyone hates spending 1 to 5 minutes navigating a phone tree, inputting their account info into the automated part of the system, repeating the exact same info for the human that finally answers, and then trying to have a conversation with said human despite wildly differing native languages and foreign accents.

Customers who like automotion can use company websites to do their business, customers who like talking or who have oddball questions that websites cant answer deserve the basic courtesy of actually helpful customer service.

That's pretty much it. Bobbing for apples is gross. Everybody's face and mouth goes in the water. I could never. I saw this ad for this girl doing waterproof makeup because she was gonna go bobbing for apples and I just think about all the hair and eyelashes and food bits and saliva in the water. It makes me physically sick to think about.

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

What I mean by disadvantaged, I refer to those with a disability, those with bad childhoods such as family-related abuse, those who are looked after children, etc.

You may think this is something helpful and beneficial, ostensibly, but in reality, it is otherwise.

There is this popular phrase that which teachers often tell them, often so that the kid just relaxes and does not panic. While panicking and stress are nowhere better, telling someone to just try their best reduces their motivation. For example, an A-level student may have ambitions to be a journalist, a social worker, a doctor, a lawyer, accountant, blah blah blah. For these roles, you must have take in much more merit, effort and hard work, if you do not achieve those grades, you will not be at an advantage, these roles are vital and need the perfect one. If you just tell them to just try their best, this is useless advice; not supporting those who actually want achieve such efforts. Not just grades, any classes, or roles, etc.

Those who are disadvantaged they are just told that because of stereotypes assuming that they cannot do this. Consequently, creates a literal self-fulfilling prophecy indirectly as they are told that they are not viable individuals. Prominent people also faced the same thing. Kemi Badenoch when she did her A-levels in Maths, Chemistry and Biology, her teachers undermined her efforts, giving her low expectations and demanding her to just be a nurse (a lower-average middle class role). Sajid Javid was blocked from doing GCSE Maths and he can just be a TV Repairman at his old school because of his living and family conditions.

I am doing A-Levels in Politics, Business and Sociology. My Sociology teacher was telling me to just "try my best" in the mocks, but in reality, there is a culture in colleges in the UK in which students who need genuine help get expelled instead of support because they want more reputation competition - this is not to say that this is better, but the culture of low expectations from teachers gives little to no motivation, and makes students intentionally lazy. I am from an average middle class background and I should not be spoken like that simply because I am not an upper middle class person. Not to mention in my Sociology class, my teacher is too relaxed about students.

This is not just in education. Also in extra curriculars, workplace, sport, creativity, etc.

Of course, the other side in which teachers being overly disrespectful and too sharp are nowhere better as they also label certain students as dumb and stupid while not being supportive of some students, but this is just the corresponding side of the same coin. Neither are helpful.

Hard work is the way to achieve success. But of course there are issues like unsanctioned cronyism and nepotism (initially class based but now community based as a result of too much in-depth multiculturalism), but nevertheless, having soft expectations do not improve any effort. If someone is of a disadvantaged background, they need sufficient support and advocacy to ensure they achieve those high expectations to escape and to succeed.

In conclusion, just telling someone to simply try their best is not supportive for struggling people. It backfires. Tell them to stay out of their comfort zone.

I think every place where people regularly eat should have a conveniently accessible sink with soap and running water, in addition to the bathroom.

I find it bizarre how much society relies on napkins as the default solution for dirty hands. If you eat something oily, sticky, saucy, or crumbly, a napkin can remove some of the mess, but it isn’t the same as washing your hands. And there are some types of residues that napkins simply can’t remove/dissolve. Sometimes wiping your hands just feels like moving the residue around rather than actually getting rid of it.

Yet eating areas frequently have no sinks nearby. If you want to wash your hands after eating, you may have to walk to a bathroom, go through a crowded public space, or go searching for a sink somewhere else in the building. This makes proper handwashing unnecessarily inconvenient and makes people who prefer to wash their hands seem unusually particular, when the infrastructure itself could simply make handwashing easier.

