BACKGROUND

LitRPG is a relatively new fiction genre wherein game elements – RPG – are present in the story – lit – itself. As you may well guess, the genre tends to attract certain nerdy groups for a variety of reasons, whether it be the D&D-esque fans there to see stats personified in what they read, or the self-insert power fantasy enjoyers who long for gameified escapism. Though the exact beginning of the genre is hard to pinpoint, from what I have gathered it was predated by light novels & web novels over on NovelUpdates and cultivation novels more present in the Eastern sphere.

/litrpg is a subreddit revolving around the LitRPG genre; there is also its companion, /progressionfantasy, though the latter doesn't necessarily include the stat game windows that LitRPG is known for. The space(s) leans politically progressive in recent times.

THE DRAMA

/litrpg's Discord server was run by the Subreddit mods and a few selected Discord only mods. I won't go in detail describing the mod team, but our two main suspects here are user wistel (nicknamed Wisintel) and user SnowGN (nicknamed Snow and Coldbringer). Wisintel was the sub's founder, but took more of a laidback role over the years while staying top mod... that is, until today.

I guess this is goodbye

Wisintel's post starts with him languishing over the sub's past and his role as a founder. It follows with the unexpected announcement that the mod team had collectively removed him as top mod without notice – keep in mind that you cannot remove a subreddit mod without them having been inactive for at least 3 months. Wisintel goes on to write that this was done because:

> [...] a couple of our new mods, people who have only been members of the sub reddit for a couple years at most, disagreed with the political views of one of the mods who has been here since the beginning.

This mod is Snow. Snow is a close friend of Wisintel's. Wisintel finishes the post by writing that he felt heartbroken from the action and was honoured to have founded the community.

The post has garnered around a thousand and a half upvotes at the time of writing and almost the exact same amount of comments, which isn't weird for a post like this, is it? I mean, a sub mod who has been there since the founding – 12 years ago, by Wisintel's claim – being ousted by some uppity newcomers is bound to cause a stir, right?

One of the mods involved in the ousting replies with a pinned comment shedding light on the situation.

> [...] Snow (the Discord server owner) has been making over-the-line comments in a hidden Discord thread. We felt this wasn't okay, and we went out of our way to make a new Discord rather than attempting to get him to step away from the current one. [...]

As it turns out, Snow wanted to pass the server to Wisintel. Wisintel was not informed of the new server and the mods had lowered his status as a Subreddit mod. Once it was made clear they would not pass the server, Wisintel wrote the post above.

The mod shares that the team had not intended to intervene with Wisintel's post, but wanted to clarify that this was not a united power grab from their end.

SNOW'S COMMENTS

So, what did Snow say, anyway?

As it turns out, a lot.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZYQLHf-Ao-G7MQwbf0E1NEd9mACuTv8YetSK5m6UzFw/edit?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ACKt-zc2NBL51NUVASklxLFayntK7aCpsvpoyxWP5O8/edit?usp=sharing

The server had a sort of private channel where members would discuss politics for fun. In these channels, Snow shared some.. interesting views, to put it mildly.

> Also, Epstein wasn't trafficking in actual kids, but teenagers who were willingly recruited and paid for their time. This matters. Why you guys are treating this as literal babyfucking is absurd.

> Furthermore, even if Trump is on the list, I wouldn't care. Better a pedo than a communist.

> Today, we've got roughly 1000 issues more important to America moving forwards than whether or not Bill Gates and Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew were diddling kids. These guys are mostly all retired now and sunsetting hard. Epstein wouldn't be the first American high level insider crime to be covered up. Not the most important by far, either. Like I said: get over it already. Focus on the things that matter today.

Other than these comments, Snow had some rather controversial talks about Hitler, Renee Good, The Great Replacement Theory, and of course – we can't go without the classic – trans people. Feel free to read them on your own.

THE REACTIONS: MOD TEAM, SNOW AND WISINTEL

One of the discord mods, Claire, had posted an explanation before the current pinned comment which I will link here.

Claire explains that Snow had driven the Discord server towards being a so-called "ghost town".

She and Snow have a somewhat personal interaction when he responds to her below, which I will also link, as this post has gotten too long.

Wisintel responds to Claire's comment. Curiously, he never writes that he condemns Snow's beliefs, only that he doesn't condone them.

He has also commented on a right-wing conspiracy post in the past, as another commenter points out.

The mod team uploads a post advertising the sub's new Discord server, and somewhere in the comments Wisintel copy pastes his own goodbye post. You'll have to scroll a bit to see it.

THE REACTIONS: R/LITRPG USERS

Some users are predictably poking fun at the situation.

Reddit mods never beating the allegations.

Ah yes. LitRPG my favorite political subreddit and discord server. This makes sense.

This litrpg has twists and turns that are very shocking

Others have some words to say to Wisintel, whether indifference or jabs at his character.

This post reads like an old E/N post from Something Awful… It means Everything to you… it means Nothing to me.

Hey, why don't you mention those political beliefs that were a problem? Surely it isn't anything that would get you shit on.

Accepting pedophilia is more than just a political disagreement. You went to bat for a fucking monster. Deal with the backlash. You earned it.

A mod weighs in and explains that, yes, Wisintel was an absentee founder, contrary to his claims that he was active, writing that Wisintel has not taken any moderator action in about a year. Elsewhere in the thread, there are others saying that he has been inactive for 5 years or so, but I'm unable to find those right now.

Someone writes that this was still a power grab by the new mods, and that things were running "fine" before this happened. This starts its own thread of drama.

We do not trust you. You aren't even Reddit moderator on this subreddit. And the mod who posted about the new discord, so presumably one of the major coup players, /1ncite didn't even join this subreddit until Mar 6, 2024.

