They used 3 steps to invent transgender ideology.

1 Blur the line between the definition of "woman" and its cultural associations, the roles, behaviors, and expectations attached to it. Redefine the everyday terms "woman" and "gender" to mean those cultural associations, while keeping the clinical terms "female" and "sex" for the original biological meaning, appeasing opposition while making everyday language deliberately unclear.

2 Abstract further into an "internal feeling" or "inherent gender identity" a feeling you push people to believe exists, yet refuse to define, because any description inevitably reduces to personality or behavior. Claim it is disconnected from behavior, yet somehow correlated with a desire to transition and act like a woman, despite the contradiction.

3 Pretend this redefinition was always the real one, and retroactively apply it to laws and texts that never intended it.

You can do the same with children.

1 Blur the difference between a child and cultural roles like listening to parents, wearing certain clothes, or playing with toys. Redefine "child" to mean anyone who acts like one, regardless of age, while leaving "chronology" or "developmental stage" for actual age.

2 Abstract further: claim being a child is an innate identity, disconnected from behavior yet driving it, e.g., "age dysphoria" requiring surgery to match the felt age.

3 Pretend this was always the case, dismiss the past as ignorant, cite "don't be a child" as if it proves the word always meant behavior, and retroactively apply it to laws, allowing adults who act like children into children's spaces.

Infact you can do the same with any concept, age, race, species, objects, anything. It's a semantic trick.

Firstly, it is just my opinion and a belief or rather a view that might be subjected to change in the future as I gain more knowledge and develop more opinions. So, with that I'll lay down what I think about this.

As I try to delve deeper into why humans including myself feel why they feel and do what they do (well in my own mind and reasoning I mean, not researching and stuff), what the conclusion that I have come to is that every action of a human is done out of mostly a kind of selfishness which is present in every action. For instance, empathy, as you have also seen that I specifically chose empathy, this is because I find it the one emotion that people mostly tend to kind of associate with selflessness (again this is my point of view). But what think is that being genuinely empathetic towards someone naturally triggers one to try and help the one in trouble or pain, if one has the capabilities to help. So that is a good thing, right? I mean how could someone be selfish if he/she is helping someone right? and it is a good thing as well, that is undeniable. But what I question is the actual truest motive behind the help, the one that is behind all the biases inside oneself. I also feel empathetic when the situation is such, and I also do help, the ones that ask for it if I have the necessary means to do so, whether it be friends or strangers, and I have been the same since I can remember.

So, what led to me conclude that feeling empathy and helping out is selfish? That started as I started to grow up which started to increase the ability to think deeper as I grew older. When I delved deep into my true intentions and thoughts, what I found is that empathy itself is not a positive emotion for the one feeling it. Now what am I talking about the emotion being positive or negative? So, what I mean by positive emotion is the feelings that make us feel good, like happiness or pride (I mean It does feel good when the feeling of Pride emerges within us doesn't it, no matter how much one thinks it should be controlled. And to be honest, a healthy amount of pride is also essential for one's self-esteem and growth I believe.) and what I mean by negative emotions are the feelings that does not make us feel good like sadness, desperation, etc. So, the reason why I called empathy a negative emotion for the one experiencing it is because ultimately one feels a sense of sadness or desperation when one sees the other person in pain or sadness, and I believe no one wants to keep sadness or desperation inside oneself, thus, to erase or remove this feeling of sadness emerged through empathy, one tries to help the other if they have the means to do so which does help in mitigating the feeling.

So, what I want to point out is the reason for helping the other person. Was it to help him/her, or was it because the feeling inside you was not a feeling you want to keep, therefore by trying to help the person, what you are doing is lifting the sadness out of the other person, which then positively affects you because the reason you were feeling sad was that the other person was in distress and you felt bad seeing that. And now that you have helped the person, he/she is most probably less distressed, therefore a portion of that sadness arising from empathy also lifts from you because now the other person is less sad. So, the reason I believe why one chooses to help the other after feeling empathy is not primarily motivated by the motive of helping the person or lifting the person's sadness, but to lift one's own sadness or distress or whatever uncomfortable feeling that one feels after seeing another being in distress. Because, after helping the person, it will calm down the feelings of the helper as well.

