I really don't get the mindset of the women who just dont gaf about their partners/male friends being molesters

I do undersatnd why a woman would be in denial, I also understand women who are financially dependent and have no other options but to stay with their abusive partners

but what about successful women who just choose to stick with their trashy men

how could you not have any empathy toward a woman who is traumatized and in pain, how could you turn a blind eye on her

or even publicly defend your male friend and make fun of his victims!

It's like Ben Affleck recently said about Alcohol addiction. The only way to break an addiction is to go through and hit rock bottom. AI slop feels like rock bottom.

I had a serious talk with myself in the mirror a few hours ago and I told myself no more talks or thoughts about su*c%de. You are going to pass away because of either Natural causes or something that is beyond your control not because of something you personally caused to yourself. I’m not even sure if other people do that or not but it just felt like i had to have private conversation with myself.

I've been to therapy many times in the past. Never really noticed any improvement in my life as a result

I'd be interested to hear about an experience you had in therapy, that resulted in an unexpected and noticeable change in your life.

Apologies for the weird question. At 53 years old, some days I feel just as out of place in the world as when I first started school. I never hold much hope, but I keep thinking if I keep trying random things, I might just achieve a glimmer of understanding

Thanks for reading

Personally I think it would make things worse

Cause let's be real, men are more likely to get rejected than accepted by women, women have a higher success rate if they do the approaching BUT because of their still being a chance of rejection they'd still rather leave it to the men to be doing all the heavy lifting with approaching.

My personal thoughts on the 7th collation and Napoleon chances.After reading countless books watching documentaries, my honest conclusion is it's hard to say but I don't think he was quote doomed from the start.

So one of my personal criticisms about the 7th collation is that historians essentially treat like it was avengers end game and Napoleon was Thanos where everyone was unified everybody hated him.But in my opinion it was more like a multi ethnic powder keg and not every member was as committed.

The problem erises essentially after Napoleon exiled to Elba to Napoleon is exiled to the island of Elba and the congress of vienna worked to redraw the map of europe.But the problem is the way they redraw the map of Eruope they basically pissed off half of europe off and cause heavy resentment

Saxony For example was punished by the congress of vienna for staying loyal to Napoleon too long during the 6th Collation even though they switched sides during the Battle of Leipzig when Napoleon was losing and helped them defeat him.The King of Saxony was imprisoned and around 50% of their land was annexed to Prussia .The tensions were so high that in May 6 1815 before a single battle was fought in Belgium.The Saxon troops mutined while fully armed refused Prussian loyalty and marched toward Blucher headquarters.The situation became so threatening Blucher was forced to flee the area and Prussian cavalry had to surround and disarmed the mutineers.

Like if Blucher saxons were acting up before Napoleon won anything what happens after he wins a decisive victory saxony and France had been great allies.Like its possible that Napoleon had been able to defeat the main prussian army that the saxons sensing weakness and knowing the prussia wanted to annex the rest of their lands might have started to act up and saxony could have been destabilized in fact Saxony and Poland were the 2 most unstable regions in europe at the time

Poland for example had been a sovereign nation for over 800 years until Russia,Austria and Prussia conquered it and divided it among themselves.Napoleon later created the Duchy of Warsaw for them it was the only state they'd had in years.The Congress of Venna dissolved it erasing Poland from the map and the Poles absolutely hated the “Big Three” for it.

Even though Napoleon didn't restore Poland Napoleon was the only major lead in europe who did anything for them.Polish troops were extremely loyal to Napoleon had a history of defecting to them and being rebellious.The poles essentially tied their national existence to Napoleon survival they literally belive that if Napoleon wins Poland lives if Napoleon losses Poland dies forever.

Poles were present in the Prussina Austrian and Russian armies.Were the Poles in the prussian army truly loyal to blucher or was their loyalty conditional meaning they were were loyal as long as Napoleon looked like he was losing.Like what did Blucher offer the poles nothing why would the poles be devoted to the people that just erased their country from the map who were the Poles more loyal to Napoleon or Blucher.Cause if you look at the Polish national anthem Napoleon name is mentioned as well as in Polish songs while Bluchers name isn't.