Another user is apparently of the same mind.

"Something else that matters to who you are as a person is the way that you do things. The underhanded coup tactics being used here make me pretty leery of the new "leadership" and does plenty to destroy community trust. "Oh, he might have disagreed with what we were doing, so we sabotaged him pre-emptively just in case" is not terribly compelling to those of us who fear book-burnings in a book genre subreddit. Given this sub's rules and enforcement around avoiding AI witch hunts, it's troubling seeing a different kind of witch hunt full of collateral damage embraced so enthusiastically."

User demoran, to absolutely no one's surprise, writes that Snow's takes were reasonable, and there's many among his number.

"Gotta say, coldbringer seems to take some reasonable positions on the issues he was talking about. Maybe you just didn't like that he was talking about them at all without either condemning Hitler and Nazis unconditionally, or supporting trans unequivocally.

That also appears to be discord talk, not stuff here.

Seems to me like you went on a power trip and stole this sub. Are you going to ban me because I'm not "on your side" as well?"

-

Those messages aren't evil. What is wrong with you that you can't handle disagreement?

That is just sad, you should be ashamed of yourselves.

-

The fucking gall to stand on your little soapbox, outright say "yes, we usurped them for wrongthink", and still pretend that you're the good guys in this story.

-

Typical reddit shit. "Our ideology is all that matters and we're going to ruin a sub so people we disagree with can't have fun"

You guys would have been concentration camp guards if you were born 100 years ago

Most of his supporters are under Claire's previously pinned comment, down voted to hell – for once, rightfully so – and free to peruse.

CONCLUSION

The /litrpg community is still relatively niche, but hopefully without some few bad apples as of now.. regardless of how many were exposed today. The new Discord server seems to be doing well, and the subreddit is otherwise calm. I hope the drama was to your liking (since this is also my first write-up.)

Our OG Post: https://www.reddit.com/r/Screenwriting/s/iwsJ2cZn9j

Response to a Comment explaining they hated it and didn’t make it past Page 2: https://www.reddit.com/r/Screenwriting/comments/1mktsjs/comment/n7lpyf8/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=2&utm_content=share_button

Response to another Comment from (supposed) Industry Veteran, literally saying the exact same thing: https://www.reddit.com/r/Screenwriting/comments/1mktsjs/comment/n7mgtpw/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=2&utm_content=share_button

Trying to be reasonable: https://www.reddit.com/r/Screenwriting/comments/1mktsjs/comment/n7nfpsl/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=2&utm_content=share_button

“Well, it’s a sketch show”: https://www.reddit.com/r/Screenwriting/comments/1mktsjs/comment/n7lnryl/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=2&utm_content=share_button

A User giving a pretty detailed Explanation: https://www.reddit.com/r/Screenwriting/comments/1mktsjs/comment/n7o5e7m/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=2&utm_content=share_button

Crashing out over someone accusing them of using AI, and tbh I do think this one was reasonable: https://www.reddit.com/r/Screenwriting/comments/1mktsjs/comment/n7n42nr/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=2&utm_content=share_button

Dumbass who thinks he’s Funny V Dumbass who thinks he’s Smart: https://www.reddit.com/r/Screenwriting/comments/1mktsjs/comment/n7z15xt/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=2&utm_content=share_button

Being relatively understandable: https://www.reddit.com/r/Screenwriting/comments/1mktsjs/comment/n7nfk6b/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=2&utm_content=share_button

Defending yourself: https://www.reddit.com/r/Screenwriting/comments/1mktsjs/comment/n7r9wq5/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=2&utm_content=share_button

Original post: https://www.reddit.com/r/antiai/comments/1x6ib1i/a_weird_person_using_ai_for_life_advice/

so we okay with posting private chats of people, including their names online? Is that not more weird? How is this even allowed.

I wonder if this is the main reason so many techbros are so defensive about AI - it means in their delusional world someone actually listens to them and puts up with their weirdness

He uses AI that poisons our waters. He deserves this!!!!

I don't know why, but I find this 50/50 split of creepy semi-sexual messages and questions about statistics hilarious.

Why was he asking the definition of paedophile 😭😭

I’m not gonna sit and make fun of some poor college student who needs friends, is lonely, and was convinced chatGPT could help him out a little bit

Maybe consider reporting concern to the University. Clearly something concerning is going on here. If it might involve sex crimes, maybe a center on campus for victim/survivor support and education might be informed on how to approach this.

r/books has had a smattering of I/P related drama recently but this one is the most buttery.

https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/1x6pku2/palestine_book_by_alana_hadid_and_jenan_matari/

Context: After a previous story about an author having their book pulled in Britain for financially supporting Palestine Action, this post gets made. The linked story

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2026/oct/15/alana-hadid-book-palestine-penguin-cancelled

details how disagreements between the publishers and the writers regarding how the Oct 7th attacks were classified led to the publisher being unwilling to publish without changes and the writers pulling the book due to the required edits. The two repeating issues of censorship and I/P collide. The thread is locked and many many comments nuked by the mods.

Regarding the 7 October 2023 Hamas attacks: “The writers’ manuscript argued that people under “colonial domination” have the “right to resist”, but Random House urged them to incorporate arguments that the attacks that day violated international law. At an impasse, the authors withdrew their book.”

Justifying october 7th is like saying, "maybe the school shooter had a point". Killing kids and young adults at a music festival and then parading their dead bodies through the streets with women and children cheering by the tens of thousands was bad. It shouldn't be tough to say that.

Then I have to ask you, do you think there was any justification for the slave revolts in America where they killed ther slave ownerrs and their families? What are your thoughts on the Haitian revolution?