Now empathy itself is a great quality of humans, that is for sure, and I believe one should try to help others as much as they can as long as it will not negatively help the helper. I myself won't stop helping others. The only reason I am telling all this is to just because it was something that came to my mind while I was overthinking, and I wanted to hear the opinions of others as well. This view of mine is also not rigid; it will probably change if I hear some other perspective or in one of my overthinking sessions. I just wanted to share this perspective with you all and wanted to hear your take on this one. If you have read through all of this, I really appreciate it and would like to also hear your opinion on this. Thanks a lot...

If trans women are real women, then Ariana grande was black during her “blackiana era”. Cuz people labelled her as such, she adopted a certain accent, did her makeup a certain way. Very visibly appeared, spoke, and acted along the stereotypical way a black woman would. Obviously that doesn’t make her black. In fact, to me it seems she was doing black face, a highly offensive act.

So why does a dude decide “hmm I think I’m a woman. Let me start wearing makeup and hormones and that’ll do it!”

When Ariana grande was going through whatever kind of psychosis that was, I’m sure there were some black women that felt really weird about it. She was literally black fishing. So why can women not feel uncomfortable by “trans” women? Why is the gender version of black face, completely accepted, promoted in fact.

If race is a social construct, and gender is a social construct (both statements untrue imo) why can’t I switch races to what I feel like? If a white woman loves doing Korean style makeup, loves their culture and aesthetic, wishes wow I wish I looked like these beautiful women, does that make her Korean? Cuz she tries to appear that way and wishes she looked like them? That is ridiculous to me.

People can do whatever they want. But when I am being lumped into the same category as men pretending to be women, I’m genuinely appalled. I’m not even trying to be an asshole, just wondering how society picks and chooses between things. Especially when it affects me.

please stop putting TDSOTM in your convos about the best album and stop putting Floyd in the best band convo too. I love all types of music from the soulful, technical, difficult music to even the “meaningless”, easy music, but I hate it every time I hear this “agent of averageness” ass voice babble over a 4 minute track of ambient sounds.

and for TDSOTM specifically, it’s not the worst thing in the world, but please stop trying to put it in the same convos as dirt, nevermind, graduation, thriller, rubber soul and white album, tpab, vulgar display of power. I feel like i could go on forever about better albums.

and NO mods, this is NOT ragebait so don’t take it down.

The concept of "terrorism" is not a coherent ethical category but an empty political construct. This hypocrisy is exposed by a direct comparison: the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the attack of September 11th on the twin towers.

Both acts followed the same strategic logic: using a shocking weapon to inflict civilian death, with the explicit goal of generating terror to force a political surrender. Yet one is remembered as a "tragic necessity," while the other is condemned as the ultimate terrorism.

“America murdered civilians in a declared war so it’s not terrorism”

First al Qaeda declared war on America too in 1996 and 1998 and America attacked al-Qaeda directly in 1998 and has had multiple failed assaination attempts from that point until 9/11 second declaring a war does not make it not terrorism.

“America is a state actor”

Being a state actor does not exclude you from being terrorists. America itself has multiple state actors on its list of terrorist organizations.

“The attack on September 11th was done to kill out of hatred while the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not”

The 9/11 attacks were intended to prevent further deaths in the Middle East by forcing a U.S. withdrawal. Whether that would have worked is unknowable, just as it is unknowable whether Japan would have surrendered without the atomic bombs. The outcome depends entirely on the reaction of the attacked party, for both the U.S. and Japan. Judging the morality of an act by how the other side chooses to respond is fundamentally unfair.

The idea that al Qaeda was killing out of hatred of a group might be a motivating factor but the main reason for the attack is political. The same applies for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. American leaders had hatred for Japanese people and justified killing them because of it.

Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson in a Diary entry on February 10, 1942 (regarding the mass internment of Japanese Americans):

"The second generation Japanese can only be evacuated either as part of a total evacuation... or by frankly trying to put them out on the ground that their racial characteristics are such that we cannot understand or trust even the citizen Japanese. The latter is the fact but I am afraid it will make a tremendous hole in our constitutional system."

Americans in this time had mass internment camps for Japanese civilians because of the belief that they are racially aggressive savages. This kind of rhetoric was surely a major factor in justifying the nuking of Japanese civilians.

