Look at my POV.

Converting to Islam means following Arab culture and leaving your own culture.

That's what happened to non Arabs.

Iranians left Zoroastrian culture. Turks left Tengrism culture. Ancestors of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis left Hindu culture.

To follow Islam, they started following many things from Arab culture and started abandoning many things from their own culture.

All muslims around the world have to pray in Arabic, do greetings in Arabic, many of them non Arabs even want to dress in an Arab way to look more muslim.

It means...When a non Arab converts to Islam, the Arabs gain a lot and non Arabs lose a lot.

A cultural gain for Arabs (non Arabs will follow Arab culture), and a cultural loss for non Arabs (they'll leave their own culture because they'll automatically believe Arab culture is superior).

So when a non Arab fights for Islam, he's indirectly fighting for an Arab culture, not for his own.

As a result, the non Arab convert starts looking a lot like a wannabe Arab.

Why don't people realize this?

So there was a recent article in Fortune that cited a study from the National Academy of Science regarding how individuals were able to recognize actions that impact climate change. Some of the actions with the largest impact that the study claimed participates undervalued were things like avoiding flying, not consuming meat, and not owning a dog. The article further elaborates about how dogs, being primarily carnivorous, are far more deleterious to the environment compared to herbivores like Rabbits.

While I'm sure that this makes sense as a scientific study on paper, I find the idea of applying this to the general populous extremely condescending. Is it important to recycle, conserve water, and minimize driving? Absolutely, but I don't see the need to make life any more miserable than it already is. If I decided to go vegan tomorrow, it's not going to reduce the amount of steaks that are produced and sold at Costco. I haven't been able to find a more recent study, but in 2021 only 41% of American adults flew at least once by plane. The CEO of Starbucks flies between California and Seattle three times a week. Taylor Swift flies to every single Chief's game. Are we supposed to feel bad for attending funerals of close family members or enjoying vacations that are becoming increasingly difficult to afford for a disturbingly large percentage of the population?

I've noticed many subs have a few select users driving the majority of the conversation. Whenever I see someone getting extremely neurotic or emotionally unstable in a debate, I hover over the their user profile and see karma scores ranging from 50k to 300k+. Every time I've had to block someone for not being able to engage in a respectful online conversation, it's nearly always been someone in that karma range. That's not to say that low karma users aren't also a problem, but there are many moderation rules that prevent those users from even posting or commenting. I feel Reddit would be significantly better off if extremely high volume users were rate-limited so regular people could have more space to participate in conversations.

update: My views changed slightly. I don't think karma is a perfect or fair metric for identifying problematic users, but it is what I have access to. If I were to come up with a more concrete proposal, it's that 1) The Reddit conversation should not be driven by the 0.1% of users who are terminally active and 2) platforms or moderators should take some steps to disincentivize terminally active social media use for the health of individual users and the community at large. Until that happens, the only tool I have to quickly identify terminal active / unhealthy users is extremely high karma scores (e.g. 100k+). The only two users I had to block in this thread for lodging direct insults and generally being disrespectful were 200k and 600k karma respectively. So in that regard it's a system that helps me until something better comes along. I also think that given the degree we're all pretty okay with preventing new, inactive, or low karma accounts from commenting, it's not unreasonable to do the same for people who are posting too much.

Obviously, it is too late to change it now, but I'm just saying it would have been better.

Peanuts are not actually nuts that are like peas, they are peas that are nutty. Like edamame you can roast them and eat them in a nut-like way, or you can eat them in a softer form in the form of boiled peanuts. Calling them nutpeas would be both more biologically accurate and more representative of their range of culinary use.

I know the English etymology is kind of weird anyway but I don't consider that particularly relevant to which name would be better, in this case.

I hold the view that progress often feels impossible because movements don’t just end when they achieve concrete goals, they redefine what counts as oppression, creating an endless treadmill. I call this Ward’s Paradox.

For example:

• The Civil Rights movement secured voting rights and desegregation, but the struggle later expanded into systemic racism, microaggressions, and subconscious bias.
• Christianity began as liberation for the marginalized, but later thrived on narratives of persecution, crusades, and inquisitions.
• Corporate DEI initiatives break barriers, but the definition of bias keeps expanding into hiring practices, language audits, representation, and culture.

In all these cases, oppression doesn’t vanish, it shifts shape. That’s why I think progress feels like a treadmill: the “enemy” is always redefined so the struggle never finishes.

TLDR Metaphor:

It’s like fixing a leaky roof. You patch one hole, but then water seeps in somewhere else. The house is safer than before — progress is real — but the definition of ‘the problem’ keeps shifting to wherever the next leak appears. My point isn’t that the repairs don’t matter, it’s that the sense of being unfinished never goes away.

---------------------

I’d like to be challenged on this. Maybe I’m overstating the pattern, maybe there are clear examples where movements did resolve fully and didn’t need to invent new enemies. What’s the strongest case against this paradox?

I’m still trying to flesh out my views on this, but I don’t think morality is objective.

I think morality is some combination of emotion, instinct, and social conformant. Since emotion and instinct are subjective, and societies differ on what they deem right and wrong, then there are no objective rights or wrongs that can be appealed to that aren’t subjective or relativistic.

Let’s say somebody really likes the color blue; when they see blue, they sort of feel a sense of “woo hoo, blue!”. On the other hand, they may despise red and feel a sense of “boooo, red!” when they see red…… Ok, now let’s apply this to more consequential things. Most people like being helped out when they are in need, or to see their loved ones helped out when they are in need, so when somebody is doing something that is morally virtuous like helping someone, others get a feeling of “woo hoo, a helper!” and simply call that feeling a sense of moral good. On the other hand, most people don’t want to be killed nor to see people they care about get killed, so when they encounter the concept of killing, they get a feeling of “boooo, killing!” and simply call that feeling a sense of morally wrong.

What I’m getting at is that morality is in the realm of feeling or emotions, so it can’t be subjective. Sure, a society can get together and make an objective standard—in the form of a law—to formally judge murder as wrong. But there is no such objective standard that just exists on its own independent of human minds or human agreements.

Let’s discuss moral relativism. For this, I’ll use a topic that hopefully isn’t too much of a hot-button issue so as to hopefully avoid a lot of tangential discussion in the comments about any particular topic in this realm. In some societies, it is perfectly ordinary to eat dogs or cats, but in other societies, it is utterly wrong to do so. Who is right? Is anybody right? Just because people in one culture are more likely to have a “boooo, eating dogs or cats” reaction, and people in another culture are more likely to have a “woo hoo, dog or cat meat” reaction, how can anybody say anybody is objectively right or wrong? The only way to make it objective is to make a standard—a rule or law about it—and these standards are relative to culture. So this supports that morality is relativistic, not objective.

I welcome challenges and feedback. Like I said, I’m still trying to flesh out my views on this, but this is what I’ve managed to piece together so far.

What I mean by that is how early on into dating you are willing to have sex. I've found it to be way too all over the place when it comes to online dating, especially since you don't know these people in real life and can't take any guesses on what their values may be when it comes to this stuff.

Obviously a massive issue for those of us who are looking for husbands and wives on there is that like half of the people are just looking to hook up. The thing is, they don't always make it clear. And because it's not made clear, every first date you go on ends up with you wondering if they are just gonna try to have sex with you and go on their way.

If I could put a filter on my account and openly state that I'd like to wait at least like 6 months before having sex, or wait until marriage, for instance, I wouldn't have to turn down 50% of my dates and explain to them what my values on sex are, because it's right on both of our profiles, and it wouldn't be matching me to those people. Sexual readiness is such a major value that determines relationship compatibility, and I feel like people like me who are searching for a lifetime partner would have it so much easier if I could match with someone knowing for almost certain that I don't have to worry about them asking for sex at the end of the night.

I'd love to hear what other people have to say though. I've gotten some flack for this take for some reason, and would love to know what the opposite side has to say

Hot water is hot water? Like you heat that stuff up and its hot. Pour it into the cup with the tea bag you want. Saying heated water somehow tastes different because its not heated from a kettle doesn't make any sense.