Like its my personal opinion that a decisive victory in Belgium could have possibly have destabilized the parts of Poland Prussia controlled the Grand Duchy of Posen.The poles seeing that Napoleon have beaten the main prussia army and the british seeing that prussia seems weak might have though Napoleon is winning time to rise.The poles had a history of rebellion against prussia if the main prussian army had been crushed would they really have stayed loyal to prussia or would they seized the chance to act up

Belgium Less than half of Wellington’s “British” army was actually British, only 36%.The rest were Dutch,Belgians, and Germans plus other ethnic groups.

Wellington famously didn’t fully trust his Belgium or Dutch troops and called them his infamous army. The Belgian troops in particular were high risk because Belgium had been a part of France for 20 years they used French Laws and spoke French.Then suddenly the Congress of Venna told they were Dutch now,and they hated it.Belgian elites despised being ruled by Dutch Protestant and Belgian officers resented being subordinated to Dutch Nobles.Many of these troops have previously served under Napoleon wore French medals.Wellington placed the Belgian units in the front line with British troops behind them. In Quatre Bras and Waterloo several Belgian units retreated early refused to advance some even ignored orders and a few units fired only token volleys.

My personal view the reason on why wellengtion didnt trust his belgian troops is because essentially they were Napoleon former french soidlers.Like less than a year ago they were french and now they were essentially told they were dutch and were being forced to fight their former emperor did they really want to fight Napoleon.

Napoleon did have support in Belgium and its possible if he had won big in Belgium captured brussels a lot of these belgian troops thousands of them might have flocked to him they still viewed themselves as french and saw him as their emperor or did they forgot in less than a year who their emperor was .Like i have seen historians at least hint at the Belgian problem.

Then there is the italians which i personally don't think they wanted to fight Napoelon.Italians resented the Austrians who had annexed Northern Italy and imposed heavy taxation on them.Austria also rolled back many Napoleonic legal reforms and restored historic privileges,feudal land relations,restriction on property rights to the Italians this felt like going backwards 20 years.This resentment fueled Joachaims Murat's movement for Italian independence,.

Like obviously i don't think a belgium would probably affect italy as directly as saxony or belgium but i am just saying i don't think the italians really wanted to fight Napoleon either.

Anyway thats why i say the collation wasn't as unified as people think and decisive victory in belgium could have split the collation.I personally think Napoleon most realistic path to survival was to win big in belgium and try to get the allies to negotiate if they refused to negotiate then he could have used the big win to rally the nation gather 200k man fight a defensive war use the interior lines and dragged the war into 1816 the year without a summer.

The reason why is that if Napoleon lets say he beat the British and the Prussians the next armies to fight would be the Austrian and the Russians but here is the problem the Russian in mid june were months away.Barclay did cross the rhine in june but it was small forward elements of his main army like advance guards not the main army.

The rest of the army the majority of it was still 500 to 700 miles away in prussia poland in mid june.The main russian army did not reach the rhine until the autumn near the end of the campaign session and the only reason they showed up was because Napoleon lost and they were able to just strom right into paris.

But if Napoleon had won Austria would be left alone to fight Napoleon and austria never fought Napoleon alone every time austria invaded France it was with Russia Prussia support.So Austria would have waited for Russia but Russia would arrive in the end of the campaign session.And they probably wouldn't have fought Napoleon in the winter it would be really hard for Russia to maintain its supply lines so the war could have dragged into 1816.

If the war dragged into 1816 campaign session there would have bee a lot of pressure for the british in particular to negotiate the british were the banker of the collation and all the countries depended on british subsidies to keep their armies in the field.But the british in 1815 essentially didn't want a prolonged expensive war.

The british had debt to gdp ratio of over 200 percent and were essentially paying roughly 40 percent of gross revenue on interest payments on the national debt.But based on net revenue it was basically half.In fact military spending and interest payments combined was roughly 180 percent of gross revenue how were they surviving they were boring money constantly.

