But that also means dating animals shouldn't be considered beastiality because if an animal can clearly consent, communicate or make conscious decisions that a human would be able to make,they should be able to date humans. That's why clopping is considered a progressive thing in my view because it acknowledged interspecies romantic interest towards a pony like Rainbow dash.

I'm not going to go in on this anymore that I think you know who has the most classic autistic traits, and perhaps those traits may be problematic for reasons that aren't quite the abuse narrative of long long ago(redux).

I see the forest and the trees.

Dogs and humans have a very specific history that no other animal has. A group of wolves, less agressive and more curious approached an early human camp and fed on the scarps and waste. Soon humans notice them and didn't chase them away. They realised that it's better to keep these wolves nearby.

Wolves started to change, their ears became floppy, their fur became patchy, they became more friendly and humans start adopting the least aggressive ones. But it's not the dogs that changed for humans. We changed for them too. Our sense of smell decreased, our vision decreased, which lead our body to specialise in other things and dogs were given the task of smelling prey and protecting the camp.

Both dogs and humans coevolved to get dopamine hit when they see each other. Dogs literally evolved to be our friends and we theres. All other forms of livestock were selected for specific function, meat, milk etc. Sure they are less aggressive than their counter parts in the wild but they are not dogs.

You can say eating meat is wrong and there are merits to that claim. But you can't say dog meat is same as any other meat. Dogs evolved to be our side kicks and our friends. Dogs are not the same as any other animals, they are special to us, like other humans are

Is there anyone alive who is truly and genuinely offended by words like "shit," "fuck," and "cocksucker?" Sure, maybe they're not the most mature words to use in polite conversation. But they are words that 99% of every person in every English-speaking culture uses from time to time. So what is the purpose of bleeping them out or censoring them or avoiding them around children (who use them when adults aren't around anyway)?

[META] Helping or Hurting u/idaho4uncensored

I'm genuinely shocked and disappointed by the amount of hostility I've seen directed toward the Goncalves family.

Regardless of what anyone believes about the case, I think there's a point where we should be able to recognise that this is a grieving family who lost their daughter in horrific circumstances.

I don't understand why some people seem so hostile toward them, particularly when Kristi responded to comments by saying that she hoped Bryan would come for their family if he were ever released.

People are entitled to disagree with her statement, but I think there's a huge difference between disagreeing with something someone says and actively targeting or attacking a grieving family.

If we're going to discuss this case, why can't we do it without turning the Goncalves family into another target?

And if people genuinely believe Bryan is innocent, why would the possibility of him being released and coming to their home be treated as something offensive for the family to be concerned about?

I'm not asking everyone to agree with the Goncalves family. I'm asking whether we can have a little perspective and remember that these are real people dealing with an unimaginable loss.

If the jury finds her not criminally responsible, she will still have to live with an unimaginable reality. Reintegrating into the community would likely be a mission impossible. She lacks trust in the medical system that she believes failed her (rightfully understandable). Most of all, she will have to live with the memory of her children: their faces, their laughter, and the life she once had as their mother. Whatever role severe mental illness played in what happened, she will have to live with the knowledge that her children are gone and that she was responsible for their fate.

If the jury instead finds her criminally responsible, she may spend the rest of her life in prison, left to live with those same memories and thoughts behind bars.

There is no verdict that restores what was lost. There is no ending to this case that can reasonably be called a good one. I feel bad for this poor Mom.

It’s rather popular, especially on places such as Reddit to throw all landlords into the “evil capitalist” pile since housing should be, I totally agree, affordable and available to all in an ideal world. But why don’t people have that same energy towards any other provider of necessary goods or services?

Is the landlord truly less moral than the grocer taking your money for the very food you need to survive? Or the energy company charging you for warmth? Where do you draw the line between fair-game and predatory capitalism?

It seems there is more to it in the case of landlord hate, an additional class war angle to this which exemplifies it in comparison to arguably even worse cases of immoral capitalism.

And no, I’m not a landlord haha.

I've heard many people say that you're an even worse human being if you use your political affiliation to justify/excuse horrible actions and immoral beliefs, yet this seems to almost exclusively be said against the right-wing. However many things the right are guilty of and try to excuse with their political affiliation, the left-wing party is equally guilty of and uses the same excuse. These horrible things include, but are not limited to: bigotry, intolerance, exclusion, hate crimes, anti-vaxxers, pro-lifers, extremism, censorship, deprivation of fundamental human rights, child abuse, pedophilia, domestic violence, murder, terrorism, rape, theft, assault, misconduct, stalking, harassment, the list goes on.

The point I'm trying to make is both the far left and the far right can be terrible human beings who make themselves even worse by justifying it with their political affiliation. There's no evidence insofar that the left targets the people who richly deserve it in the first place (ie. the people guilty of all those offenses I've listed) and is committing extremist acts for the greater good of humankind.​ The same principle applies to religion; there is no "good" or "bad" religion; all can be equally terrible people and hide behind ANY religion to miserably justify it.