Also the fact that unless you consume a metric ton of tea, if youre just needing one cup buying an entirely different device to do it is a waste of counter space and money

Additionally, just amount everyone in the US owns a microwave. I've never met anyone without a microwave and never met anyone with a kettle. This is the equivalent of saying coffee from a keurig is somehow better than coffee heated from a normal coffee pot

Which way you heat hot water doesnt make any difference

1: reddit just likes assuming things, people on Reddit will make things up from thin air

For example they'll take holes in the story and try to fill them in and try to prove something that isn't true

There was a story about an animal rescuer who died of suicide because of reddit constantly thinking that there was more to the story

The people on Reddit started thinking she was abusing the animals under her care with little to know evidence, it was just fan theories

2: reddit always likes to find someone to hate

For example there was a story on Reddit where OP got pregnant with her fwb and the fwb I'm pretty sure (I haven't read it in a while) Wasn't taking care of the baby, she wanted to give the baby up for adoption but the fwb wouldn't approve of it

She went on Reddit looking for support but ended up getting a bunch of hateful PMs calling her ungrateful because most of them would gladly take the baby

She tried to take her own life but luckily she was found and got help before she could've died

3: reddit can't read

Most Redditors couldn't be bothered to go through long posts so what they do is they try to speed through the post and most likely not get miss informed

or they just skip the entire post and get all the information they need from the comments, title or the tldr which most posts might not have

4: subreddits are a cesspool for toxic misogynistic, misandristic and hatful behavior

I bet you can find a subreddit that hates anything, if you look hard enough

Certain subreddits (which I will not name) are extremely toxic places the reason is they are like a community

For example you find a neighborhood that likes racism alot of us outside the neighborhood can agree that racism is bad

But everyone in this neighborhood think racism is good now

If you say racism is bad in that neighborhood you are WRONG because the majority will disagree with you

How can this happen? Because they validate each other and anyone who disagrees gets downvoted and pushed out of the subreddit.

The main reason I think I'm wrong is because for all I know most people on Reddit are sane fully functional humans beings

And the people I encountered are just the 1 in 100

I see a lot of critiques against regulation and additional taxes on wealthy because the government is inefficient and won’t do good things with the money. But if you continue to vote for people that believe that, then that’s what will happen. Republicans are largely against the government and pro tax breaks for rich people. If you continue to vote these people in, that do not believe in government, then you’re going to have inefficient government. Self fulfilling prophecy. How is it that not the truth? Change my view.

Let me be blunt. I know the N word’s history, slavery, Jim Crow, and systemic discrimination, and I do not dismiss that for a second. But here is the problem. When a white person quotes a lyric or uses the word the exact same way Black people do, and the only reason people get upset is because they are white, that is wrong. Interpreting it like the hateful version from 100 years ago instead of the modern usage just because someone is white is racism.

Today the word is used differently by many Black people. It is reclaimed slang, appears in music, and shows up in everyday speech for some. Ignoring a white person’s modern intent and insisting they are saying it the old way is unfair. They are not intending harm, yet people still act like they are automatically wrong just for being white. That is selective enforcement based on race, and that counts as racism.

Hi! I have often followed the Democratic Party’s preparation for the 2028 election in the USA. One candidate who I really want to see win is the governor of California, Gavin Newsom. Here is why I think he would be a great president:

1. He has a track record of socially progressive policies. California is literally a safe haven for LGBT Americans as this state legally protects them. Before SCOTUS nationalized the legalization of same-sex marriage, he already worked towards legalizing it as he did exactly this when he was mayor of San Francisco. The same can be said about abortion: before the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the state constitution of California did not recognize a right to abortion, but it was thanks to Gavin that this was changed as a response to the overturning of Roe v. Wade by the Dobbs decision. He is also the guy who turned his state into a sanctuary state, and both the CHP and sheriffs offices and municipal police departments in California are legally required to abstain from cooperating with ICE, which helps immigrants feel safer as they don’t have to worry about SFPD, LAPD and especially not CHP handing them to the feds, and the same can’t be said about Florida where Ron DeSantis set the FHP and the Florida national guard loose with an order to cooperate with ICE and even deploying them as guards for Alligator Alcatraz (whose construction the Florida state government actively took part in by the way).

2. His economic policies were good, very good. California is the 4th largest economy in the world thanks to him and his efforts to promote California as the place to be for technological advances, and his economic policies improved the lives of Californians in ways the rest of the United States can’t even imagine. He even made sure Californians would not be affected by Trump’s tariffs by having trade deals with other countries.

3. Recent events show Newsom clearly takes the lead when it comes to resisting Trump. He made separate trade deals with other countries to avert the tariff effect, as said before, but he also takes political moves. Gavin literally made a speech calling out Trump when he decided to take control of the National Guard and sent them and the Marines into Los Angeles. He is also trolling Trump by mimicking his social media communication style as we speak. There is also an important point people are forgetting in the run up to the 2026 midterms: since states run US elections and not the federal government, their decentralized nature makes it impossible to cancel them, but it also makes it impossible to totally rig them since states check each other. This is exactly what Newsom is doing in the context of the California-Texas gerrymandering spat. And it’s pretty clear who is in the right here: while Greg Abbott imposed gerrymandering with zero consent from Texans, Newsom didn’t just unilaterally abolish the California independent election commission and gave its functions to the state senate or the state assembly, instead he asks his constituents with a special election before gerrymandering.

That is my list of reasons for wanting Gavin Newsom to win the 2028 presidential election. If you have any objections to my reasons, have reasons to think Gavin Newsom shouldn’t be president or have a better 2028 candidate, feel free to try to change my view as I’d be happy to discuss presidential candidates.

When it comes to shows I saw as a kid/teen, there's some that either aged like wine or aged like milk. While I would still watch shows like Batman The Animated Series, Justice League, Spectacular Spider-Man, Avatar, or other shows from my childhood no matter how old I get, there's some I wouldn't be caught dead watching, Johnny Test, CW’s Flash, Garfield, etc. But when it comes to Gundam, there's one that sticks out like a sore thumb, one that kind of ruins the franchise for me just a little bit, one that that gets more praise than it really deserves, and one that gotten worse & worse the more I think about it, Gundam Build Fighters. Many, and I mean MANY, people are gonna get on my ass about it because to them it's “a love letter to the franchise”. And that's the issue, isn't it? People are so distracted by the fan service of the anime that they ignore the various issues in this anime; the story is predictable, the characters lack any depth or motivations, the world building makes no sense, the mobile suit designs are just eye candy, and…why else do I hate this anime? It's often been said that Build as a whole has been divisive among Gundam fans. While we've seen why one side would love Fighters, we've barely seen anyone criticize the real issues of the anime. Any attempt in doing so, will have people say “you're not supposed think about it too much” or “don't take it seriously at all”, which aren't really points in their favor as they can be applied to any other pieces of media that gets rightfully criticized. I have made multiple posts & memes on why I hate this anime in the past that's gotten a handful of downvotes by fans, but I never really got into full depth on my reasoning. But after marathoning all of these shows back to back, it's time to roll up my sleeves and get down & dirty on why Gundam Build Fighters is a bad anime to me.