Kill the slave owners, not the children. What would you have wanted?

"hey guys just remember when you're fighting for your lives, trying to escape slavery, be sure in the chaos to not hurt the kids of the slave owners or else I'm gonna have to not be on your side"

This guy gets mad when he reads about slave revolts

Slaves were good to revolt, if the slaves decided to rape and murder children would you be cheering?

Plenty of children died during slave revolts, both black and white. Half the people who die died in Nat Turner’s rebellion were children. Was it wrong to revolt?

If the slave revolters intentionally killed kids I would say that is bad, would you?

Why should the oppressed play by moral standards their oppressors do not themselves abide by? Why is only one side guilty of an action the otherside has committed a thousandfold more of?

If both sides are killing kids they're both guilty of killing kids which is horrific and unjustifiable in any circumstances. Mental that this needs spelling out for you.

What’s up with so much of this sub supporting censorship of authors as of late? It’s weird af

Zionists unfortunately have been tolerated in many spaces for a long time, and they will defend literally any act—no matter how profane—that supports the racial domination project that is Israel.

It's really amazing, the most supportive and submissive media environment predisposed to their cause and even an inch of pushback immediately leads to cries of an unfair double standard. If nothing else you have to respect the message discipline.

Read the post, the authors were given an inch of pushback by being asked to call October 7 a terrorist attack but apparently that was too much. Palestinian supporters refuse to agree that attacking civilians is wrong, and they cry victimhood everytime anyone says that terrorism is wrong even though they support Palestinian statehood.

this is a lie! I read the article, the specific issue was the publisher editing the final manuscript to describe October 7th as against international law, which the authors challenged under the UN-recognized right of occupied groups to resist their occupiers by any means necessary. Zionists, i've already muted comment this don't bother with the hasbara :)

Defending October 7 seems like a good reason to scrap the deal. The authors refused to include language that would have described the day as breaking the rules of international law.

I don’t see publishers making the same demands of writers who paint all Israeli action as justified and refuse to acknowledge Israel’s war crimes

Show me a children's book that says that lol

You know how many children’s books and adult books there are that have refused to condemn, let alone mention, the crimes Israel inflicted on the Palestinians?

I mean if the authors didn't bring up October 7th then they wouldn't have had this issue

If we all just mailed our wallets to Israel none of us would have any issues with them.

Wow you guys really need to get out of your basements. Imagine thinking someone that is against civilians being killed, kidnapped, and sexualizing assaulted means I'm for civilians being killed, kidnapped, and sexualizing assaulted.

I mean, at this point, bringing up October 7th at all while the genocide is ongoing and the hostages have all been returned for over a year by now is a bit- “what about the civilian lives lost during the Warsaw Uprising?” Yes bad things are bad, but context is key

You shouldn't need to tell an author what they can and can't say. People under colonial domination do have a right to resist, this is already carefully crafted soft language. Telling them to talk more about how bad the resistance was, is kind of pointless and unnecessary. We all know and agree that was bad, but it feels like a lot of the time when you say "You have to say that over and over again", it feels like you are instead using it to justify other actions.

They don't have a right to kidnap rape and murder civilians though.

No one does.

Exactly. Israel doesn't and Hamas doesn't

Yes, but you are missing the point. It only every seems to work in one direction. You could write 100 books right now about how bad Hamas is, no problem, but write a single lukewarm sentence about Israel and you better have at least 10 Hamas is bad before it. It is just a double standard.

Do you think Random House would publish a book by Ben-Gvir which said Palestinians should be expelled to Jordan and the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip annexed? I don’t

[r/legalcatadvice](r/legalcatadvice) is a sub where cat owners post and comment as if they are cats with a nonsensical legal grievance. An example would be this post (not related to drama, just an example because I didn’t really have the words to describe this niche sub)

Seemingly out of nowhere, a mod of the sub posted an announcement, stating that the sub supports the use of AI for the purpose of making silly pictures of their cats. I’m assuming they were getting a bunch of reports or something. Here is the mod post. As I’m sure you can all imagine this was not a very popular decision

Some snippets:

Top level comment removed, OP defends the use of AI in posts as not low effort

There shouldn’t be any argument about AI, like there shouldn’t be any argument about racism

Top level comment removed, replies saying they don’t want to see AI slop either. Back and forth ensues

Plenty more to see in there, please no pissing in the popcorn!

Over at [r/FoodLosAngeles](r/FoodLosAngeles), a sub which, as the name suggests, covers the food scene in Los Angeles, a user asked for a "List of PE-backed LA restaurants"

The seemingly straightforward question bifurcates into two separate and unrelated sets of drama that are nonetheless very Reddit in nature.

(Edit: DV’d = downvoted; I should have more self-awareness)

Drama #1: Not spelling out acronyms

I don't have any restaurants to add to the list, but is it really too much trouble to write out "private equity"?

>PE is a pretty widely accepted abbreviation. We use AI, USA, IYKYK all the time so I don't see why PE is an issue [DV’d]

>>I'm on this subreddit pretty regularly, and this is the first time I've encountered "PE" as an abbreviation. I guess that just means I have to hand over my "chronic lurker" award over to you, since you clearly are more ITK.

>>>whats itk? more intelligiant then kings?

>>>>Inbred Theatre Kids, c'mon dude everyone knows that. Aren't you In The Know?

>>>>>Everyone who knows anything knows ITK is Inbred Theater Kids. People being willingly obtuse in this thread, IMMFSC

>>>It has nothing to do with this sub or “chronic lurking” or Reddit. PE is a widely used abbreviation. [DV'd]

>>>>

PE is a widely used abbreviation.