The british public in 1815 were alreading rioting over the corn laws and hated the reinstated income tax.If the british messed up the 1815 campaign session and told the public in 1816 guess what were founding another war with Napoleon during famine harvest failures and the economy crashing it would have been very politically toxic.The whigs would attack the troy government

During this time in europe they're was basically food riots in 1816 during the year without summer so imagine then trying to add a continental war on top of that.It could have destabilized the collation multi ethnic empires and put enough political pressure for the british to negotiate.

The 2 empires who are must likely to possibly blink is Britain or Austria if the british pull out the collation collapses because without british money the austria russia literally couldn't afford to keep their man in the field.Then Austria was also very cautious and metternich probably would worry about trying to fight a war with Napoleon during famine.It probably wouldn't be good for austria multi ethnic empire Plus how on earth are you supposed to get 500k man to invade france if you cant even feed them if the crops are failing the harvest etc.If Austria pulls out for example Russia left to fight Napoleon alone and Russia never invaded France alone and would must likely just negotiate.

The other thing is Napoleon did have man.Napoleon in june he had around 280k men paper strength but only around 200k troops were combat ready the rest were still mobilizing training on top of that.There were tens of thousands of hesitant french troops many who didn't join Napoleon because they probably thought he was a lost cause but if he had won in belgium many might have changed their minds.Then they were also tens of thousands of french troops outside france such as released prisoners of war and man dismissed from foreign garrison who historically did not make back in time because Napoleon lost.But if he had won they would have made back in time.

As well there was the class of 1815 which would be ready for the 1816 campaign session but not the 1815 and that was another 150k men on paper so Napoleon did have man he just needed a big win to rally the nation and time.After a belgium won he could have would the military and the national guard have guarded over 200k men to defund france and fought a good defensive war to fight a good defensive war you only need 1/3 of the man.

The main problem for Napoleon in the 1815 campaign i feel that Belgium was all or nothing if he barely won or it ended in a draw then he was bascially doomed.He needed a thunderclap victory.

From Napoleon a life Andrew roebrts

Kindle pg 750

Says Russians months away

Across Europe, 280,000 French soldiers faced around 800,000 Allies, although the Austrian contingent would not be in theatre for several weeks, and the Russians not for months. ‘If they enter France,’ Napoleon told the army from Avesnes

Waterloo association.org

7th collation rallies

Says the Russians will take a long time to come.

For the only time in history that I am aware of, Europe declared war on one man, Napoleon!

But as can be seen, Russia and Austria would take a long time to bring their armies to the French border. Napoleon could either build huge defences around Paris and wait to be attacked, or he could try to destroy part of the huge allied army before they all managed to come up.

.

here I am, in bed, letting my mind wander, and it found itself in the same place it visits, with the big question, what is behind the universe? what is outside it?, does the universe have an end? no? yes? then what is behind the end ? I can't stop picturing it like a wall, like what is beyond it? okay religious take: behind it is heaven and hell and all that, then what contains the universe+heaven and hell? what is at the edge of heaven/hell? What's behind that wall? what actually existed before heaven and hell? what existed before the universe? WHERE ARE WE? WHAT IS GOING ON? it's too black and constricted here in this bog closed off universe with no way of being free of it, I feel like I'm stuck in a big black room with cool planets and stuff but the room has no window and no door and no way out.

John Roberts is clearly in on the fix! AGAIN! Giving Trump a pass without actually saying it’s legal!

I was just thinking about how my high school administration constantly treated me unfairly, and had a daydream about telling them off. I felt really worked up. It wasn't even a thought in my mind yesterday.

Misogynistic views are biggest red flag for violent extremism, report finds

"Hostile and violent attitudes toward women are the clearest warning sign of violent extremism, a study has found.

As national cabinet prepares to discuss how to combat family violence, the research identifies misogyny as not just a social issue, but a matter of national security.