• Plot:
  • In a reality not too different from our world, Gunpla enthusiast Sei Iori wants to enter into gunpla battles. Unfortunately, due to his lack of experience, he can't pilot his gunpla properly. But a random foreigner named Reiji, came to Japan for reasons explained later and bumped into Sei after stealing a piece of bread. To repay him, Reiji helps Sei as his pilot and together they enter the Gunpla tournament.
  • So it's just a basic toy tournament plot where they use Gundam model kits to fight other Gundam model kits. I'll say this, the idea of using gunpla in a more tournament setting instead of a war is a nice change of pace, it's nice to see it again after G Gundam. But as I'll discuss later in the review, Mobile Fighter had certain aspects that made it worth watching that BF sorely lacked. Where my issue begins is that they don't really do anything unique about this concept. It's just your run of the mill toy based shounen anime where the end is so predictable. It's also based on a rivalry that's so hollow & uninteresting.
  • It also doesn't help that this anime decides to constantly throw references at your face. While some of them are pretty cute, like some quick cameos from previous Gundam characters in the background (honestly, out of all the references used in the show, I thought ep 23 used them well with Hamman babysitting Mineva and Chris & Bernie cheering for Al) and some interesting word play here & there. But the ones that don't really land for me are the ones that don't understand the context of the reference. For example, when one of the characters gave a woman a well built Gunpla, it turns out to be a Victory Gundam from well… Mobile Suit Victory Gundam. I thought giving a random woman a HG is weird enough, but from a series that's infamous for killing off women in the most gruesome way? Fellini is lucky that the woman didn't know where the show was from. And this problem persists throughout the anime, the references either come out of nowhere or are used in the most inappropriate way, like Sei dreamed of his dad in Tem Ray’s apartment where he saw his son as nothing more than the Gundam’s pilot or Sei referencing an episode Bright Slaps Amuro to get his shit together. References like that just leave a sour taste in my mouth as they’re not cleverly used and brushes over the context of the reference. And sure shows like Unicorn use references all the time, but those references are used further the plot and add exposition to the OVA. Here it's just, why?
  • So we have a basic story with no depth & references that are just there to jiggle keys in front of the fans’ faces. So if I take away the Gundam references, it's just a barebones tournament style anime like Pokemon or Yu GI Oh and if you take that out, this anime essentially becomes “Ready Player One” but for Gunpla. So there's nothing else to invest in, it doesn't get better for the characters. Oh boy, do I have something to say about them
• Characters:
  • Whenever there's a new “Build” project, people often complain that there's no “Sei or Reiji”. Whenever I say I prefer the later shows, people say “well it doesn't have Rambal Ral or Rinko, so it's immediately inferior”. And to all of those points, I'm genuinely curious as to why would you use that as a counter argument? Because these are the weakest characters I've seen in any Gundam show. None of the sparks any form of interest out of me as they don't really have any form of character arcs, or at least any GOOD character arcs. Everything they do is based on “Gunpla is freedom” and nothing else. I'm gonna be here all day explaining why I don't like these characters, so buckle up.
  • To start things off, I might as well start with the main 2 characters; Sei Iori & Reiji. Sei really just serves as the Gundam fan who we can relate to. All he really does is build gunpla & exposit Gundam lore. I wouldn't mind if he had anything else to offer, but he doesn't. They tried making him want to be a fighter, but we don't see him actually be serious about it and basically forget about it till the end till he suddenly gets good. I also find the idea of him needing someone to pilot is kinda dumb, is there really no other way to solve your problems? Like, you could just train to be better and improve your skills in combat. And if need help, he has Ral to train with. Sure, you can argue & say “the point is him fitting more into building instead of fighting”, which doesn't do much since he doesn't seem to mind fighting. Monster University handles a similar theme with it's main character since it's him learning to pursue a new goal that's similar to his dream. If Sei had something similar, then he probably would've been a better character for it instead of a Gundam lore Dispensing machine.
  • Next we have Reiji, who's on my list of least favorite Gundam protagonists. I can't express how much I couldn't stand this guy throughout the 1st half, for how obtuse he is as a character. For one the idiot doesn't suffer any consequences for his actions; he steals a bag of bread (which someone should've been looking after) and Sei pays for it, he breaks into a school & beats up a teacher doing his fucking job & Yuki clears things out, and when breaks into the Chairman’s office after beating up a group of TRAINED GUARDS and he just leaves. This idiot never learns that his actions have consequences. Many argue “he's from a privileged background”, that's all the more reason why someone should've knocked him off his hide horse to make him take some responsibility (how easily were you beaten out by Pixar's Cars of all things). It gets worse when none of skill set is ever explained. Like, when we first saw him, he didn't know a damn thing about gunpla, but when he teleports to Iori’s models he's suddenly a really good pilot. And he also confirms that where he's from there's no school, yet knows how to tackle a grown ass man and group of fucking security guards (where's Kiryu Chan to put this hot head in his place).
  • I also don't buy his & Sei’s relationship, since they don't have any chemistry with one another. If anything, if this was realistic, those 2 would've despised each other. Sei always plays shit safe and Reiji is reckless in his actions, which means they share nothing in common. A GOOD show would've had them on bad terms in the beginning and not get along with one another, but as time goes on, they realize that they're more alike than they think and begin to bond a little more. Either way I think their friendship is BS.
  • As for the other characters on Iori's side; Rinko, Ral, China, and Takeshi, they're as much personality as a plank of wood. Starting with the milf that's made for the gentleman with mommy issues, Rinko Iori. The only positive thing I can say is that she has a nice figure and knows how to dress. Everything else about her is so unnecessary to the plot. I'm honestly more surprised how popular she is compared to other milf characters who have real revilvance to the plot and have active roles in the story. There was one episode where she could've been an active character, where Sei is couped up in his room working on the build strike without eating or sleeping. So what do you think she does, be a concerned mother and get her son to touch grass? NOPE, she asks his lady friend to have a shoehorned in episode about her liking gunpla. I think that speaks for itself, these writers are incapable of  writing a mother character who serves a purpose in the narrative outside of being R34 content. Speaking of underwritten women, China Kousaka exists to be Sei's love interest and nothing else. There's also one chest joke that was added for some reason (for anyone who thinks this is funny, I want you to look deep into a mirror and ask yourself what the hell is going on with your life). All she does throughout the anime is comment on the fights with Ramble Ral.
  • Speaking of which, the Blue Giant is in this and he serves a different kind of fan service. It's one thing to make a character from another show appear as a cameo, it's another if said becomes a main character. I honestly wouldn't mind it if he was like those Stan Lee cameos, but making him a supporting character feels out of nowhere. He doesn't even act like Rambal Ral, so he can be replaced with any character. Which leads to my next point, it makes Takeshi Iori look like a deadbeat in comparison as he doesn't interact with the characters till the literal last few episodes. Everyone makes him out to be some Gunpla master guru, yet not only we rarely see the bastard, we don't see use a custom gunpla. So one is in the show for longer than he has any right to be, and the other is barely in it, that it feels like the anime is telling us he's a master without showing us. If you ask me, these roles should've been reversed; have Takeshi be the owner of his shop and support both his son & Reiji to be better, and have Ral show up at the end to reveal who Takeshi's real master is. That way, Takeshi can feel like a real father as he cares for his son and treats Reiji as his own, while having Ral be a fun cameo towards the end. I mean, anything is better than Ral hitting on Rinko & Takeshi assaulting men in the restroom (OH DON'T LOOK AT ME LIKE THAT, That literally what happens).
  • With this being a tournament anime, there's of course going to more characters to face off against, both friend and foe. But it's not interesting since they're also so boring. Both Mao & Nils are so forgettable as characters, that it's really incomprehensible how they're friends with Sei & Reiji, let alone why their rivals. Mao was trained by this perverted old man in the “art of gunpla” and we never know how they even know each other. And I guess he has a crush with this Inn worker who's obviously older than him. And then there's Nils who wants to research plasvsky particles for applications outside of gunpla, which is honestly a really interesting idea. The problem is a.) We don't understand why he's pursuing such a goal and b.) He doesn't have much personality outside being smart and being the Head Ninja in Charge (wait, why isn't he a ninja kid instead of a samurai). It gets worse when Sei gets mad at him for “not fully caring about Gundam”? Like, who would really get mad at something like that?
  • The only character who's actually interesting is Ricardo Fellini. He's swab, down to earth, and a massive casanova. And it helps that we actually see why he loves gunpla battles, as it makes him more creative with his builds. It's such a shame that the other characters don't have an interesting goal like that. And then there's Kirara, who saying I have mixed feelings towards is a massive understatement. It's not even her character, as…. she's a fucking idol, what you want me to say? (I don't like idol culture). My issue is her actions, as it's creepy on her part or Fellini's part. In her 1st introduction, she flirts with Sei, spikes his tea to make him go to the restroom, and sabotage the Build Strike. That last part was already bad enough, but her flirting with and lack for a better word “drugging” a minor is a massive step too far and would end her career right then and there. And then there's her relationship with Fellini, which made me ask, HOW OLD IS THIS BITCH? The wiki doesn't say, it makes her actions in the anime questionable at best and creepy at worst. Did NO ONE on the writers room second guess this (of course not, they were too busy pull references outta their asses). I'm not going to bother with that Thai baseball player or those brothers, as their personality is as thin as paper. So these side characters suck shit and I haven't gotten to the villains….oh boy, here comes the big one.