• Physical Education
• Professional Engineer
• Public Enemy

etc... are all much more common uses of "PE" than Private Equity.

>>>>>Yeah we are all so worried that physical education is going to take over restaurants and businesses. Also your google AI search does not say those are “much more common.” [DV'd]

>>>>>>I didn't use Google AI for that. I used my own personal experiences, because I'm not a lazy troll who relies on AI for their comments. Just give up dude. This is not a good hill for you to die on.

>PE is pretty well known. Add in “PE-backed” and it’s pretty obvious no offense. It’s not some outlandish 5 letter acronym that no one says in real life. [DV'd]

>>I just added PE to my email signatures for Professional Engineer. I know we aren't the most exciting people at a party, but it was humbling to see a wall of comments about how much we suck.

Drama break: People having fun and/or generating flair material

Physical Education? We are against exercise now?

>yeah, exercise is woke!

>>And gay!

>>>And it’s coming for YOU

Drama #2: Who cares if private equity restaurants are good?

What if the PE back restaurant is, gasp, good? [DV'd]

>Good lord dude, get off your knees, you’re in public.

>Good for shareholders? [note: this gets into a back-and-forth about the user's investment and Reddit history]

What if Holbox and howlin rays is PE funded? You gonna boycott? [DV'd] [context: the former is a Michelin-starred street food restaurant and the latter is a well-loved hot chicken establishment]

>[OP] well yeah, basically. I would just go elsewhere, because if they were PE-funded, it would be a matter of time before their prices double and quality halves. Not trying to get attached to brands owned by vampires

>>What makes a private equity owner more of a vampire than your normal profit-motivated owner? (Hint: there isn't one) You could also, and I know this is crazy, but maybe stop going to places *if* their prices double and quality halves. It's almost like transactions are a two way street. [DV'd]

>>>[OP] Some owners prioritize more than just profit lmao

To those saying ‘but PE isn’t always bad Reddit is so dumb!” The point is transparency. I won’t cancel a business I like because it’s owned by PE but I do like knowing if it is or not.

>Sure it's nice to know if you're interested in tracking the potential decline due to the PE stereotype but we all kind of know the purpose is because people want to boycott those restaurants. Hot take: I only care about the product and service the restaurant provides and not how the investment group behind it is structured. If a PE backed restaurant gets worse, I simply decide not to eat there anymore. Even hotter take: Choosing a mom and pop to eat over chipotle doesn't make you a better person [DV'd]

>>None of those are hot takes. Patronizing establishments run by those in my community benefits my community. PE does not care about community. PE cares about extracting value from everything they touch. Who wants to give more money a system like that?

[Deleted comment]

>PE Has entered the chat

>Name one thing PE has improved

Who cares? I avoid restaurants with bad food. I frequent restaurants with good food. Dorkish behavior to make food about politics. Or whatever weird problem you have with private equity [DV'd]

>What an astute, cool foodie you are. The entire point is that PE getting involved has a proven track record of food getting worse, we also want to avoid bad food. Where did anyone make it political?

>>Every Reddit-pilled comment here is “durr I don’t like PE because PE bad and underpay workers and boo hoo”. Like shut up. If the foods good I’ll eat there. If it’s not good I won’t.

These ban lists are stupid. If a restaurant is bad it will eventually die, we don’t need go around making lists of restaurants that wanted to get paid and sold out. Dork behavior. Unnecessary [DV'd]

Drama break: If anyone cares, there was at least one commenter who did answer the question.

And lastly, the most damning of accusations:

Tartine is owned by private equity and real estate developers 

>They still can’t afford a bread slicer though, the main reason I avoid them.

1. post where the car drives up a curved slope, inverts, then uses thrusters to fly itself down

2. post where the car jumps up and over 5 other cars while doing a 360

Post 1

Musk is dumb, but this is genuinely cool

This won't be sold

How bout one that doesn't catch fire?

"Redditors being negative as usual"

also countless comments calling it ai/fake

Post 2

Quit posting this crap

More doubt that it exists (with more of an audience, and argument, this time)

the gay gif

• This is objectively cool as fuck! (-5)
  • But how is it gay (-1)
  • I guess in the same way that any gay man must penetrate the surrounding air with his sleek hard gravity defying metalic 4 door trapezoid before he slams the momentum shifting exhaust thrust of downward gravity resisting jet propelled hip thrust for maximum jaw gaping awesomeness. (-1)
  • So it’s not gay then? Because nothing about that (other than the gay man bit, but that was forced in) is gay (0)
  • I'm sorry did you ask why a car flipping was gay and then reject the answer that it had nothing to do with gay only to go back to please link this to homosexuality? Only to reject that because it was a cool response?

Still some newer posts, and given the time of the day, they're pretty fresh. Might see more drama later

Tried to capture the highlights - sorry for formatting errors, first time posting on the sub - PLEASE go check out this thread and the user it's a rabbit hole. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

OG Post: "End of an Era"(two images)

I was collecting my man's bottles but he recently quit so this is the final stage of the alcohol bottles, now he drinks Pedialyte!

He used to drink 2 pints a day, I'm happy for him, I knew he could do it.

Your post history is crazy 💀 THAT is the real collection

What the actual fuck 🫪 I wonder if he knows he keeps them…. Edit: fixed pronouns. Apologies.

OP: I'm a dude but yeah he does know. I'm pretty sure he found out about the Pedialyte too because originally he threw it away but I retrieved though I'm almost certain he saw it in my bag when he was trying to help me find something.