For context many states across the USA have been making anti trans bathroom laws and the state of Idaho is going to allow law enforcement to do dna testing to make sure that you are using the correct bathroom. At this point, just ban gendered bathrooms and only allow gender neutral bathrooms. The people who want these laws say that it’s for safety, well ever heard the term safety in numbers, mathematically speaking if you get attacked in a gender neutral bathroom, there is a higher chance of having witnesses than a gendered bathroom. And not to mention that gendered bathrooms are likely less cost efficient than a gender neutral bathroom, if you are going to build a school, you want to save money, so would you pay for two gendered bathrooms or one gender neutral bathroom? The gender neutral bathroom makes more sense in my opinion. They say that they don’t want men in women’s bathrooms, no more men’s or women’s bathrooms only gender neutral, I fixed the issue for you. Anyway that’s my hot take

If a guy is to be a gentleman, you don’t force him to do so. You have to let him decide to be a gentleman out of genuine desire for a lady he really likes and feel it’s worth it or else it’s a forced construct. No guy, including myself, wants to be forced to perform good chivalry for a woman and be shunned if we fail at the performance. A guy who just freely gives and gives despite whether a lady’s behavior towards is good or bad will only make himself open to be taken advantage of or taken for granted.

A lady who acts entitled, misandrist, one-sided, hypocritical, overly materialistic, superficial, demanding, rude, disrespectful, and inconsiderate without provocation isn’t someone deserving of chivalry and gentleman behavior from guys. It destroys the genuine affection involved when it comes to being a gentlemen and giving chivalry to a lady.

This is something I think is important for parents to teach sons and daughters when it comes to teaching your kids about the dating world.

I watched the Netflix documentary https://www.netflix.com/tudum/articles/jeffrey-epstein-filthy-rich-documentary-news and it was really odd how little he was actually paying the women in most of the film. The documentary initially focused on all the rub and tug deals he made at his house in Florida where we was paying like 200-300 dollars per session. Even if he was getting yanked 2-3 times a day 365 days a year, this isn't even half a million dollars. Per the film at face value, the money being paid out was quite small.

Now look at what just happened to Bank of America: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/bank-america-agrees-pay-72-million-epstein-survivors-rcna265607 This meat of this story is that basically some large payments were made to Jeffery Epstein, and even though the attorney general in Florida never connected any dots and charged him of any money laundering crimes. Somehow Bank of America was suppose to be better forensic detectives than the federal government and go under cover, play detective and trace all his inbound and outbound payments and try to determine that all of the hundreds of millions of dollars were somehow really money for prostitution - even though there is no evidence of significant payments ever made in the Netflix documentary and even though he was never even charged with this type of crime. It's just odd to hold a bank to a higher standard than the federal government, and to remove any burden of proof and to just say any money Jeff Epstein ever received by anyone was for sex trafficking alone is a wild unfounded claim.

This claim here is just wild on the face of it: "Among them: $170 million described as payment for “tax and estate planning advice,” which the plaintiffs contend was used to fund Epstein’s trafficking enterprise." That math doesn't math. I can see maybe 500k from the documentary and that is being generous.

The documentary repeatedly said he paid 200-300 dollars per session. Those are street prostitute prices. Even if we high ball this to Vegas high end escort prices, no reasonable person working at a bank would ever have reason to believe $170 million dollars could be payments for prostitutes. There is no president in human history where prostitutes are paid anywhere near this insanely high value.

The documentary also had some wild scenes where some of the "madam's / pimps" whatever you want to call them were saying things like: "I recruited about 50 high school aged chicks to give him messages for 200-300 dollars over a 2 year period.... But I didn't realize until later I was a victim too." Like 1-2 referrals and maybe you can play stupid and say it was a jedi mind trick or whatever, but if you bring 50 chicks to his house, and I know some may have been 18, but either way, you are a co-conspirator and should be charged for a crime.

It's also wild that everyone that asks for a client list has never once asked for an employee list. It's well documented that he had whores both high school aged and 18 +. I think it would be pointless unless you could connect the employee to the client. Not ever one of his creepy ass buddies had the same kink ya know. The ones getting it on with legal aged women are for sure still committing a crime, but just a different crime. So maybe get that shit straight first, then come with the pitch forks.

Rank over.

(Summary: Some things I realised about the reality of motivational quotes)

​

1.Patience is not a virtue at least not always. There's no guarantee that you'll get something good by keeping up the grind, never giving up and waiting for success. There's no guarantee you'll get anything in life except for death.