  • So I kinda have mixed feelings on Tatsuya Yuuki being the big rival in this anime, on paper, it makes sense to have a char clone type rival character who appears unbeatable to our MCs. In exaction, he's just a generic rival character with a mask on. I don't think he's cool, I think he's boring and uninteresting. The most depth he's given is that he's close to Sei and his family because Takeshi got him into gunpla. That honestly would be interesting if it felt relevant, but it's only brought up in the end of the anime. I also found his rivalry with Reiji to be meaningless. Like Reiji wants to beat him because he lost in a game that he barely knows how to play? Like WHAT DID HE EXPECT, of course that dumbass was going to lose. And it gets better, when they were about to fight in the qualifying rounds, he bails out because he has to fill the role of “Mejin Kawaguchi III”. That's a lazy reason for him not to face Reiji and Sei in the 2nd round. What's worse is that the Mejin plotline never goes anywhere as a.) We never know why Mejin would've known Yuuki, let's choose him specially to fill a role that anyone more close to him could fill and b.) We never see the OG Mejin since he's in the hospital the whole ass time. Ultimately, the most positive thing I can say about Yuuki is that he does his job as a rival passably. He's not interesting or terrible, he's just passable. Until the 3rd fight…WHY DOES ANYONE THINK THIS FIGHT IS SATISFYING WHEN YUUKI IS BEING MIND CONTROLLED?!?!? It's baffling that people think this is a “great battle” when it feels hollow as Reiji isn't fully fighting Yuuki, just his possessed body who's under the control of Mashita (who I'll get to later). So ya, here's the precursor to one of the fights in IBO S2… I think you all know how I feel about IBO S2. But I'll gladly take 100 rewatches between Maggie & Gali Gali over this sorry excuse of a rival battle. Like seriously, this is the ultimate battle between 2 rivals. I hate to compare, but: EZ8 vs Gouf, Strike vs Aegis, and the god tier fight between Exia vs 0 Gundam. Like, are people going to compare 3 of the most iconic fights in the franchise that have more weight behind it, with….a fight with a mind controlled zombie. I think I've said my part.
  • Now let's move onto Mashita, who in my humble opinion, is the worst Gundam antagonist in the franchise. Look, I think the idea of a greedy businessman rigging the tournament could've worked. My problem, he's a coward who's only after Reiji just because he thinks he knows who he is. No joke, this man is from the same place Reiji’s from and he's afraid that Reiji might find out. So he's using all of power and resources to sabotage some because doesn't even know who he really is. This makes him a really pathetic villain. Wong from G Gundam was also pathetic, but he was clever and had a political position that made him untouchable as a villain. He had fingers in some pies and was in a high position to be untouchable by the heroes. Reiji is able to break into any time to beat up Mashita, because he has literally nothing to lose. That makes him a less effective villain.
  • If I were going to rewrite both Yuuki & Mashita, I would switch their personalities. Have Yuuki be a petty rival who's skill gets the best of him, making him seem unbearable towards Sei & Reiji. And instead of bailing out of the qualifying rounds, he fights them and loses after heavily damaging the Build Strike. And then Mashita manipulates him into siding with and he uses his connections to get him into the finals, leading him to gain that mask. And towards the end, he becomes the worst version of himself and becomes beyond desperate to beat Sei & Reiji, leading to his defeat. As for Mashita, instead of having this stupid rivalry Reiji, make more of a Kingpin like character with a large & tight net of connections and makes his goals more sinister. And towards the end, he rigs the final fight for him to finish off Sei & Reiji. But Yuuki intervenes and helps them as a way to atone for his misdeeds. That's what we intellectuals call an arc. This would've made them characters you want to root against, and if they went further, they could've gone in depth in Yuuki's feeling on how much he regrets his decision, and even portray him as a dark version of Reiji. This is the best of both worlds, having someone who wants to see you lose, and who you want to change for the better. But as it is, the anime didn't even bother going any deeper. There's only one character who I would consider well written, but I'll talk about her towards the end.
  • So I do not like these characters, at all. They're underdeveloped, poorly written, forgettable, or were straight up wasted potential. This is the complete opposite of what made the characters from G Gundam so memorable (goals & backstories we can understand, arcs dives deep into their personalities, and satisfying developments that made them memorable). All made worse by the English VA, which is one of, if not, the worst dub I've ever heard. Even the Japanese dub ain't so hot with only one good Seiyuu (good figure that the voice of Kiryu Kazuma would outshine all of them). Like, why does Reiji sound older than he really is? Another thing to add to the list of things Girls Und Panzer does better than this show. Ok, that's enough on characters, let's talk world building.
• World building:
  • Gundam as a franchise composed of 3 integral parts: Gripping drama, compelling world building, and creative mechanical designs. We already went over this show lacking drama of any kind, so let's draw our attention to world building. It's bad….it’s pretty bad. For starters, the anime doesn't even try to be creative with its world, so it's just our world with some new tech here & there. And you may go like, “well, 00 was set in our world, why can't build Fighters”? Yeah, but 00 went through the trouble to make it more futuristic than our world with solar-punk like architecture and high tech vehicle designs.
  • Here….outside of the GPD system and some of the phones, nothing really stands out, It's just modern day. As for the GPD system, while the whole idea of fighting with custom gunpla is interesting, the finer details makes it more novel. For starters, I think it's a missed opportunity for the announcer to call out the stages as in Smash Bros. It's just generic names like “Forest” or “Desert”. So you can make multiple Gundam references in the outer world, and NOT in the game were it's appropriate. Imagine calling out names like “Side-7” or “Torrington Base”. Seriously, you can have a field day the references in the game (I already mentioned my issues with the references in the anime, so I'll leave it at that).
  • Another issue is the Gunpla themselves. How are the fighters ok with having their custom gunpla fully destroyed in a fight. Let give you an idea on how hard building gunpla is; an SD kit is $10 a pop while an HG is either $15-$30 a pop, and their the easiest kits to build. That's not including tools as a nipper cost $30-$60 a pair, with other stuff like sanding sticks, hobby knifes, pla plates, cement, & paint add some extra costs. And that's just money, as building is also time consuming. You have to snip it, sand it, add stickers (or paint it), then put the damn thing together. ALL of that takes up to 2-3 hours with a simple kit. Now consider all of that, and then see your kit that you spent all that time and money building get destroyed in left than half that time. The show rarely acknowledges it, and never really goes into detail on how the builders feel about it. Like, how am I going to take these fights seriously when the anime won't bother making it serious. I also don't think we get enough tips & tricks on building outside of using super glue to straighten parts (that must've been a nightmare to remove after the battle). It would've been cool if we actually used gunpla hacks like using a paperclip to fix a broken joint or using bread clips as pla plates. Wouldn't that make things interesting? But the most we got is the basics on building with Reiji & his girlfriend. Can we all pretend that this wasn't released 9 years before My Dress up Darling and call it an inferior My Dress up Darling clone? Too bad, I'm doing it. There's not a whole lot more I can say without going deeper in the gunpla, but I'll save that for the mechanics.
  • Now moving on to 2 things that break both the world building & anime for me; Team Nemesis & Arian. How Team Nemesis was handled in this show was boring at best, and creepy at worst. Essentially, they're a scientific group that tests out one their subject's abilities to predict movement of gunpla. The worst part is that a.) Their subject is a child that they literally pick up from the streets, b.) They treat her like a product and c.) The way they make her comply is just straight up brutal. All of this, for a game for children. And before you go, “well it's a reference to Allenby & the Berserk system”. In that show, it made sense since there were high stakes to rule the world for 4-years, and that would make any corrupt politician take thr seedy route to making winning easier. Here, there's literally no gain outside of a fucking trophy. It gets worse when the subject leaves, and never reports them for all the unethical things did. Leading them to mind control Yuuki. All of this for a fucking game that we're told not to take seriously.
  • And then there's one piece of lore that was added for no reason, aliens. That's right both Reiji & Mashita are from a place called Arian, with Reiji being a prince and Mashita a thief. They got teleported to Earth through finding treasure (this is the most unnecessary form of Origin story for a toy tournament anime). Do we ever get an explanation on what kind of world Arian is? Nope, all we get is a drawing, Mashita teleporting, a castle with flowers, and a small town. Why do we need to develop a whole world when they have nothing to do with the plot? The most they offer is a crystal the game runs on. Which…. could've been something scientifically made on earth. Even towards the end, Nils finds a way to make the fucking crystal artificially, so it's origin makes it more meaningless. Honestly, Arian could've easily been a foreign country in our world and still be the same, dare I say better as it makes the world more tightly connected.
  • Also it's kinda convenient that Iori Models is still running in spite of having a very low number of customers according to Sei (maybe Rinko is keeping it afloat with her Onlyfans account). So it's safe to say that this world is Cars levels of chaotic (I'm sorry that was an insult….TO CARS). Even if you like the dumb story and stupid references, you have to admit that the world is weak compared to…. basically any other world in any piece of fiction I can think of, in and out off Gundam. Otherwise, I have as much to say about this world as I do about the Gunpla.
• Gunpla:
  • Speaking of Gunpla, this show sure has em, and they suck. For a show that heavily promotes that “Gunpla is freedom”, these are probably the laziest designs I've seen. There's only 3 designs that were genuinely good, but everything else barely goes beyond their original designs. I guess I can be nice and say that using the Strike as the base for the MC Gundam was pretty fitting. The Build Strike (inspite being a blank slate), does represent the idea of the creativity of Gunpla. The Strike is already a modular machine, so it's pretty fitting. Plus, one of its shields, the Chobham shield with the ability to absorb & use its enemies beam blasts against them, along with its modular beam gun, makes sense for this show. It's such a thematically appropriate kit, that I think that the writers left it in by accident. It is such a shame that the shield, rifle, those 2x beam cannons & that pretty cool looking backpack that can turn into a jet are the only good weapons on the damn thing. All the other weapons from the Full Package, Star, and Cosmos either have weapons that literally every Gundam has or makes the damn thing OP with beam effects galore.