Wait he threw it away and you took it out of the garbage can? Why? What the fuck

OP: Because I wanted it, also it was recycling and in the hotel we were staying at so it's not like an actual trash can full of stuff

omg happy for him. You should toss out the bottles you’ve collected though, especially if he’s coming to your place. I’m not an alcoholic, but I feel like having the bottles around could remind him of his problem and possibly even tempt him.

op (male) is in a very sexual “relationship” with a man who’s old as dirt, and who also “doesn’t believe gay people exist “. op will defend this til their dying breath. they’re exhausting

OP: He's 32 years old, how is that old? I'm not sure why you phrase it like that either I'm in a relationship with him. It's simple like that idk why you are trying to twist it into something weird

bc aren’t u like 20

OP: He doesn't get tempted like that, last time he saw it he was like wow that's a lot and it's not even half of what he was drinking. I wish I could've collected all of them.

What will you do with them, though? Do they just sit on a shelf or something? You should find a purpose for them so they’re not just like collecting dust somewhere. Make a sculpture. That would be sick

OP: Yeah I was thinking of making something out of them though I'll probably keep one bottle for just memories

You should def find a purpose for ‘em. Turn a negative into a positive

OP: I never saw it as a negative

Whats the significance of collecting these? Genuinely curious

OP: I just miss him a lot and it reminded me of him. Now I just have the one Pedialyte bottle because that's what he drinks now. It's harder to get the Pedialyte bottle because he doesn't finish those around me as much

Where is he?

OP: How am I supposed to answer this question

Usually people live with their SO. So like, is he dead, or in rehab, that kind of thing.

OP: As much as I wish he lived with me, he doesn't. He lives with his brother. Me and him met almost 3 months ago and we've just been together ever since

That many bottles in 3 months and you keep them? lol

OP: He had way more, these are just the ones I was able to get

god not you again i knew immediately from the first pic get HELP PLS

I am stealing this brief description of r/AntiSex from this drama post a few years ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/1axl71h/the_systematic_persecution_of_antisexuals_an/

r/antisex is a very bizarre, small, isolated, but rather active subreddit that is against sex in all/nearly all its forms. Most of its users are asexual so it's best to conceive it as a sort of asexual supremacist subreddit, although there are a few (presumably unwell) “sexuals” in there too. I highly encourage you to check it out for yourself, it’s quite the rabbit hole.

Here is also a link to the subreddit's FAQ: https://www.reddit.com/r/antisex/comments/tanu5c/faq_for_newcomers/

The subreddit's sidebar description is as follows:

A subreddit for the discussion of antisexuality/antisexualism.

Antisexuality is the broad class of ideas that oppose sex and sexuality. Notable related examples include sex-negative feminism, the anti-porn and anti-prostitution movements, voluntary celibacy, and some sex-repulsed asexuals. This is not an incel space.

This sub is intended as a space for developing anti-sexual philosophy, and a safe space for those that are sex-repulsed.

Now for the drama. I've bolded some of the particularly juicy bits that might make for a good flair:

Why would heterosexual women have sex?

All sex is nasty, but sex between a cis man and a cis woman is the ultimate act of power imbalance. Women have everything to lose and very little to gain. The mere act symbolizes humiliation and even masochism. A woman gets stabbed repeatedly in her orifice by a dirty, grotesque appendage. The orgasm gap is a well-documented fact. Add to that the risk of pregnancy and the innumerable types of STDs (so many women have STDs and they don't even know it). Why on earth would a woman have sex?

.

Because they enjoy it? 😭

Honestly I agree with you even though I hate the whole thing and it disgusts me. It shouldn’t be hard to understand that people do specific things because they enjoy it.. so I don’t get the replies here.

I find it incredibly ironic that users in a subreddit dedicated to an extremely uncommon view of sex one that many outsiders would look at and think, "there must be something wrong with these people" are so baffled by the idea that others might genuinely enjoy things they don't.

Apparently we're supposed to dismiss women's own experiences when they say they enjoy sex. It can't possibly be sincere, there must be some conspiracy, social conditioning, or other nefarious explanation at work.

I am not baffled by the idea that MEN enjoy sex. I specifically asked about women. Women don't reach an orgasm with penetrative sex. You, like all men, desperately want to believe that we crave dick and that we live to take dick in our vaginas. That is not true.

I love how you are here arguing about something you clearly have never researched or looked into in any meaningful way.

Heterosexual sex is patriarchal and phallocentric. I'm a woman and I don't like penetration. It's degrading, invasive and overrated.

Thanks for letting me know your opinion on this. You are allowed to not like something most heterosexual women like.

Most don't, they just do it to please the man. If you ask them, you'll notice that a lot of the "pleasure" they get from penetration is psychology. The vagina only has nerve endings in the entrance because that's part of the clit. Actually, penetration should not be the main focus when it comes to women.

Just a reminder for the 15th time in this thread, the majority of women report enjoying penetrative sex.

This is a fact. You are factually wrong.

Before you say:

"Its a conspiracy, my vibes and feelings tell me they are liars!!! They are just saying they enjoy it, but they actually dont! Trust me bro!"

I dont care what your vibes and feelings tell you about what other women think.

They report that because of the psychological aspect, but anatomically, a phallus is not needed for women's pleasure. At all. And the psychological aspect and engagement is because women have been socialised to like penetrative sex. We have been expected to like penetrative sex. And due to patriarchy, we are psyched into believing we like it. But penetration is and will always be for men's enjoyment.