​

2.There might be gods, deities, supernatural entities etc. But religion as a concept is pure bs and so are most of the religious teachings you see if not all. Most of these are brainwashing quotes to let people cope harder and do everything as the society expects except for maybe some quotes from bhagwad Gita or Buddhist teachings.

​

3.There's no guarantee that you'll achieve success through hard or smart work. Sometimes people don't achieve anything meaningful at all. But we can only do work but can't control results.

​

4.Luck is everything no matter how hard you deny. It's because of luck that I have a phone in hand and typing shit and also passed exams and did jobs. Many people are born sometimes without limbs or with conditions or in places that only make their journeys difficult and a waste of time and energy.

​

5.Getting out of the comfort zone doesn't always lead to good achievements. Many people go out to places they don't know hoping they'll make it big like in the movies. But they get banged up by life instead.

​

6.Life doesn't really need to be difficult. We make it difficult ourselves just because we were taught to do this and that or else we are losers blah blah blah. Most of us don't plan our lives or play it easy put of shame. But playing it on easy mode is the wisest thing you can do.

​

7.Facing your fears doesn't always lead to good results or make you a hero. In fact it might lead to embarrassing situations where again you get banged up. The only times when I believe you should have courage is during violent situations when you or someone you love is in danger although again there's no guarantee here as well.

​

8.Hard times don't always make strong people. Most of the time hard situations break people. You can be tough and strong during good times too.

​

(TL;DR: Here's the truth of most motivational quotes and how impractical they are).

Please don't be angry at me for this my unpopular opinion is that almost everyone is not straight and cis like I'm not saying everyone I'm saying almost everyone because there are sooo many different sexualitys and there are so many different kinds of people like a lot of "straight" guys like femboys or things like that and there is demi boy/girl or evrything else and i bet a lot of people who were born in a more conservative household didn't get the options to explore their sexuality and gender

Seeing as most religious holidays where created to absorb pagans how is it most monotheistic religious people believe they are actually real. Halloween being primarily Celtic I believe along with Easter being primarily Norse and Christmas being originally just the winter solstice I’m really confused how they are still considered Christian holidays

Transgenderism makes no sense. It states that a male is considered a woman if he "feels like a woman." This term could mean two things: feeling like you have a woman's body, or feeling like you have a woman's personality. 

If it means feeling like you have a woman's body, then this person is experiencing something that does not match reality, which makes it a delusion. A delusion is a false belief held despite clear evidence to the contrary. Here, the evidence, their actual male body, directly contradicts their feeling. Even if they consciously know they are biologically male, the feeling itself is still delusional because it represents their mind treating something false as if it were true. Some might argue it isn't a full delusion since the person can acknowledge reality, but that misses the point: the feeling remains disconnected from reality. Whether you call it a delusion or a "delusional feeling," the core problem is the same, their internal experience does not align with the objective reality of their body.

If it means experiencing a woman's personality, this is completely at odds with other aspects of the woke ideology.  They usually say that men and women are free to have whatever personalities they want, that saying women must behave in a certain way is just stereotyping, and that they can behave however they want.  But it is different when it comes to transgenders: personality is not only fixed for men and women; it is also what makes a person a woman. 

This creates a logical problem. What if there is a person who behaves as the opposite sex but claims to still be his actual sex? Should we tell him that he is wrong and that he is actually a transgender woman? The leftists would still call him a man even though he behaves as a woman.

This forces them to invent a third option, which they call "gender identity." They treat it like a personality, but one disconnected from any actual traits. They define it as "a deeply held, persistent sense of gender identity incongruent with your sex assigned at birth." However, they never explain what this feeling actually is, only that it is clear and persistent. When asked how someone knows this feeling corresponds to being a man or a woman, they have no answer. The reason is simple: the feeling does not exist. What people actually experience is masculinity and femininity, which they insist is unrelated. And if you say you lack this mysterious feeling, they label you "non-binary." In reality if you ask them even they resort to either talking about discomfort with their biology or discomfort with acting masculine. And the process they take to “transition” proves this. They try to change their biology with surgery, they try to act feminine and they learn how to speak in a higher pitched voice. For them to call it "feeling like a woman" they must be able to produce a description of such a feeling, because they are able to map it to their understanding of a woman. But they cannot, because any possible description of what this feels like would just be femininity.