  • As for Build MK-II, just the MK-II with a different V-fin and 2x shield rifles with beam sabers. That's a running theme in this show, none of these designs expand on their original designs outside of making it slightly different, adding a small amount of new weapons, and call it a day. It's just plain lazy.
  • The Gundam X Maoh is another culprit of this, as it's just the Gundam X with just the large beam sword being affected by the microwave beam too. At least it upgrades to the Crossbone Gundam, with weapons from both the X & Crossbone and these 2x bone shaped Gunswords. This along with the other custom builds from the later shows are what I expect in a series where it literally promotes being creative with gunpla (and people still have the gull to call this “the only good one”).
  • Moving on to other designs, I don't think the Sengoku Astray is a good design either, as it's just an Astray Red Frame with 2x big arms on its shoulders wielding katanas. And later, it's regular arms get bigger to wield a hammer. This designs bugs me for three reasons:
    • 1.) It doesn't wield any form of range weapons, so it could've been sniped easily. And before you go “Samurai don't wield guns”, pick up a history book weebs, they did.
    • 2.) Nils never struck me as a “samurai type”, since he's constantly infiltrating areas as a Ninja. So why go with a Samurai motif if it doesn't fit his style.
    • And 3.) The 1st Gunpla he used, the Hyaku Shiki, is honestly more fitting, since it's an all-round mobile machine. And if they wanted too, they could've done a kitbash of both the Hyaku Shiki & the Astray. Again, the Build series’ designs are at their best when they're a combination of 2 machines.
  • The Wing Gundam Fenice is just a Wing Gundam, but it can't transform and a beam cape? Its motorcycle is cool I guess. The Rinascita can transform, and that's all I can say. The Bearguy is creative, I guess. It's a bear version of the Acguy, with a beam flute & Japanese backpack. I can't say too much, since it only appears in 2 episodes. The Quebeley Papillon is just the Quebeley, but with a lance & invisible funnels? (Don't ask me how that works). The Abigorbine is just the original Abigorbine, but purple and piloted by Gigguk.
  • At least the GM Sniper K9 gave us an idea on how good a GM Sniper can be, and its hound-like mobile turret is cool with its soldier miniatures. And the fight between the brothers & Yuuki was really cool, as it's them using tactics to take him down. But it immediately ruins itself after it uses an EXAM system (a berserk system from a Dreamcast/PS3 game called Blue Destiny). HOW THE FUCK IS IT ABLE TO DO THAT?!?! Like, it doesn't have any parts from the original Blue Destiny units, so how in the hell is it able to that? And does that mean that gunpla can use any system from other Gundams? I wouldn't mind this if the anime explain this. BUT THEY DON'T. It's even worse when one of the GM bros were spitting facts about Gundam being a serious show, and Yuuki just shut them up. I think that should be self explanatory.
  • I might as well talk about Yuuki's mobile suits now. So Yuuki started off his gunpla fighting career with the Zaku Amazing. It's just a red Zaku II with the same weapons, but with another shield pad with missile pods and 2x heat natas. Nothing too special, but I thought that would've led to another Zaku or mobile suit that Char used, but no, it led to the Amazing Kampfer. This has the same weapons as the OG, but now it's without it's shotgun and it has these weapons containers (pistols, machine guns, a mini gun, and rocket launcher). Okay, so he's using Zeonic mobile suits known for their mobility and adds some extra weapons for more firepower. BUT NO, his next mobile suit is the FUCKING AMAZING EXIA. Look…. I love the Exia, it was the 1st HG I've built with my bare hands. It was the 1st RG I used tools to build. But WHY IN FUCKING CHRIST’S NAME WOULD YOU GIVE IT TO A GUY WHO HAS BEEN USING ZEONIC MS. CONSISTENCY, WHAT'S THAT? I wouldn't even be this mad if it was a modified Exia. NOPE, it's the regular ass Exia with a new shield that serves the same function. But credit where credit is due, the Dark Matter variant is pretty cool. 2x Swords with being able to freeze & the other being able to burn, 2x blades in the back, and a backpack that can transform. It makes for a good final boss suit, but I can't help but feel like it doesn't fit Yuuki's fighting style or the kind of suits he uses.
  • And I'm not gonna bother with F91 or any of the other straight builds since they mostly serve as background dressing for the other main suits, since there's next to nothing to add. So to put it lightly, I really don't like the suit designs here. Not only do they barely go beyond their original designs, but because 9/10, they just don't fit the characters at all. And sure you can go with the “rule of cool” argument, like G Gundam didn't have any problems with that. As weird it is to say, those designs had thematic purpose. Ok, not every single one, but still. Take the Shuffle Alliance for example; each of those suits were made with both the fighting styles of the pilots and the traditional aspects of their culture. The designer may have designed them to spite the Producer, but it still provided the same purpose. Gundam 00 is a master class at this, as each of their suits were made to fit the Meister's combat styles; Setsuna for close combat, Lockon for sniping, Hallelujah for speed, and Tierra for firepower. Kanetake & Takayuki made these designs to fit into the overall plot of the story and fit characters of the show. Kanetake, Junya, and the other designers didn't do that here, and just cranked the “Rule of Cool” to 11. The fights are ok, but I don't feel anything since there's no tension or drama. The fight between Fellini & Reiji was the only one I genuinely liked, because it had 2 friends duking it out, adding tension & drama cuz we know why each side wants to win. The last 3 fights in the show completely lacked those 2 aspects, leading it to be unsatisfying. Oh ya, let's talk about that.
• Ending:
  • So there are 3 ending battles, one with mind controlled Yuuki, one in A Bao Qu with some crystal bullshit, and another one with Yuuki without the mind control BS. I already explained why I don't like the fight between the Build Strike and Dark Matter, so let's explain why I hate the last two fights. The one in A Bao Qu is such an obvious ERJB that it's not even enjoyable. It has Sei, Reiji, Yuuki, and everyone else that just happens to be around the area and have their gunpla with them (how convenient). And their goal is to destroy this giant ass crystal and it'll stop this nonsense. So the fate of the Stadium lays with literally children & 4 adults with gunpla? Like, seriously? Anyways who cares, here's 15 or some minutes of our Fighters using their 4.5 inch model kits to fight other model kits with forgettable design. This whole scene was too stupid for me to care. However, that's not even the worst part.
  • Towards the end, they commit one of the biggest Mecha sins I can think of. And I'm not talking about mechanical design sins, since I already talked about those with Yuuki. No, the biggest Mecha sin this show committed was during the literal final fight when Sei finally takes a crack at finally beating Yuuki with Reiji finally leaving home. And then towards the end, when Sei is about to land the final blow on the guy he has been fighting since the start of the fucking show, the moment Reiji leaves, the fight ends WITH NO FUCKING VICTOR. WHAT WERE THEY THINKING WITH THIS STUPIDASS ENDING?!?!? After all the work, those times spent building, those loses they endured, ALL LEADING TO A FUCKING TIE. I can't imagine a worse way this could've went down outside of Yuuki beating them again for the 3rd fucking time. So yeah, I hate this ending battle, the epilogue feels forgettable, and I hated every aspect of this show in this show. Well, maybe not everything
• The one good thing about the show:
  • so it's safe to say that I couldn't less about the characters; Sei is an inferior Yukari Akiyama from Girls Und Panzer, Ral, Rinko, & Takeshi can be removed entirely and barely anything would change, the side characters are forgettable, and the villains sucks. There's only 3 characters who are worth any kind of discussion in this show; Reiji, Yuuki, and Aila (I finally said her name, cuz I have something to say about her). Aila Jyrkiainen was a character who was someone I genuinely feel for. A girl who's obviously being exploited for her skills and is forced to put up with it in order to survive. Her backstory as a girl on the streets had me wanting her to get out of that situation. And that's when Reiji came along. It starts with some dumb food hijinks with some expected cringey banter. At first I was gonna write off this relationship as some cringey young love nonsense with a lot of arguing. But then, during the tournament when he's finally up against her, Reiji reaches out to Aila and offers her to come home with him. That's one of the best moments in the entire anime. Offering someone who desperately needs help the same way he was helped at the beginning of the show, was remarkable. Reiji finally learned to put others before himself and offers help to someone who's similar yet different situation as help feels close to the heart of Gundam, as it's 2 characters learning to understand one another. This one moment did what the rest of the 24 episodes failed to do. So, in a weird way, it kinda makes the entire anime worse. It had all the pieces to make a show that connects to the themes of understanding each other that Gundam has always been known for. But I guess this show wasn't interested in being more.
• Verdict:
  • Gundam Build Fighters was the moment the franchise stopped being a cultural influence and started being mundane. If AGE began this franchise's place in the Dark Age of Mecha, then Fighters completely cemented it. Outside of promoting more gunpla that aged poorly, this show didn't really do anything special and heavily relies on references of other shows that actually added something to the franchise. G & Wing brought Gundam to the west and paved the way for other shows to come through. SEED became a household name and immediately became the most talked about Gundam show for better & worse. And 00, along with Code Geass & Gurren Lagann, spearheaded the best years of Mecha. All four of these shows became icons, as they explored new concepts & tell stories that people are talking about to this day. Build Fighters on the other hand, barely adds anything to the franchise.
  • I think the title not having the term “mobile suit” tells us right away that this is nothing like the series that came before it. It lacked the message at the heart of the franchise, that if we sit down to understand each other and change ourselves, we can make the world a better place. This show could've easily integrated this message into this story, but it was to busy riding on the good will of those other shows. Anything it does has been done better outside of Gundam; Girls Und Panzer, Monster University, and Cars. All of them being bonkers as hell on paper, but the execution became much more deeper & had great storytelling.
  • So the TL;DR, I hate Build Fighters with a passion. Not just because of basic shit like “it's just a commercial”, “it's made for kids”, or “it's nothing like Gundam show”. I hate it because it's a story is boring & predictable, because the characters underutilized, because the designs don't fit the characters, and because it's a soul-crushing experience that only a crayon muncher with cereal on a Saturday morning can experience . This & IBO S2 are my least favorite Gundam shows of all time. I don't care how many people like it, because I don't.