Bro, I’m an asexual man and your arguments against her are literally proving her point. I don’t disagree that women like heterosexual sex but the reason they bring up for it is usually a) the ✨experience✨ and b) the "pleasure" of pleasing the man and being wanted. Be serious dude, if you were told that you gotta eat out your wife all your life and only get your balls simulated in return, yeah, your balls are gonna feel good but would you really be enjoying it and wanting to stay in that relationship if you never reach orgasm? No, realistically most men don’t say shit like sex is for the experience and the orgasm isn’t the end goal but women do because they will be having penetrative sex all their lives and this does show that women are conditioned for penetrative sex. You would never do that because you ain’t conditioned to.

No. Orgasm gap.

I know plenty of straight women who say they have orgasms during sex with men. I’m a lesbian who’s never had one with a partner and likely never will. The orgasm gap is a statistical analysis of data, not a reflection of every woman’s lived experience.

Irrelevant to my point.

That doesn't mean every woman doesn't orgasm.

People still enjoy sex even without an orgasm.

Being unsatisfied with many of your sexual encounters doesnt mean you don't enjoy sex.

Its a literal fact that a majority of women report that they enjoy sex lol.

This must have been written by a man.

Genius level response.

I know its hard to think outside your own worldview, but a majority of people do in fact enjoy sex.

Most women complain that the sex is dirty and nasty. Most men are unattractive anyway and their appendage is nasty.

.

Because what most people dont know is sex has more biological reasons other then to have kids. Sex Removes harmful mutations and slows their buildup In other words sex helps the prevention of cancer

Sex promotes DNA repair and genome maintenance. Sex is one of only a very ways for us to fix our damaged DNA. mind you, damaging your DNA is as easy as being deficient on vitamin b12 or vitamin b6.during sex lost DNA segments are getting reloaded and deletions restored. Its a lot lile data recovery on a computer.

Sex helps to expell overproduced cortisol. Cortisol is the hormone thats the reason why too much stress will eventually be deadly. When we are stressed we produce WAYYYYY too much of it with not a lot of ways to get rid of it again. But during sex we expell a lot of it

Sex helps balance brain chemistry aka helps with mood disorders

In short sex maintains genomes, repairs your DNA, strengthens your immune system, balances brain chemistry,helps preventing cancer , expells cortisol and is also a healthy escape from reality.and all of us humans escape reality one way or the other from time to time, sex is at least a healthy way to do so

All made up.

.

Why do women have PIV sex?

I genuinely don't understand it. The vagina has to be stretched the first time a woman has sex which usually hurts and is painful, even with foreplay and a lot of lube. Then it has to be regularly trained (stretched) to get used to it. Then women don't even orgasm from PIV intercourse. It sounds painful, dangerous and useless all around. I can't imagine it feels good. Maybe women gaslight themselves that it feels good because even they say that they can't orgasm from PIV. But then I seriously wonder what the point even is?

.

It does not feel good. It feels fucking terrible. Like a nightmare that never ends. It’s so painful

Then why do ladies feel they get empowered by sex and stuff?

because it’s a white liberal feminist framework that is meant to mantain structural power dynamics intact and portray intimate proximity with a historical and current opressor as liberation without questioning anything of material substance

.

These comments are NOT it No, sex should NEVER hurt or be uncomfortable the female body is capable of full body orgasms men are just socialised into being selfish and not giving into our needs in bed. Women aren't "doomed" into bad sex. Like be antisex all you want but don't try to make it that all women are meant to suffer during sex, we're not. It's supposed to feel good, amazing even. We can be anti sex without minimising women's bodies

Okay, then explain why the first time always hurts for women even with the most and best prep. Explain why men ALWAYS get off but for women it takes so much "you need a sex partner that's not selfish", "you need to find the right position" blablabla... If sex was that great for women just like it is for men, we should be able to orgasmn as easily as men and orgasm every single time we have sex just like them but we don't.

Could be many reasons such as fear regarding sex, vaginismus, ect

[deleted]

Give me some scientific resources saying women are doomed to pain during penetration. The pessimism here is insane

Keep gaslighting and deluding yourself. Your cognitive dissonance is insane.

Keep staying miserable I guess, meanwhile I'm here enjoying my dildo 👅

I'm not miserable, I'm asexual. Ew. No one wants to know your masturbation stories. Have some decency. WTF are you even doing here then? Are you aware that this is an antisex sub?

.

I am very sex negative but some of y'all very clearly have vulvodynia or vaginismus, and most women do not

I'm an asexual virgin. I don't know what sex feels like. But from a logical and scientific standpoint my view makes perfect sense.

Plenty of women do orgasm from intercourse alone. Women who are not asexual feel an urge for penetration which overrides any initial pain, which isn't perceived the same way pain would be in other contexts in other parts of the body, due to the arousal. And that's IF there is any pain on first intercourse, which there sometimes isn't, and even if there is, it quickly stops occurring.

In short, one large reason most women have sex is because they feel a compelling urge to do it beforehand, and then subsequently they find the activity feels good.

Most women are pressured and coerced into sex in the first place. Do you have proof that proves that pleasure overrides pain?

I know from personal experience & I know that statistically it's unlikely that I am a freak of nature. I don't think my friends throughout life have been lying, either. However, I cannot prove to someone else what physical sensations exist in my own body. This is an example of a truth that cannot be proven, just like I can't prove to you that I thought about elephants yesterday.

So you're saying you experience pain but it is overridden by your pleasure? There is a study that says 95% of women that are sexually active experience pain during PIV intercourse.

No I experienced minor pain the first couple of times.

There are studies that say literally everything

So you admit that you experienced pain the first time(s).

im 37 now, married for 9 years and have kids. I cannot emphasize enough how inconsequential the existence of mild pain the first 2 times is, for non-asexual women.

Pain is pain, no matter how mild it is. Men NEVER experience pain when they have PIV sex. Women still lose, point proven.