For example, at my office, to wash my hands after lunch, I have to leave my backpack at the table, dispose of my dishes, navigate to a bathroom, wash my hands, get an extra paper towel to open the door, throw it away, and walk back to get my backpack. All of this could be simplified by having an accessible handwashing sink near the cafeteria 🤦‍♀️

Imagine a food court, office cafeteria, park picnic area, or communal dining space with a small handwashing station nearby. Why isn’t this a more common design choice 😭

Let alone 25 for that matter. If you think you're a big girl or big boy who knows who they are and what they want without having any life experience outside of the internet and public schooling then youre delusional.

Youre still just widdle kids.

I believe puberty blockers should still absolutely exist as an option for wary parents, unsure kids, if someone (the parents, child, or doctor) is in some doubt or as a safety net.

However, in general, if a doctor can verify that a child that openly identifies and considers themselves genuinely trans is, indeed, gender dysphoric/gender incongruent, especially if they've known this for multiple years without any presence of doubt, the child should be given HRT at around the age when they and their peers would be going through puberty. Not puberty blockers - but blocking their natal hormones AND giving them the hormones of their target sex.

A giant array of research supports that A) children know their gender as little as 3-5 years old, B) almost all children that go on puberty blockers go on to start HRT and very few go back on it (and those who would be unsure or might fear they would regret, I say, can go on puberty blockers instead of HRT) and C) the vast majority of detransition is from external pressure, bullying, budget reasons or coercion, and rates of regret are very small and rare.

Yes, there will be children who will detransition (which is completely fine - go ahead). Yes, a very small amount of children will have gone on HRT long enough before detransitioning that they will have some permanent effects of the wrong puberty.

However - millions of trans people already have gone through with this - a wrong puberty, sometimes its entire length or just a portion of it, that leaves them permanently physically and mentally scarred, sometimes to the point they will never pass without surgical intervention, if not worse.

My proposal would have a few cis kids go through something like this (though likely to a lesser extent), and much MUCH more trans kids who will never have had to. From a purely utilitarian perspective, this is a positive change. In my mind (and that's why this is apparently a 'hot take'): a trans person and a cis person going through the wrong puberty is largely equivalent, and one is not much worse than the other.

If trans children going thru their preferred puberty at the same time as their peers were normalised; those children would be growing alongside their peers - they wouldn't feel like outcasts, nor would they look differently from other kids. They'd just go through as normal a childhood and puberty as all the other kids - to the point they may have very little if anything to relate to with the rest of the trans community, which frankly, in my book is a win. It'd decrease bullying and allow them to live more like everyone else, like normal people.

Puberty blockers are generally fine if used for short periods, but if you were to stay on puberty blockers from onset until 18 - that's 7-10 years - puberty blockers can have detrimental effects. HRT, however, is just fully bioidentical and functions very similarly to regular 'natal' puberty. There wouldn't be side effects such as worse bone health/strength or risks of certain diseases.

A lot of people arguing against this will only keep the health and sanity of cis people in mind - this overwhelmingly comes at the expense, the suffering, and to the detriment of much more trans people comparatively. Trans people are people too, and their feelings and suffering matter just as much; treating the true positives properly is necessary even if a few false positives will be caught in the crossfire.

And no, knowing your gender is not in any way equivalent to e.g. thinking you're a unicorn, getting stupid tattoos, drinking and driving, imagining yourself as a firefighter, jumping off the roof, general hypochondria, or any other kinds of make-believe and play. I believe that gender and its self-identification is simply completely fundamentally different, and unique. Those children who will be fully informed on the effects and results of transitioning to a gender they prefer, and after plenty of counselling, decide it is the right decision for them - will overwhelmingly know themselves better and come to the correct conclusion.

There's some films that I go to just to enjoy. Obviously, as film is an art, any movies that are actively trying to say something should prioritize finding good actors, but that's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about "fun movies" like action films. I was doing a run through of the Predator movies and I came upon Prey and realized why I didn't like it as much as I should. The lead is not attractive. I know that's super shallow, but it's an action film. It's meant to be escapist junk food media. I go to have fun, and it's more fun when everyone's, like, hot.