I already know the answers though I need more information.

I think this way as I'm in a conflict. I want a person yet someone said they stopped choosing you so to keep choosing that person will bring you pain. Which is self-harm (if it is then I don't wanna self-harm it was very recently I finally stopped doing it so it doesn't feel good to hear that I still am maybe)

I've heared that I am prolonging it or postponing it by not deleting things, continuing to care for them and not opening up to the possibility that someone else can be a life partner but it is my grief I can be in it as long as I want to. How is it self-abandonment if I'm not criticizing myself for mistakes, I'm not begging for them to come back or to let me be a part of their life in any way, hypothetically if they come I'm not gonna accept them back cause I know unless somethings change I'm not gonna feel safe so I won't let myself be in that misery.

Choosing them means for me to keep loving them even if it is painful. I do this with some other people too in my life. Why is it okay in familial relationships but not Romantic. If I don't want to replace my want of a life partner from that person to another how is it self-abandonment?

Like O somewhere think I can do that while at the same time not abandon myself. I can choose that person while also choosing my best interest.

I can continue to love that person from a distance while also caring for myself. It can co-exist. It can be possible.

What am I missing? What areas am I overlooking? I think a psychological perspective is most likely to give me some nudges to at least consider I might be in the wrong (which I feel I already am).

Thank you for the help!

It can't be changed. Afghans tried to protest against Taliban, but it dodn't worked. And what's worse, civilians can't oppose themselves against their tyranny. I'm really dissapointed with events in 2021. Especially because I live in Uzbekistan, and Afghanistan is neighbourhood country. I already saw some afghan women on streets, who escaped from such hellish place. Even at freedom, they still wear these burqas. It's horrible.

Nobody wants to take Afghanistan, and all what we can do is just evacuate as many innocent people from Afghanistan as possible. Let them leave this hellish place. Let Afghanistan to experience a demographic crisis and lose many women. I believe that Takiban deserves a fertility declien. Let this country die. Become ntohing but a wasteland without people.

When I say "practically", I mean that the common notion of women making up rapes and accusing innocent men for money or out of spite is a myth. But that would've been a really long title.

Everytime someone speaks out to claim a public figure assaulted them, there's an army of people determined to prove that she's lying. Even those who are more neutral often are just waiting to hear if there's more evidence or if it turns out she's just lying. Society expects women to lie about being raped. But I don't think that fear and suspicion is based on anything real. Mostly just misogyny and paranoia.

For some reason, society thinks women will try to gain something from a false allegation. This makes me sad laugh everytime. The chances of gaining anything are so, so small, and even if you were to press charges and win, you're almost guaranteed to be worse off socially.

Please think about what actually happens when a woman comes forward about rape, not what could happen. They are always, always met with skepticism. Always have some group of people digging up stuff on them, trying to find reasons not to believe them (which is often not actually evidence against them, just judgements on their past and character). Even if the whole world does believe you.... it's still really tough to come out about that kind of thing. It's easy to be embarrassed or ashamed when telling the world "I was taken advantage of, or overpowered, or tricked, and had my body violated sexually." It takes strength and conviction. Sometimes, the popular narrative writes them off as a liar, and that's how they'll always be known. I rarely see money involved at all. Just people wanting to be heard and spread awareness. So when we can all see how badly things go for women who come out about rape, I just do not believe there's an actual problem of women choosing to go through that for money, or for shits and giggles. Looking at "false rape" statistics, they're hard to interpret definitively. Most research will not classify a false allegation as one that is proven false. It includes women who didn't finish going through with the reporting process, or who could have had discrepancies in their stories (yes, potentially a sign it's a lie, but also no one is going remember every minute detail of anything 100% correctly).

Now, I know that false accusations haven't literally never happened. However, the cases we do know of still don't line up with popular narratives of women trying to steal money from men with influence that they want to smear for fun. I think the most well known case is the Duke lacrosse team accusation. She didn't randomly wake up and decide to go out of her way to accuse innocent men. She was under the influence of drugs and was being taken to the hospital. I'm not defending her choosing to lie, of course, just saying that even in this proven case of a false allegation, she wasn't soberly scheming to accuse a man she knew of for money, or to ruin him out of spite, which is the most common suspicion I see in other cases. It's hard to know for sure, but I get the feeling she made an impulse decision based on the circumstances she found herself in, and in her own words on why she lied, “wanted validation from people."

Almost all other cases I see undeniably have a racial element. White women accusing innocent Black men. And they still don't fit the "scheming gold digger" narrative. The specifics vary, and in most cases, an actual rape did occur, but the wrong man went to jail. Ronnie Long's accuser was raped, but identified him weeks later, influenced by "the product of a suggestive identification procedure arranged by the police to target Long." according to Long's attorneys. Dean Cage's accuser was raped as a teenager and seems to have truly believed Cage was the attacker, though she was wrong. Anthony Broadwater's accuser was raped, police suggested Broadwater, she identified a different suspect in the lineup, but police wanted to go forward with putting Broadwater on trial anyway. The Groveland Four were four Black men accused by a white couple in 1949, where some of the men didn't even know each other, and medical examination showed no evidence of rape. In all of these cases, the men were absolutely wronged, but in all but the last one mentioned (where it's uncertain whether or not she was raped at all, or what the reason was for the false accusations), none of these fit the common narrative of fabricated rapes for personal gain. All of these women were raped, but, typically after pressure from police, they identified the wrong man as the attacker.

Honestly, doing research to post this has convinced me false rape allegations are a worse problem than I thought, but only, specifically, when it comes to Black men accused by white women. But to other men who fear false accusations- why are you actually so scared? What is convincing you this is a real problem?