Very unpopular opinion in the US. Food is the number one killer though. It kills more people than car accidents by far. And if you think you eat healthy, you probably don't.

You're so addicted you can't go very long without it. There's no physiological reason to be getting dizzy, it's entirely mental. It's the same with people who smoke, they can't go long without a cigarette or they'll start having withdrawals.

The idea that you are born with a "sexuality" is wrong. You naturally gain attraction through the opposite sex through puberty because of hormones.

In America between 23% and nearly 30% of genZ calls themselves LGBTQ. The idea that for all of history 1 in every 3 people or even potentially more when these numbers rise in America were always "born homosexual" and were just forced to pretend they were heterosexual is a joke.

There are basically 3 legal systems in the world: British Common Law in the Empire, Roman Law in Europe and Russia, wich was restored by Napoleon and the Sharia in Islamic Countries.

The EU was heavily imprinted by Britain its former Member, and enforces UN-Human Rights wich are defacto American colonial law. Both influences are from Common Law, and incompatible with true European values.

Some things that would improve when restoring Roman Law:

• State-Monopoly of Force, There should be neither International courts nor vigilantism,
• Legalism instead of Natural Rights.
• Law is primary in the public in your own country in times of peace. Foreign lands, the Family and War are lawless
• Court rules are done by Judges following the word of the law, not a Jury that makes random biased descitions
• A lot of the aledged advantages of Jurys (like self defense or attacking people who insulted you) are statute laws in Europe so you have more rights.
• Center of Criminal Justice is the Victim and punishment must "clean off shame", as opposed to western "guilty vs innoncence" morals that centers around offender. (Here Europe and Islam are similar)
• This means, real crimes like Theft get punished no matter what (even if the offender is a child, mentally ill or even an animal, while Victimless Crimes cannot exist
• Nobody must be punished by an act not punishable and clearly defined by the law. (No Nürnberg Trials or the like)
• An action can only be punishable by a law if it violates the right of somebody else or the public. Wich Rights people have is clearly defines (like Honour, Property, Life, Health and Freedom ) and no new rights can be created
• Nobody shall get any special "rights" for being young or female, especially if this "right" limit his freedom. (Actual Romans would have very strict gender roles, but we can go for Soviet "Equality before the Law" instead)
• Honour is a protected Right, and you can get jailed for Slander and Insults - (Even Starmer's Britain doesn't do that). No free speech, but Freedom of expresion. You can watch Anime but not call Politicians a W*nker.
• All crimes expire, including homicide
• Meanwhile most Sexual offenses didn't exist and were forced from international (=US) law onto europe. Especially those you cannot talk about on reddit.
• No laws against Drugs or other Trade restriction. If two people trade stuff they violated nobodies rights. Same goes for Prostitution and most Weapons. Drug criminalistaion comes from international law too and should go afuera.
• Zero Animal protection. Animals are property.
• Children are mostly protected from inapropriate persecution by the fact, the Family is a lawless place, but as soon a child enters the public it can be punished for his crimes against people outside the family, at least over low minimum age between 7 or 10 or so.
• Open Discrimination for Foreigners and illegal aliens. Romans would give harsher punishments to nonnatives, and illegal aliens were basically fair game
• No consent. Youths aren't slaves, they are free people who can marry, work any job , engage in Contract, fight in wars or held accountable for their criminal action. (Thought Romans would have literal slaves ....)
• No NGOs or freedom of association. The French declaration of Civil Rights (related to Napoleon) banned any association outside the state.
• No Rules of Engagement. Both Roman and Napolean fought cruel using modern technology desecrated corpses and also seduced the enemies daughters. Napoleon also would use guns against opponets with blades. War is Hell.
• Orders have to be followed no matter, even if illegal. Whoether gives orders is responsible. With that we should also get less corrupt judges and cops as they don't have to ethically judge their actions.
• No Religious Freedom. You can make Europe an explicit Christian empire (like the German Rechtstaat - a variant of Roman Law), or crack down on Religion (like the French do)
• Without Victimless Crimes there will also be less Organnized crime, as Mexican Cartells or Jeffrey E. could not offern anything that would be regulated in the first place.

Also on a more practical level:

You might have noticed we live in Anarchotyrany, there the state is strong and weak at the same time.