I feel like people saying that they're happy that someone not "conventionally attractive" was cast are just grandstanding. Like, come on, was a huge part of the original's selling point not seeing hot muscly dudes covered in sweat? In this same way, shouldn't Prey have had an attractive woman lead?

I know this is the epitome of a reddit opinion, but I'm just being honest about what entertains me which most of you seem to be unable to do

To be very clear, this does NOT excuse those men who are married/in hetero relationships to willfully follow women who are primarily lustful influencers, lust workers or engage in trades, businesses or domains of lust like p0rn, on-demand lust services, lustful modelling, and so on.

Women (regardless of adult age groups) who are artists, musicians, singers, comedians, actors, non-lustful models, athletes, sports persons, journalists, doctors, psychologists, scientists, technologists, corporate workers, normal content creators who talk about various things like media, movies, series, TV, games, tech, social trends, commentaries, clothing, fashion, philosophy, etc, are dominating various online platforms.

There's absolutely nothing wrong if men mostly follow such women's profiles, pages, etc WITHOUT liking their lustful contents (if at all sometimes they post them out of their own will), WITHOUT DMing them like creeps, without objectifying them, and so on. Many such men also "relate naturally more" to female content creators, female voices, female artistic expressions, female opinions, etc, and are respectful enough to NOT like their "sometimes" posted revealing/semi-lustful contents (if they may happen), and ignore/scroll past to their other relevant contents.

Yes, even with friends and in stadiums in person. It is so goddamn monotonous and dull. It’s the same thing happening over and over again. How tf do people become invested in a team? Even if it’s your city or your country. I have never actively rooted for my own country whenever they play the Olympics online because I do not care. How tf do you become a fan of a team? I’ve tried and failed. It is so dull.

I started the East of Eden series recently, which tries to stay faithful to the source material (at least the first episode). The whole time, I was thinking “Just read the book! It’s this, but better!” On the other end of the spectrum is the recent Wuthering Heights, a beloved book where “creative liberties” were taken in the adaptation, which was universally panned.

There really is no right way to adapt a good book in a satisfying way. You inevitably lose what made it a good book in the first place. Even a quality adaptation will just be a pale copy of the book itself.

On the other hand, there have been movie adaptations that exceeded the book. In my opinion, Fight Club and The Shining have adaptations that improve on the source material and create iconic movies. Why? Because they’re mediocre books.

Mediocre often explore interesting ideas with lackluster execution. Adaptation gives a new life to these ideas from someone with a fresh perspective.

I wasn’t allowed to shop there for both money and sexual advertisement reasons, and the smell and dark environment made it feel cool and forbidden yet aspirational. I loved that going in there was a whole experience that smacked you in the face, lol. I still associate that smell with “2000s unattainable cool girl” vibes…

I usually don't like it when TV series or movies show right before the climax first, then give you a "six months earlier", and the rest of the story is catching back up to the moment we saw in the beginning.

^{Random examples, i know:}

White lotus notably does this, at least in season 2.

the Mr bean short film "Man vs. Bee" does this.

Assassins creed 1 started it's story in modern times, you were Desmond and went into the past/ history for segments of the story, but returned to the present.

Second last or last episode of Lanterns season 1 did the same thing, this one expanded on recaps we'd already kind of seen. Like, get back to the present, I don't care.

I don't have any problems with stories written so a narrator is telling the story, and no problem with in-medias-res writing, starting in the middle of the action. this is often very engaging. but if there is a "2 weeks earlier" intertitle, I can get very impatient. often, I just want to get back to the "present" in the story, as it's what I was invested in. I particularly don't like it when we get back to the present, and the story ends. it's like we finally get to the real story, and it's over, wtf.

I don't live an interesting life, which means I get bored easily. If I hear a knock on the door and see through the window that it's a solicitor, it's a perfect opportunity to fuck with people for the sake of my own personal amusement. If it's a door to door salesman, I'll immediately start preaching the words of Jesus Christ followed by saying something insane. If it's a religious group trying to convert me, I'll say some of the most antagonistic things I can think of in the moment.