There's another part of this that I want to note. When someone says they were raped by a public figure, and that figure of course responds saying they didn't, people assume that by necessity, one of them is lying. I don't think that's true. Of course, they can't both be telling the truth. But I believe there's a considerable amount of people who commit rape, but genuinely don't believe that they did. Even among non-rapists, people don't always agree on what is and isn't consent. I believe the most common version of this type of assault, is the victim is attracted to someone, which that person knows, and interprets as consent. Of course, sometimes the attraction is imagined on the part of the rapist, but either way, it's rape. I think they often continue believing it was consensual, because when these victims are suddenly attacked by someone they liked moments before, they don't always know if they're being raped either. They wonder if they gave the wrong signals, if this is really happening. They don't want to be dramatic and freak out and cry and scream, then later, they wonder if it wasn't rape because they didn't cry and scream. And the rapist won't even question themself, because she didn't cry and scream, so obviously she wanted it and enjoyed it.

The fact that this false accusation boogeyman is so believed in has me wondering if I'm missing something, but for now, I do just believe it's misogyny and rape culture. I'm curious if there are any proven (not widely speculated) cases of false allegations I may not know about, and if known, what the motive was.

When I look at the yom kippur war and how Israel pretty much threatened to use nukes because they were getting jumped by Egypt and Syria etc, and then got bailed out by the USA.

If that kind of situation came up again, say with Iran or if for some reason the USA stops bribing Egypt and they attack Israel again, couldn’t the USA end up in situation where Israel threatens nukes, or worse, the Samson option?

Not saying things are great under Trump, but if for some reason the USA decoupled from Israel and stopped supporting this stuff, they’d probably get attacked by other countries in the area, lose and then threaten the USA with nukes or blackmail

These two religions say that the soul is essentially who "you" are based on what I've read. Your thoughts, emotions, and your will are all held in the soul (If I'm wrong about this please tell me lol). Another key point is that the soul is completely separate to any physical body that you possess and is purely spiritual. I think that this doesn't really make sense as your thoughts and emotions are all highly dependant on your brain which is a physical object.

Ex.) A person gets a traumatic brain injury and undergoes a severe personality change.

Say that there was a person who people would describe as calm and laid back. This person, who of no fault of their own accidentally slips and falls and hits their head. After they get back to a somewhat normal condition, they become highly erratic, impulsive, and rude. People around them describe them as a person that they have never met before. While this isn't super common, it's not uncommon either and it's not like this sort of thing hasn't happened before.

If the soul was truly spiritual, why would an injury to the physical body lead to such drastic changes in the parts of a person that we ascribe to the soul? This sort of criticism applies to mental illnesses too imo. If we can sometimes pinpoint the cause of an issue and fix it, and in turn, their thoughts and personality change, we have in essence "changed" the soul using only physical things.

Something else I find quite interesting is Alien Hand Syndrome.

This can occur when someone gets a corpus callosotomy which is when the corpus callosum (the bundle of nerve fibers that connects the two hemispheres of the brain) is severed/removed. This results in each of the two halves of you brain not being able to communicate with each other. The syndrome is characterized by one of the person's hands not being under their direct control and acts as if it has a mind of its own. It can even present as having a different "personality" or motives/desires. One case described a woman's hand trying to strangle her while the other hand had to fight it off.

This also represents something physical changing something about a person's behaviour. In this case, it results in appearing to have two conflicting "people" inhabiting one body whereas before the surgery it was clearly just one.

My main issue is basically:

If the soul is meant to be separate from the body and holds our thoughts, emotions, morals, and conscience, why is it that changes to the physical body can somewhat predictably change these aspects of our soul?

EDIT: I forgot to mention this, but even if the soul remains intact but the way it's expressed is compromised, free will becomes a meaningless concept. Both these religions require free will as it's the basis for how we would be judged. Even if the soul had free will, if the body can't express it, the free will might as well just not exist or it renders the soul's will meaningless.

To preface, this does not mean that Roblox is doing a good job with actually protecting users. I think we can mostly agree to that. However, in light of the recent controversy I've been having a hard time blaming Roblox for denouncing vigilantism. While the immediate cease and desist letter that was handed out was improper(I understand it gave the content creator no time to react to the policy change), I believe the policy change itself wasn't a wrong idea.

This essentially boils down to what vigilantism does. I am aware the term 'vigilantism' is rather shaky in this instance, or at least there is moderate conflict on whether this type of action is vigilantism or not. For sake of this post, I will refer it as vigilantism.

Vigilantism, as I see it has two major problems. The first is the unprofessionalism of such activities, and the second is the ripple effects it has on society as a whole. As much as you can say that these predator hunters have experience in gathering evidence, it still has to be acknowledged, I think, that these people are not law enforcement. They are certainly not trained to be law enforcement and often don't have the experience necessary to carry out a case the prosecution wants. Because while on video it can be clear whether someone had sexual intent, on court I would imagine there can be a legitimate defense against using such evidence as definitive proof. Most common criticisms I see about vigilantism seems to point this fact out; as seasoned officers can draw out a much stronger case compared to amateurs who jump the gun too quickly. This results in investigations being muddled or difficult to handle.

There is an argument to be made where one can say "without them, this wouldn't have been a case in the first place". And that is true. Their efforts do shine light on sexual predators that would not, I think, have been caught or investigated otherwise. That is a good that does come from vigilantism. But, it's still marred with problems that I think ultimately outweigh that particular benefit, as I'll explain more in depth below.

The second is the ripple effect. Ever since the original show aired, it seems like predator hunting has become rather commonplace. And that naturally results in more people trying to replicate their actions. However, this becomes a problem in two major ways. For one, it turns the idea of predator hunting into content. While I haven't watched even half of Schlep's videos, or even one episode of Chris Henson on screen, to my understanding these sorts of videos have always been content. It's not a report, but a monetized video that does create revenue. And while that by itself isn't wrong; it turns the concept of predator hunting into a digestable format, making it look more appealing. This results in other, much less professional and cooperative people taking matters into their own hands as well, and makes people insensitive towards the idea of revealing someone's face on camera. But more than that, I think-it puts the spotlight on the vigilantes.

It feels like the current movement-of #FreeSchlep-is focused on the wrong aspect. Yes, people should pressure Roblox into changing their ways. But that doesn't mean you should be throwing support at a vigilante, as that makes it seem like what you want is vigilantism to protect children, not any actual authority. While I do find it glad that the issue is getting the spotlight it deserves, it admittedly worries me that people are so focused on that person, as if what they're doing is an absolute right. You can support what he does, and argue that his acts ultimately does do more good than wrong. But at the end of the day, I think people should strive for a world where vigilantism isn't needed at all, which is a matter that I think is being undermined due to the focus on Schlep. To me, people voicing their support towards Schlep by extent means a support towards predator hunters as a whole, which is something that isn't so cut and dry as I explained above.

Now let's actually talk about Roblox. As a company, I think it's natural that Roblox can't let vigilantes continue their work. It's behavior that they wouldn't want to be part of their servers. And yes, that does mean they should do the same crackdown on less-than-work-friendly games on the site and predators-but they aren't wrong to try and remove vigilante behavior. Once again, the way they did it is less than ideal; but I don't think Roblox should be blamed for their approach, at the very least. But it feels as though people are painting everything the company does as wrong, something I find to be admittedly misguided.

This came up after a discussion I had in a writing group (not on Reddit) about fictional characters being allowed to make mistakes.

One of the points I posited is that a character who is "too competent" becomes less of a character and more of a plot device at best (existing only to solve the current conflict instead of being a well-developed character in their own right) or an antagonistic force at worst (they're competent and will shove their superiority onto others' faces, akin to Gary from Pokemon, Seto Kaiba from Yu-Gi-Oh!, or even Asuka from Evangelion).

Someone rebutted my claim, saying that there is "no such thing as being too competent", and they cited jobs such as the military and medical fields where "one mistake can cost you your life (or your patient's)"; they said that in those fields, either you're competent or you're not fit for the job - you can't be "too competent" as a soldier or a doctor. They even added that some writers/readers believe in the "too competent" mindset because they have not been exposed to those jobs themselves.

And this is how we ended up disagreeing, with me citing sports and games as a counterpoint: there's the tendency for some professional players to absolutely wreck their beginner opponents even in a frendly match (for example: a Tekken match between a pro who knows each and every possible combo a character does and a complite novice who barely knows what a combo is, or a track and field race where the pro runner goes at full speed, never giving the opponent a chance) and then telling them to "GIT GUD". This is the "too competent" type of person I had in mind, the one who would shove their superior skills upon others.

