I enjoy long walks through nuance and strong opinions politely debated. I like people who argue to understand, not just to win. Bring your curiosity and I’ll bring mine.
That realization was life-changing for me. It finally gave me the clarity to walk away from toxic relationships, knowing they were the ones holding back any real growth.
The only downside is that trying to explain this to someone intolerant just gets you labeled, quote, "a stupid science bitch who can't make them smarter."
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
I love that ear fluff!
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
I hated cats. Then a cat decided he lived in my house. He changed my life. Now I have another trash cat living with me and I love them both so much.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
- On Cancel Culture: The term "cancel culture" typically refers to public backlash leading to personal or professional consequences for perceived offensive behavior. In the case of the NASA bio removal, it appears to be an internal policy decision, not a result of public outcry.
- On Government Influence and Social Media: While there have been instances where government entities have interacted with social media platforms regarding content moderation—such as the Biden administration's efforts to curb COVID-19 misinformation—this differs from "cancel culture." These actions involve governmental attempts to manage public health information, which has sparked debates about free speech and censorship.
- On the Lab Leak Theory: The origins of COVID-19 have been extensively debated. Agencies like the FBI and the Department of Energy have assessed, with varying degrees of confidence, that a lab leak is a plausible origin. However, this remains a separate issue from the NASA bio removal and the broader discussion of cancel culture.
Bringing up these points seems to divert from the initial discussion about the removal of a NASA bio highlighting a woman's achievements in STEM. It's essential to distinguish between institutional decisions, public backlash, and government policies.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
Actually, this situation isn't about cancel culture at all. Cancel culture typically refers to public backlash resulting in personal or professional consequences for offensive or harmful behavior. What happened here seems to be a systemic decision to remove content highlighting women in STEM at NASA.
This isn’t driven by public outcry or social pressure; it’s a form of institutional erasure. There’s a big difference between being held accountable for harmful actions and having your achievements wiped out due to a policy change.
These two things shouldn’t be conflated.
Ohh! English is your second language! That makes sense. I really appreciate you engaging with this conversation. Since there might be some cultural or language differences, I’d love to explain a little about analogies and how they’re used here.
An analogy is a way to compare two things that seem different but share something important in common. In this case, the comparison is between hoarding objects (like newspapers or furniture) and hoarding wealth. While those things aren’t the same physically, the analogy helps highlight how both forms of accumulation can become excessive and, in some cases, harmful.
The idea is that society often judges hoarding physical objects harshly, while accumulating wealth beyond what someone could ever use is seen as admirable. The analogy is used to ask: Why do we treat these two behaviors so differently when they can have similar effects?
I hope that helps explain it a bit! If anything is unclear, feel free to ask or tell me what your native language is and be happy to translate an explanation.
You might know they are assholes. At least 50% of the voting public doesn't. In fact, they think they are very smart.
How dumb. Seriously how fucking dumb do you have to be to go along with something that is so juvenile and stupid. Everything about it is dumb.
I came here to say exactly this. Stop worrying about what others think and start living life on your terms. Focus on becoming the best version of yourself—one that you shape for no one else but you.
The beautiful side effect? Your authenticity and honesty will naturally transform how others see you. When you live genuinely, you inspire others to do the same.
I jumped on board with the reddit API fiasco. I use Sync primarily since I'm familiar with the format and I browse and post often.
I think one problem is that it's confusing to your average Joe. I honestly still don't quite understand how it works. I see posts like .ml and .world and I have no idea what they are even though I've been here a while.
I don’t usually eat fast food, but one night I was starving, and there happened to be a drive-thru right next to me. I saw only two cars ahead in line and thought it would be quick. I pulled in and waited. Fifteen minutes passed. Then nearly twenty. By that point, a long line had formed behind me, trapping my car.
At the thirty-minute mark, I started asking the cars around me if they could maneuver to let me out. After almost forty minutes, I finally managed to escape.
Frustrated and still hungry, I drove a little further to a local gyro joint. I walked inside, placed my order, and within five minutes, I was enjoying a fresh, delicious lamb platter.