This is a relatively niche topic. But why? Because it is still legal and rarely held accounted for. This is bad as this ruins societal functions, economically, politically and culturally. If you do not know what they are, one of them is based on relatives and family, the other is based on communities and acquaintances. Essentially if you are a third party person but has sufficient skills, passion, interest, experience, qualifications, knowledge, etc, you will be barred simply because you are not within their community, let alone their family. This used to be in small firms, but nowadays it is an issue in retails, and also in more higher sectors including accountancy, lawyers, journalists, doctors, and even in social work (yes, including child protection). Many social work and law graduates are unemployed owing to that.

I believe the climbing unemployment rate in the UK, both young and the default population is owing to those, but they just theorise AI but even LSE stated otherwise that only 10% can only be automated, despite more theories saying people will all by butchered by AI by the 2030s apparently.

This was conventionally class-based within a completely capitalist society. For example here in the UK we had the so called rotten boroughs until the Great Reform Act 1832, when Parliament started to become less on who you know. But in modern socialist economies, as a result of in depth multiculturalism, the same thing occurs based on class. Here in the UK and in Swindon, there are certain immigrant communities who are owning retail branches that were intially diverse and full of students, middle aged and the elderly people initially. This is an issue.

Imagine you have the skills, but you get rejected because you are a third party. This makes skills, academics, experience, qualifications useless.

Not to mention, the negatives as a result of nepotism and cronyism. It stalls the economy, stalls cashflow and ultimately leading to a high street collapsebecause of sloppy, lazy effort. It cause corruption and this is partially why many corrupt nations across the world stay corrupt, because of crony and nepo baby culture undermining skills and meritocracy. Consequences include blocking customer loyalty, redundant opportunity costs, and not serving customers thoroughly because you are not in their community.

If we investigate and sanction, I believe the flow of our society will enhance by a million miles. No longer you can just rely on luck. You cannot work because you have relatives undermining qualifications.

Meritocracy and hard work are much, much better.

(NOTE THE GRAPHIC FAN CONTENT I AM REFERRING TO IS NOT SEXUAL, I'M REFERRING TO THE KIND OF FAN CONTENT THAT HAS BLOOD AND STUFF IN IT AND EXTREME VIOLENCE BUT NOTHING SEXUAL.) For those that don't know one or two months ago a horror movie called buddy came out and although i have not seen it I have heard it's pretty good but that's beside the point. Point is is that parents would actually take their kids to see this movie thinking that it's just an innocent kids movie only to then realize while watching it that it is not suitable for kids and then they proceed to get upset about what their kid just watched. They just look at something that looks kid friendly and just assumes it is kid friendly. Something very similar if not the exact same applies to graphic MLP fan content, just because it looks kid-friendly doesn't mean it is kid friendly, and just because it looks kid-friendly doesn't mean the Creator intended kids to watch it. If we're going by the logic that they did intend for kids to watch it because it looks innocent then Mouse Pi for hire falls under that category for looking innocent but not actually being innocent. And before anyone says there is a difference because the MLP graphic fan content is easily accessible on the internet this same argument could be made for buddy whenever it comes to streaming services assuming it's not on them already. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of parents blindly let their kids scroll on something like Netflix without monitoring what they're watching. So this same argument could be made for Buddy as well. And just because something is on something like YouTube kids doesn't mean the Creator intended it to be for kids I sometimes YouTube is just dumb. It sees something that looks kid friendly and just assumes that it is kid friendly therefore it is then put on YouTube kids.

We should stop judging an entire gender because of a few people

We should stop judging an entire sex based on something bad that one or few person of that sex have done.

I'm sick and tired of people bringing up Clancy's case (whose mental state is questionable) to justify their views against women, or of others using the Cornell Seven case to claim that all guys are bad, even though the facts surrounding the Cornell Seven case are still unclear.

I'm fed up with these generalizations about the sexes. It's not okay to use an isolated, anecdotal case involving someone of a particular sex to condemn everyone of that sex. Both men and women do this, and it's infuriating.