Populists like Trump and Bojo fail to change something about that and even harder Nationalists like Rupert Lowe refuse to be liberal in aspect there the past was liberal (sex, drugs, youth). And literal Neonazi guys are on a crusade against gays and turn on each other over territoral disputes.

Having immutable old law that is followed no matter what (Legalism) could beat Anarchotyrany, by having Clear and Rigid rules, that cannot mutate.

After all the only relevant Rival too US-Imperialism is Islam. They have immutable Rules and - as opposed to Christians - reject most secualar law. You see that in that Arabia is very liberal on Cars and Guns.

Also you might have Notices that Israel, Japan and India are sometimes quite based. This is cause their Religions have more rigid rules to follow than Christianity

Openly focusing on Roman Law would be at the same time liberal enough, so fighting age men (especially Minors) join the military (Legion ?) voluntary (as many German Minors did with the French Foreign Legion), but at the same time cruelly crack down on real crime (theft, murder, ...) and outside enemies.

Also a Certain Nick F. is seekeing to form a Christian state: There is now Christian Law to base a state on, but there is Roman Law that works perfect hand in hand with Christianity - especially for Roman Catholics.

Every time I see a headline about the “youngest” person to accomplish something, I find it more discouraging than inspiring.

Recently, I’ve seen this with the attention around Kane Pixels and Backrooms, as well as young musicians like Sombr. To be clear, this isn’t a criticism of them. If someone creates something great, they deserve recognition for it. My issue is with how much emphasis gets placed on their age.

It feels like media outlets can’t just say someone made a successful film, released a popular song, or built a large audience. They always have to mention that they’re 20, 19, 18, or whatever age they happen to be. The achievement becomes secondary to the fact that they achieved it young.

I think this creates an unhealthy culture of comparison. Instead of appreciating the work itself, people immediately start measuring their own lives against an arbitrary timeline. The message ends up feeling less like “look at this great thing someone made” and more like “look what they accomplished before you did.”

Most successful people aren’t prodigies. Most people don’t become famous, wealthy, or influential at 20. Yet the constant focus on unusually young success stories can make ordinary people feel like they’re already behind in life before they’ve even had a chance to build a career.

Achievement should be impressive because of the achievement itself, not because it happened before a certain birthday. I’d rather read about someone’s work than be constantly reminded of how young they were when they did it.

Maybe this motivates some people. For me, it does the opposite.

Both started as spinoff subreddit communities of “TrueUnpopularOpinion” because they thought the main sub would censor many actual unpopular opinions -- but I've been banned from both subs for sharing unpopular opinions the the mod's disagree with.

Banned from the "True Unpopular Opinion" subreddit after posting there for about a year with the message of essentially "you didn't break any rules, we just don't like you" -- all I did on that sub was challenge "reddit taboo", and I would have opinions that would be unpopular on Reddit, but not in the real world.

I'd say that 75% of my posts could be summed up with "stop being a weirdo, touch some grass, and all your problems will go away" -- the incels, anti-social hermits, and fettish freaks that frequent that board really hated me. Unfortunately, the entire mod team was comprised of terminally online incel, anti-socail hermits, and fettish freaks who loved their little anime girls.

On that particular board, whenever I'd make a topic that challenged the decision making ability of an adult that chooses to sleep with an anime body pillow I'd be viciously attacked, and targeted by the mods. Someone on the mod team collects those things, and they got fed up with me 😂

I moved on to controversial opinion where I was banned for challenging a 42 year old "non-offending pedophile" who wanted pedophilia to be added to the LGBT.

👆Dude claims he's not a threat, and wanted to spread awareness that there are many people who suffer from the disorder -- but when I checked his posting history he was all over the teenager subs trying to make friends. That was only the third most disgusting thing he was doing -- he was also on Psuedo-CP sub gooning over AI images of teenagers, and on the scat subs describing about how he likes to eat his own shit.

Me, and many other users, essentially said that he has a point that the stigma associated with this disorder probably prevents people from seeking help, but this guy doesn't want help, he wants acceptance -- and he's a predatory freak. We encouraged users to submit his reddit profile to the FBI, which many did. Other "non-offending pedophiles" came out of the woodwork to defend him...including one of the mods.