If this had been an isolated incident, I wouldn’t have thought much of it. But the reality is, experiences like this are all too common. Fast food isn’t fast, and to make matters worse, it’s often not even cheap anymore. Unless you’re scraping the bottom of the so-called “value menu”—which has become scarce and filled with low-quality options—you’re likely paying the same, if not more, than you would at a local spot.
When you stack up the cost, the wait, and the disappointing quality, it’s hard to justify why anyone bothers with fast food at all.
I am genuinely curious about your perspective—when you say the left can act in a fascist manner, could you provide some specific examples of what you mean? Also, how do you personally define fascism in this context?
I hear where you’re coming from, and I agree that “trust no one” has its place when it comes to questioning authority, especially in systems that have historically abused power, like politics or religion. But I think there's an important distinction between blind trust and informed trust.
When I say “look at the evidence,” I mean fostering a mindset where we evaluate claims critically, whether they come from an authority figure, a journalist, or a random Redditor. It’s not about blindly trusting anyone—it’s about examining the quality of their evidence and reasoning. Science and journalism, at their best, aren’t about “trust me, bro”; they’re about transparency, peer review, and reproducibility.
I get why you’d connect my point to political party loyalty or abuse cover-ups, but I think that actually supports what I’m saying. Those cases happen when people don’t question authority or demand evidence. Blind loyalty, whether to a priest, a politician, or even a favorite conspiracy theory, is the problem. Critical thinking is what prevents us from falling into that trap.
It’s not “trust no one” in the absolute sense—it’s more like “trust, but verify.” If the evidence holds up, great. If not, we should keep asking questions.
I get why memes like this are popular—they’re funny and make you think. But honestly, I think they can be a bit dangerous too. Sure, some conspiracy theories have turned out to be true, but way more often than not, they’re just nonsense.
The problem with stuff like this is that it makes it seem like most conspiracy theories are worth taking seriously, which can lead to some real issues. People start distrusting everything—governments, science, journalists—even when there’s no good reason to. It can also give way too much credibility to wild ideas that just aren’t backed up by facts.
Healthy skepticism is important, but it needs to come with critical thinking. Just saying, "What if it's true?" doesn’t really help—it just feeds into the chaos. I feel like we need more “let’s look at the evidence” and less “trust no one.”
AI is one of the most powerful tools available today, and as a heavy user, I’ve seen firsthand how transformative it can be. However, there’s a trend right now where companies are trying to force AI into everything, assuming they know the best way for you to use it. They’re focused on marketing to those who either aren’t using AI at all or are using it ineffectively, promising solutions that often fall short in practice.
Here’s the truth: the real magic of AI doesn’t come from adopting prepackaged solutions. It comes when you take the time to develop your own use cases, tailored to the unique problems you want to solve. AI isn’t a one-size-fits-all tool; its strength lies in its adaptability. When you shift your mindset from waiting for a product to deliver results to creatively using AI to tackle your specific challenges, it stops being just another tool and becomes genuinely life-changing.
So, don’t get caught up in the hype or promises of marketing tags. Start experimenting, learning, and building solutions that work for you. That’s when AI truly reaches its full potential.
The man sent a literal mob to attack the capital, has been convicted of multiple crimes, and openly admitted to more. Teflon Don doesn't care about dirt.
When the shitters clogged, you call the Mario Brothers to clean the pipes.
Animal Well was the best game I played this year and it was made by one dude who built his own engine.
Balatro is a close second with the best soundtrack. The Dev bought it on Fiverr.
The Greatest Showman is a masterclass in style over substance—a glittery spectacle that sacrifices depth and integrity for catchy tunes and flashy visuals. Beneath its feel-good facade lies a shallow, formulaic narrative that romanticizes P.T. Barnum’s exploitative history while failing to give meaningful voices to the marginalized characters it claims to celebrate.
The musical numbers, though undeniably infectious, feel jarringly modern and out of place, prioritizing audience pandering over authenticity. Despite its popularity, the film’s sanitized themes and lack of emotional nuance reveal it as more empty circus than cinematic triumph.
If you’re looking for substance, you’ll find the tent empty.
As MartianSands pointed out, tolerance is not a philosophy; it is a social contract. When intolerance breaks that contract, the tolerant are under no obligation to tolerate it.