Men experience pain with PIV if it is too dry, too tight, or if they pull out too far and reenter at a bad angle and hit a bone. Like, pain bad enough that they will stop at least briefly if not altogether.

That's bs.

No, ask any grown man, or hetero woman

You're more sex-positive than you claim to be.

Nah, sex positivity is all about consent & eradicating shame. I think sexual shame is an important evolutionary adaptation & I do not believe that consent makes sex moral.

.

Penetration is overrated, degrading and invasive.

I genuinely don't understand women who enjoy it and I'm a woman too. From what I've read, it seems like it's mostly psychological and it's sad women have to psych themselves into it to benefit men.

.

There are women who enjoy penetration. In fact, most women enjoy it. It's how humans are still around today.

There's nothing wrong with not enjoying it, but to say "women have to psych themselves into it to benefit men" is lunacy.

Most women do not enjoy it, that's just false. Biologically there is just not enough nerve endings in there. The center of pleasure of a woman is the clitoris. If you're a man, you're deluding yourself into thinking most enjoy it. If you're a woman and genuinely enjoy it, you're part of the minority.

Most women like sex lol. It's ok if you don't, but understand that's a minority position.

Sex =/= penetration. And if we're talking about female satisfaction, lesbians win there.

This is not a very well-informed reply. The clitoris is a surprisingly large organ going from the visible outside part all the way to the vagina (including the vaginal canal), and has way more nerve endings than the sensitive parts of the penis

The clitoris goes around the entrance of the vagina and that's it. It doesn't cover all the vaginal canal. I think you're not that well-informed if you believe it does (and if you're a man, of course you'll look for ways to think that because it benefits you).

The clitoral area sits so close to the anterior vaginal wall, and is so sensitive, that penetration stimulates it either way, and modern sexuology is trying to do away with them being distinct structures instead of an interconnected erectile complex. Or that's what professors teach at universities anyway, but maybe they're misinformed.

Edit: I am indeed a man. I am also gay and have a strong dislike for misinformation.

The anterior vaginal wall is the zone where the G spot supposedly is, which is not usually stimulated by PIV sex. Specially not with a penis, because to stimulate there you need something that curls (a finger is ideal for that because most penises aren't curved, so in fact, a penis is not what would naturally stimulate it). The spot is also supposedly near the entrance, so no big object is even needed. And even then, not all women have sensitivity in that so called G spot. So it is not even a universal thing.

There is literally no anatomical reason why PIV should be the standard of heterosexual sex (besides reproduction). The only reason it is is because it's central to male pleasure and we have lived in a patriarchal society for millennia (but we don't need that anymore and it's about time to get rid of patriarchal constructs). In fact, men and women's centers of pleasure are different and in an ideal and more equal world, penetration shouldn't be expected in heterosexual sex (at least not always and definitely not as the main thing).

.

Women benefit from it too, like, wtf. Do you think women do not feel pleasure? Biology is not mysoginistic, YOU are by saying this

Women do feel pleasure, from the clitoris, not from the vagina (or at least not from all the vagina because the nerves are only at the entrance, so a phallus is not needed at all for feminine pleasure). Patriarchy has socialised women for engaging in penetration because it's what benefits men the most.

You're accusing a social construct of giving people their biology? That very strange. What you all here are doing is finding excuses for your lack of sex drive. It's ok if you are afraid of sex or don't want to have it. But understand that normal people do like and do wanna have it. Live and let live. Otherwise you're not better than the "bigot patriarchy" you supposedly fight against.

Biology says the vagina cannal is not the primary source of pleasure for women, the clitoris is. A lot of women have reported they feel nothing during penetration too. And I know you will say "B-But that doesn't mean they don't feel pleasure", true but look at the nature of that "pleasure" from what they report: it points out to psychological pleasure and that... that's actually the result of socialisation and patriarchal influences. Why? Because penetration is the main course of men's pleasure. If women were truly made to naturally enjoy penetration (like men), they would enjoy it physiologically too.

If you're fine with women being influenced by patriarchy to like something just to please men, then congrats, you're fine with patriarchy.

Just gonna drop something here. Not all women are made the same and some naturally have more nerve endings than others. I'm not discounting women who don't feel anything, but it's not like that for everyone and for me it's genuinely pleasurable. And my husband is very woman-focused when it comes to pleasure. Again, I'm not discounting anyone's perspective or saying you shouldn't be anti-sexual, just that your experience is not everyone's and women are not a monolith.

You are confusing orgasm with stimulation. I have trouble having orgasms just from penetration, but DO LOVE penetration and consuming that damn dick’

Yikes you serve men.

My man literally sucks my toes, licks my pussy and if I want to then I eat his dick up! And I feel extremely lustful while doing that

Okay, go be a male-centered elsewhere, this sub is not for you.

OK, I got you. I am in the wrong sub. But I cannot let you speak around fake facts.

It's not a fact, it's your subjective experience. But there is not objective and factual evidence about any anatomical structures that produce that experience and the exact physiological mechanism has not been conclusively identified.

You walk around and tell everyone that having sex as a woman is not lustful for when it comes to penetration, but a lot of women will tell you otherwise. The literal bodied feeling can be very very nice since the penis stimulates the vagina at the edge of the open

Edit: also the feeling inside can be hot as hell. I don’t want to forcefully change your opinion I just want to make sure that a woman who does experience the opposite from what you were talking about, has the right to open up so that you don’t make something up that is not common for most women

It's not common, I know about plenty who don't enjoy it. And scientifically, there is no anatomical nor biological mechanism that has been identified to produce the experience of penetration being pleasurable.