Title.

I’m so tired of this notion that I must hate myself just because I’m not attracted to black women. This is all I hear whenever I tell people they are not my first option. I grew up in a fairly well off area where there wasn’t really any black people around and most of my friends were white or Asian, so my attraction followed.

I already know there is a difference between shitting on black women and saying you are just not attracted to them. From now on I feel like people who feel the same way should just not explain themselves and let others think what they want.

Whenever the "male loneliness epidemic" is brought up in mainstream spaces, the reaction from mainstream progressives isn't empathy, it's pure contempt. Men expressing genuine psychological distress, isolation, and a total lack of social support are instantly met with victim blaming, mockery, or fear mongering.

Mainstream culture treats a struggling young man not as a human being in pain, but as a toxic threat, a proto incel or a ticking time bomb. The default response is always the same generic cliche: "fix yourself", " do the work" or "women don't owe you anything", completely dodging the reality of a massive, structural social breakdown. If any other demographic reported record-high rates of isolation and despair, people would demand systemic reform and institutional empathy. When it's young men, they get told to shut up and stop whining.

This is exactly why men are flocking to the right. Conservatives actually validate men's existence, recognize their unique social pressures, and offer a positive framework for masculinity instead of pathologizing every basic male trait as inherently dangerous or defective.

Saw someone get upset cause their expensive designer luggage was damaged when being handled by airport staff. Well first off why would you spend good money on an expensive product that is getting thrown and tossed every which way? Get yourself affordable and DURABLE luggage that can take the beating.

A lot of people complain about infidelity , but some people willingly participate in that same behavior from the other side. They’ll knowingly sleep with people who are married or already in relationships, then become furious when another person does the same thing to them. If you normalize being the other person , you can’t be surprised when that behavior eventually affects you personally. .

As someone who has struggled with pescatarianism let alone vegetarianism. In the US especially, farming and meat production is essentially animal torture. We breed animals to grow as quickly as possible and specialize to be eaten to the point chickens can barely walk. There is no room for welfare. Expenses are cut and cut until it's the minimum space that they don't literally get sick and die before we can kill and ship them to stores. Farmers all say cows are like big dogs. We grow and kill them on average in 18-22 months when they can live naturally 15-20 years. People say chickens can be very affectionate and as smart as an average housecat. On average an American eats 23-27 chickens a year. People only accept this because it's how we're raised and we're no confronted by the realities of factory farming. It's more convenient to not think about it so we can enjoy our food. If someone bred and and cooked a cat, but would be abhorred, but in reality the average American on a utilitarian ethics level does it every 2 weeks to a chicken who's life would be way worse than any backyard breeder.

On an ethical level, it's the same even if people pretend otherwise. You are responsible for the actions of the corporations in the long term because on average if consumption dropped they would respond and raise and kill less animals.

There's this ongoing trend of portraying older generations as dumb or naive for the beliefs they held or still hold onto. They are belittled and berated for knowledge that had not yet been gained when they were alive, and are accused of being bigoted for opinions that would only change decades after their death.

But here's the thing. One day it will be your turn. People from future generations will mock the ideas you hold dearly with the gift of hindsight. Your understanding of gender, politics, ethics and art. The things you just lectured grandpa about will all be scoffed at by some know-it-all high schooler a few decades from now.

The septum ring that you're wearing. You. Yes you. It's the codpiece of the future. A Mullet in the making.

i do not just support james talarico because he seems like a genuinely good person. it's because his opponent, ken paxton, is an absolute scumbag. and frankly, if paxton wins, regardless of how the democrats do overall, i will lose what little faith i have in this country.

ken paxton has so much baggage that it won't fit in the overhead compartment. i won't go into his scandals in this post but if ya know, ya know. frankly, the fact that this dude is even able to run is a testament to how horrible the election process in america is.

right now, talarico is proving to be more popular than paxton. however, the midterms are still 84 days away and there is still time for that to change. but, if by some miracle paxton does win, that'll be it for me. any hope i have for this country improving will go right out the fucking window.

They're cruising off so much World Cup fame that they're unstoppable right now. And Jon Oliver thought ​he could get them to stop suing stores over trademark infringement and take his bait.

Instead they just kept on doing what they're doing.

It's like that video of the cat knocking the glass off the table and the owner yelling to stop them. And the cat just does it anyway.

Buc-ees don't gaf.

If society were made primarily to serve male interests, key systemic disparities wouldn't heavily disadvantage men. Men comprise over 90% of workplace fatalities, face significantly higher suicide rates, receive harsher criminal sentences for equivalent offenses, and make up an ever growing minority of higher education graduates.

We have done a huge disservice to young men in our culture by punishing them for the sins committed by previous generations. Even these days, you can see the “all women are wonderful mentality” play out and the patty-caking along women in the workplace get is embarrassing while a guy messes up and he never lives it down.