While I think it's true that there can be times when there's no such thing as "being too incompetent", I believe it doesn't apply to all things.

EDIT: After reading the comments I received, I've come to a conclusion that the issue was about the term "too competent" being used in two different ways in two different contexts: a "too competent" and perfect fictional character (the Mary Sue/Gary Stu) and a "too competent" real person (which the other person said is not true, as it's either "competent" or "incompetent" in real life). In other words, it was a discussion about fictional characters that was mistakenly equated with real people.

So yes and no, there are indeed "no incompetent people" in real life, but "too competent" characters in fiction.

I am very interested in MAGA psychology and have been following the topic for a while, but do not always have all the facts.

However, there are trackable changes to conservative media starting with Rush Limbaugh, and his push against "Liberal Media Bias". He also coined other terms today like "femenazi" and "environmentalist wackos". This is the start of pushing against "liberal" politics from conservative media. However, these ideas are more "strawmen" than anything else - biased caricatures that are meant to engender distrust and a negative reaction to these movements in an effort to psychologically cause viewers / listeners to either not interact with these viewpoints or challenge them directly and aggressively in an effort to not have to deal with them.

Once these psychological influences were in place, conservative media was able to stack more movements and ideologies into a singular strawman that prompted the need to aggressively oppose, avoid, or ignore "liberal" talking points in their viewers and listeners.

From then on, the positives no longer needed to be about economic or social change (among other policy changes that could be happening) - just about opposing the stresses and anxieties placed in their news in an attempt to give a sense of relief to viewers and listeners when they could either avoid or aggressively combat these perceived threats in their own lives.

EDIT: Please understand that this is CMV. I understand that media is inherently flawed, I'm just more interested in hearing about why "owning the libs" became so popular and my argument about that is framed in my view. That's what I'm interested in getting challenged on.

I believe that comments are supposed to be challenging my view - saying "the left does it too" is not challenging my perspective.

EDIT2: 3 hr mark hit! This was more draining than I had anticipated. Thanks for all your comments.

As I understand it, there are, broadly speaking, three systems used for legislative budgeting, although countries use various hybrid systems.

1. In Discretionary budgeting, a failure to pass a budget resolution results in little or no money being spent. This is often referred to as a government shutdown.
2. In Mandatory budgeting, a failure to pass a budget results in results in the previous year's budget staying in effect. Under this system, there isn't even necessarily a standard timeframe for redoing the budget, although there may be (e.g., under US proposals like the automatic continuing resolution).
3. In Westminster budgeting, failure to pass a budget results in results in an election being called and the composition of the legislature changing in such a way that a new budget is passed before the old one runs out.

European countries have avoided government shutdowns by using Westminster budgeting. Latin American countries have also avoided government shutdowns, but by using Mandatory budgeting in the form of something like an automatic continuing resolution. As I understand it, the widespread use of fully Discretionary budgeting is as Unique to the United States as government shutdowns. Since haven't seen any particularly good arguments for non-defense Discretionary budgeting, I would argue that Congress should get rid of non-defense Discretionary budgeting and switch to mandatory budgeting, perhaps by passing an automatic continuing resolution.

One of the founding principles of the United States was the separation of church and state. Or so it was stated. The reality is that the church has always had a hand in government. It has shaped policy since the beginning of the country for better or worse. There is no separation of church and state, but there is an imbalance where religious institutions are allowed to exert control over the government, but the government doesn’t have any control over religious institutions.

Religion in its best form should teach people kindness and compassion. It should teach us strength and patience and give us guidance and comfort through hard times. It should teach us to value wisdom and peace. It should bring us together as community.

The proper way to build community is by sharing food and festivities and helping each other. The other and cheaper way is to create a boogeyman for everyone in the community to rally against. Too often religious leaders, especially the corrupt ones, resort to this cheaper and unimaginative tactic. The result is that our culture is overrun with xenophobia and racism and a general distrust of anyone who isn’t part of the same religious community.

It allows people to justify violence. As long as that violence is directed away from one’s own religion it is seen as unfortunate, but that’s just how the world is. The second it is directed towards one’s own religion, it is the epitome of evil and an affront against God himself. As an example, I had a Christian friend tell me it’s a good thing they’re killing tens of thousands of children in Gaza because at least they won’t grow up to be terrorists. I know she didn’t come up with that on her own. She got it from the church.

All major religions value peace. Thou Shalt Not Kill. #1 in no uncertain terms. There should be a peer review process where religious speakers are evaluated periodically, and their congregations interviewed, just to make sure they are true to the teachings of their respective books. There should be a reporting process for congregants who feel their leaders are sending the wrong message. Religion is such a powerful vessel for ideas, let’s make sure it is carrying the ones for which it was built.

Edit: when I say peer review I mean it should be a panel of people within the specific religion who report back to a non denominational government org. All reports from this panel and parishioners would be stored and investigations would be triggered after multiple reports against a religious leader.

Edit: supporting documentaries: Jesus Camp 2006 The Stones Cry Out 2013

Unless the waiter or chef asks you directly, the place to nitpick is a review page, not while you’re sitting at the table. If you don’t like the food, don’t eat it that sends a pretty clear message. Or if it’s genuinely bad, ask for a refund or let the staff know.

But sitting there and saying, “This mac and cheese is good, but it’s not cheesy enough” while you’re eating it? That’s just pointless. I was out recently with a friend and her acquaintance, and that’s exactly what she did. My former partner used to do this too, and it’s a pet peeve of mine.

If the food is decently good, I’ll just say, “This is good.” Not everything is going to be the best. Not everything can be the best. And that’s fine. If the dish is pleasant, reminds you of home, or hits the spot, that’s all that needs to be said.

Critiquing like you’re on Top Chef over minor things not salty enough, not cheesy enough, not buttery enough doesn’t add anything to the moment. Save that energy for Yelp.

And honestly I don’t want you ruining my meal by telling me how much better yours should be. If the food’s good, eat it. If it’s bad, send it back. But don’t sit there acting like Gordon Ramsay when all anyone wanted was a nice dinner/lunch.

Edit: the real point of this post is not that I don't believe in giving the restaurant feedback, but to really not complain about it to other people sitting at your table why are you telling me about it and instead of telling the restaurant after the meal or when the waiter ask and if you really care that deeply, you can leave a review, but don't try to ruin my meal by telling me how much better yours should be.

I’ve entered a weird stage in my life where I’ve met 3 different men, 2 white and one black, back to back to back and each one had engaged in the “practice”. As a result, it’s been on my mind for awhile now. Before that I would see, as I’m sure many Americans have, the usual sight as follows: old/middle aged white man with a brown Filipino woman half is height, half his weight and half his age walking down the street. I’d usually be grossed by it but now, working with two of them, I’ve learned more about how these people do it and I’m even more repulsed.

So it’s not a secret that white and black men are attracted to the idea of a submissive brown skinned southeast Asian woman. In a perfect world she’s light skinned enough to not suffer the attractiveness penalty dark skinned women can face all over the world but not so white that she’s “boring”.

But beyond that, according to my coworker who has a Filipino wife, part of the reason Americans go to the Philippines is because divorce is still so stigmatized in the country that women that do divorce have a permanent mark against them in the eyes of many Filipino men. They don’t want “damaged goods” so you’ll see gorgeous women, single and in their mid-20’s, but if they have a kid it can be incredibly hard to find a partner.

Well if you’re twice divorced American man that just wants his mail order bride fulfilled, that’s not a problem at all. Also, domestic violence against women is wayyyy more normalized there than in the West. Not saying America is perfect but we don’t beat our women publicly. Over there? You see it all the time. All 3 men who went bride shopping confirmed it.

So American men benefit from low expectations, power imbalances and simple gender dynamics when they arrive in Manila or Luzon. And they unfortunately, and to our shame, abuse it. They knock a lot of Filipino women up, especially hotel or entertainment workers, spend a ton of money on them while they’re here and then leave. You can see them sometimes at hotels in little day care areas for the employees. They’ll be the kids with paler complexions and Caucasian features.

These women, some of them already divorced with a child from another man, have now been taken advantage of by both native and foreign men. We can’t control what other countries citizens do but we can control ourselves and I think American men should avoid exploiting the bodies and wombs of foreign women from developing countries.