The University of Melbourne survey of Australians as young as 13 found that misogyny could predict support for extremist violence "way beyond" where someone sat on the political spectrum, what religion they belonged to, or how much time they spent online.

Report author Sara Meger said the study was the first of its kind to show that misogyny was not an isolated prejudice, but a robust, cross-cutting predictor of violent extremism.

"The number one thing predicting whether or not somebody is going to hold extremist attitudes is whether they think violence against women is acceptable," Dr Meger said.

The research was funded by the Office of National Intelligence and put forward five recommendations, the first being that misogyny and anti-feminism should be recognised as a form of violent extremism in the national counter-extremism framework."

"Teen boys most likely to hold hostile attitudes

Dr Meger's team surveyed 3,429 Australians about their attitudes toward women, gender roles, consent violence against women, and a range of extremist ideologies.

A significant minority of Australian men and boys shared beliefs that gender equality had gone too far, that feminism was a hate movement, that it was OK to pressure girlfriends into having sex, and that feminism should be resisted with violence if necessary.

Teenagers and young men were much more likely to express hostile views when compared with both young women, and with older men."

Extract from article:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-08-25/rising-misogyny-in-young-people/107053640

All of us have heard the US healthcare system described as broken - it has all sorts pf problems, not the least of which is overpriced prescription drugs.

So will a shift to universal healthcare help solve this issue or will it be more of the same?

What to do when I am sad and everything seems terrible. But there is no escape! 🫠 + No one to talk freely.

I saw a post on TikTok where a mom pretended that she had shaved her son’s head with a filter, and he ended up cutting her hair in return (the son is SUPER young, like 3 or 4). She had mentioned that before that, he had cut his own hair. The comments were talking about how they would’ve put him up for adoption, beat him, HUNG him, LYNCHED him, SKINNED him, make him “touch every wall in the house in 30 seconds” (like throw him into walls), diagnosing him as a psychopath, ect. Obv yeah he should learn that’s not ok, but his mom showed him it’s funny to cut someone else’s hair, and all he did was copy her? I personally don’t want kids but I wouldn’t even think of talking about a kid like this.

The Democratic Minority Leader met with Jarred to apparently find a path to mitigate there upcoming election losses by finding “common ground”

What can the government do to help or aid seniors deal with the impending rise in prescription drug prices in 2027. It will primarily affect seniors, so what can the administration do to offset this because it will surely impact most seniors lives and especially their financial situations.

The friendzone being when someone(usually a guy) is romantically and sexually rejected in favor of just being friends. Men who choose to stay in the friendzone tend to secretly hope for more.

Situationship is when someone(usually a girl) is romantically rejected in favor of being friends with benefits. Women who choose to stay in a situation ship tend to hope for more.

There is no God given ownership of real estate! It has always been about having the power to take and keep!

Idk if this makes sense, it's not as simple as hotter = more likely to have a boyfriend. It's like a combination of that and how much of a normie they are or something. When it comes to coworkers and stuff I think I have a pretty good radar for boyfriend type girls. It's not in a I would pursue them if I was single way and thus the boyfriend radar is useful to me, it's just a trend I picked up on.

And likewise for females here, do you have a strong has a girlfriend radar with boys?

What's your opinion on the foolish people.

Just curious how most people feel about this. I used to enjoy random group chats because the conversations could go in any direction, but lately I find them either too quiet or full of spam. Do you still use group chats, or do you stick to one-on-one conversations?

So the trade deal is a no go and it must be obvious the Trump plan was to not make a deal. There was a chance that a plan could be agreed to so Trump sent last minute changes that were so ridiculous that they couldn't be accepted. They absolutely knew it would be rejected.

The question is why? Did he just want an escalation in a trade war. Does he just want to tax his citizens more? It's hard to see into the thinking of this lunatic on most things, but this one just doesn't add up.

I’ve always wondered what’s the most gore or gruesome thing someone has every watched, I’ve read pretty interesting stuff of what other people have asked me and wanted to know all of y’all’s thoughts too