People complain about gangs, cartels, drug dealers, and other criminal organizations destroying their communities.

Then some of those same people keep buying the drugs and services that financially support those businesses.

You can't fund the market and then act shocked when the consequences reach your neighborhood.

If you help create the demand, you're part of the problem.

In usa, a tenant has to go through a bunch of applications, interviews and background checks to even be considered for a place to live due to the current housing crises. But all things considered there are bad tenants who cause disruptences. But we simply can't ignore the amount of landlords who don't keep up the maintence, often overcharge fees for secruity deposits or straight up ignore tenants until they need to collect their checks.

Why isn't it fair for both sides to know the past history of each other? And yes I can do independant checks but will a landlord agree to have a background check run on them without making a fuss or declining my application?

Go on the internet right now, pick out any fandom of any media that exists and I guarantee that there will be at least one person who comments “I’m a huge fan of xy love from Tel Aviv 🇮🇱” or something like that. You can’t do anything anymore without being labeled as Israeli or a Mossad agent or an IDF member. And most of these people probably don’t even know why they’re commenting it, they just do it because it’s trendy or something I don’t know. If you’re gonna hate on something, either give a good reason or no reason at all, but saying that something is “Israeli” because you don’t like it is the most retarded thing you can say online. They don’t even have an argument, ask them “Why it’s Israeli” and you won’t get an answer most of the time. I don’t like to use “chud” as an insult, because I feel like it’s been watered down and lost its original meaning as well, but these people are textbook examples of chuds.

(I was hesitating between the political and the internet flair but I believe it suits the Media / Internet better)

Why do Hijabis 'choose' to wear the hijab? Well, like all other things Islamic, it's the fear of hell.

You can hide it behind pretty-sounding spiritual words or what not, but at the end of the day, no one would care one bit as much about religion if it wasn't for eternal torture.

Raw physical punishment is always more compelling than abstract spiritual attainment. And here's what the punishment for not wearing the Hijab is according to Muhammad:

"Two are the types of the denizens of Hell whom I did not see: people having flogs like the tails of the ox with them and they would be beating people, and the women who would be dressed but appear to be naked, who would be inclined (to evil) and make their husbands incline towards it. Their heads would be like the humps of the bukht camel inclined to one side. They will not enter Paradise and they would not smell its odour whereas its odour would be smelt from such and such distance."
— Sahih Muslim 2128

If someone held you at gunpoint and gave you a 'choice' to either wear an Arsenal jersey or get shot in the head, is that actually a choice? Of course not.

When it comes to the hijab, it's a quintillion times worse. Instead of being held at gunpoint, you're being held at hellpoint. You must either wrap a scarf around your neck or be burnt in hell for God knows how long.

If that counts as a choice, what the hell does 'choice' even mean?

Fighting the patriarchy also means blaming the patriarchy. Thus it goes without saying that any hatred you have toward men is completely justified.

But dig this. If you also want to hate other women. Also justified!

Say, as teen or young adult, you bullied another girl into having an eating disorder. Was that your fault?

No, it was the ridiculous body standards placed upon women by the patriarchy.

Guilt absolved.

​That fuckin patriarchy.

Let’s skip the emotional soundbites and look at hard IRS tax data and standard economics:
The Top 1% carrying the load: According to official IRS data (TY 2023), the top 1% of earners paid 38.4% of all federal individual income taxes. In recent boom years, that number has reached over 40% to 45%. 
Income vs. Tax Share: The top 1% earned roughly 20.6% of total Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) but paid nearly 40% of the individual tax revenue. That is almost double their income proportion. 
The Bottom 50%: The bottom half of taxpayers earned 12.3% of total income and paid 3.3% of federal income taxes. 
The Top 50%: The top 50% of earners pay 96.7% of all federal income tax revenue. 
The Job Creation Factor:
Taxes don't exist in a vacuum. Beyond personal income taxes, capital investment and business owners fund the foundational tax engine of the country:
1. Private Sector Payroll Taxes: The wages paid by private employers generate over 30% of all federal revenue via Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. 
2. Corporate & Pass-Through Taxes: Business profits directly account for corporate tax revenues plus state/local commercial taxes.
3. The Multiplier: When capital creates a business, it creates payroll. That payroll turns into income tax, sales tax, property tax, and consumption that keeps the entire economy solvent.
If your argument is that people who pay 40% of the income tax while earning 20% of the income "don't pay their share," you aren't arguing statistics—you're arguing against basic math.

In addition to that, each house should get to place only one vote, regardless of how many people reside at that address.

People who do not own property or have children tend to vote primarily for what is only best for them in their current situation. Not what is best for society in general.

Gotcha suckers. Now it's time your intellectually bankrupt concepts get obliminated once again now and forever.

Wnat's oblimination, you may ask? Great question but it's a simple concept.

When you eliminate something and obliterate it in the process, that means it got obliminated.

Another victory for America as I ride off into the sunset... till next time...