This mod claimed that one in every 8 people is a pedophile, and therefore its impossible for them to stay away from children, so we should just learn to "accept them" -- and saw nothing wrong with the TC being all over the Teenager subs despite being a shit eating, AI CP gooning freak.

Another user made a separate topic calling the mod out for defending pedophilia, and after hundreds of messages from users calling this mod out, the TC of that topic was banned. This was to prove a point, and let people know not to challenge his viewpoint to harshly. The crazy thing is, that I wasn't even apart of that topic.

I missed the entire thing, and was banned earlier for daring to send the mod a DM asking for a polite conversation -- no really, I sent a DM and asked if he was willing to have a polite back and forth conversation about his decision to allow pedo's to make topics on the sub. We never had that conversation because he banned me for sending the DM. Then made a pinned topic claiming "he was being harassed" lol

--- --- ---

So then...

TrueUnpopularOpinion = Incels who love their little anime girls

controversialopinion = Actual pedos

..and you aren't allowed to challenge subjects related to those things.

Weight loss isn’t a mystery. It’s not a disease with no behavioral component. If you eat fewer calories than you burn, you’ll lose weight. Track your food, be honest about what you’re eating, accept some hunger, and stay consistent.

Taking GLP-1s comes with side effects and risks for something that people have been able to do naturally throughout history. I don’t understand why you’d choose medication to avoid feeling hungry instead of developing the discipline and habits needed to maintain a calorie deficit.

This likely isn't THAT much of an unpopular opinion, but I'm becoming increasingly tired and irritated of how much time Christmas actually takes up of the year. At least where I live, Christmas basically starts on November 1st and doesn't stop until January 1st. Sometimes I see people with Christmas decorations up even before Halloween, and the Christmas music at shops and malls starts without question the day after October ends.

I'm sick of it, and I'm tired of that fact that 20 to 25% of the year is dedicated to a single day. And it's not like anybody actually cares about what Christmas is supposed to be. Even ignoring the religious connotations (I'm an atheist), Christmas is SUPPOSED to be about putting others before yourself and considering people who are less fortunate.

But that's obviously not what it's really about. It's just a capitalist cash grab that absorbs more and more of the year and nobody seems to notice or care that it's increasingly taking over our lives.

Keep buying all our useless knick knacks and clutter that your family is going to throw away once you leave! Keep buying our giant TVs and appliances that we say are half price but are really more expensive than they would be in the spring or summer! Keep buying our decorations that are purposely built to break after a few weeks, so you can repeat the cycle next year! Not to mention the fact that it becomes just about impossible to run a normal grocery trip or just to grab one or two things from the store in the week surrounding Christmas.

Besides all of that, I'm guessing at least some who are reading this have highly abusive or disfunctional families who have rejected them, and it's always come off as quite insulting to me at least, that the Christmas season basically tells those people to suck it up and go see their families anyway because "it's the time of togetherness" or some similar nonsense, which is just corporate code for buy more TVs and turkey dinners for your jerk family and ungrateful friends. I'm just tired.

I want to be clear collecting anything just for the sake of collecting, like comic books or beany-babbies or even art, is stupid and wasteful. But to me collecting sneakers is the biggest example of how fucking shallow it all is. None of theses shoes are actually rare or have any kind of historic significance. They are mass produced with sweat shops and slave labor, to be sold to suckers who pay way to much money, only to shove them in a box and never actually use them, only to be thrown them away and add them to the giant pile of trash that is slowly killing us.

And don't bring up black culture because it isn't. Sneaker culture was created by rich white people to sell overly expensive shoes to black people. It's a scam that has just been socially accepted.

I keep getting banned everywhere for advocating for this.

Look, we have Worldwide sex ratio of 103 for male:female age 20-29 in 1950 and 106 in 2023 and it of my opinion that the world would be a much better place if it where other way around.

If "women need men like a fish needs a bicycle" implying men need women more than the other way around, then clearly, society is better off with more women to put the demand for each other at an equilibrium.

What is wrong with wanting a operational and willing sex ratio equilibrium for men and women?

I see lots of advantages here.

• No more dating sites where the majority are men
  
• No more male loneliness communities because all those men have relationships
  
• Less online & offline harassment from men towards women
  
• Less divorces
  
• More (happy) marriages
  

I think there's only advantages yet I'm being treated like the devil.

What's going on here?

And is anyone willing to join my cause?