You know plenty and don’t enjoy it, seems like the bubble you are in > antisex. Because I know plenty women who like it. It is not scientifically proven, since it is proven that woman own a lot of nerves on the entry of the vagina and the penis can possible touch that with every move.

Perhaps you're in your bubble because I know plenty of women outside this sub and irl who don't enjoy it. Neither a penis nor deep penetration are needed to stimulate the entry of the vagina.

.

Anal sex is misogynistic.

As a man, I have thought very hard about this because it's always the fascinated me that this is something that interests people. It finally dawned on me that straight couples that engage in anal sex are basically engaging in an act of misogyny. Of course, I mean when a male does this to a female.

It is a common lie that women are able to engage in anal sex as the receiver and get pleasure out of it. This is perpetuated by the misogynistic mindset that women are meant to be submissive. It is forcing her to be vulnerable and submissive just to feed his ego. Therefore, is misogynistic. I can't believe I'm 33 years old and I'm only realizing this now

.

[removed]

Likes anal sex...but is an asexual. Interesting.

I'm not attracted to men or women sexually. I have never had sex with a man or woman and never will. So yes I am asexual...

What's that about then? Also, you clearly still experience sexual desire, even have certain sexual preferences. You're not a real asexual. Why label yourself something you're not?

Sexual orientation is which gender(s) you are sexually attracted to. Or in the case of asexuality, it's being attracted to none of the genders. It has nothing to do with libido or preferences on what I do with my own body. If you want to consider me "not a real asexual" go ahead idgaf 😂

You still have not answered my question.

If you experience sexual attraction/sexual desire, you're not different from the rest of the world; You're not an actual asexual. Claiming this label doesn't make you look special.

But they said they literally said don’t experience sexual attraction.

You need to go back and reread my comment.

If you experience sexual attraction/sexual DESIRE, you are not an asexual.

They’ve literally never even had sex before

And? They "literally" still experience sexual desires - even have sexual preferences.

How does someone who has never once had sex, has no desire to, and doesn’t even experience attraction toward anyone, still have sexual desire? I don’t understand how those two things are compatible.

Since you couldn't read the original comment yourself:

I'm a woman and I like anal penetration with a dildo way more than vaginal (which I actually don't like at all).

A dildo is not a human, you cannot have sex with a dildo.

I can't tell if you're doing this on purpose or if you are actually this slow in the head.

Masturbation counts as a form of sexual activity; If you engage in any kind of sexual activity, you are not an asexual. Simple. She said she desires anal penetration over vaginal penetration; That's a sexual preference - That counts as a sexual desire. If you are unable to grasp that in the mush you have up there I don't know what to tell you. But regardless of what you say, she's not a genuine asexual.

**Masturbation is not sexual activity**. If you masturbate alone in your room and then go around saying you just had sex, I would call you a liar.

She doesn’t prefer vaginal or anal sex. She has made it very clear she does not want any sex at all.

What she does prefer is masturbating anally, which is not sex.

So you expect me to believe that it's logical to assume that because biological females only orgasm from penetrative vaginal sex 21 to 30% of the time, that anal penetration is going to have a significantly higher number?

Also, there is no such thing as anal sex done properly. It is an act of misogyny and the objectification of biological females. To believe otherwise shows indoctrination through porn or internalized misogyny

Nothing I said implied that anal penetration would have a higher number. I never made that claim. My point was that vaginal penetration isn't all that great EITHER when it comes to hetero sex.

And yes there is such a thing as PREPARING for anal sex. It involves douching and starting slow and small with tons of lube. Lmao I'm not gonna have a man tell me I have internalized misogyny for enjoying my own body 😂😂😂 It CAN be (and I'd say it usually is) an act of misogyny and objectification of WOMEN especially when it's pornrotted men wanting to do it on their female partner. But it isn't inherently misogynistic.

Do it to yourself is just the same act except that you're not being subjugated, you're self-deprecating. That's all that really means. Now I'm going to assume, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that you would say that if a straight couple besides to engage in this act and they take their time with it. They are consenting adults and I do all the research to make sure that the process is smooth and easy for the both of them. Would you say that that is not an act of massage me because they came to a mutual agreement? Or is it only an act of misogyny depending on who started the conversation? Because the way I see it, even if she was the one that started the conversation out of her own curiosity, it's still internalized misogyny.

So you think I'm self-deprecating only if I do anal, but not if I do vaginal? I'm genuinely asking because you seem to think anal=painful, vaginal=pleasure? You said in your original post that "it's a common lie that women are able to engage in anal sex as the receiver and get pleasure out of it" and I'm telling you, as a woman, that's not true and that was my main issue with your post. The truth is SOME women find anal penetration pleasurable, some don't. AND SOME women find vaginal penetration pleasurable, some don't.

For your hypothetical about a straight couple, I don't know. It could be misogyny based. I think vaginal sex could also be misogyny based. I think it should be 100% up to the receiver to decide since they will be the ones most vulnerable and submissive. I do think it's more of an issue if it's the man asking for it. Why do you think if it's the woman who started the conversation it's internalized misogyny? Also do you think it's internalized misogyny if it involves a lesbian couple instead of a hetero couple?

Oh no, vaginal sex is also misogynistic but the difference is that on a biological instinctual animalistic level, it serves a purpose to reproduce the species. And considering that there is degree of hierarchy when it comes to sexual acts, and which ones are more misogynistic than others, because vaginal sex has a purpose that means that anal sex is more misogynistic because it serves no biological purpose. Now if a woman asks to engage in it, it's misogynistic because it's internalized self worthlessness. Even if a straight couple had been together for any amount of time that you can say a considerable amount of sexual trust and communication has been built, even if she were to trust trust him enough that he would suggested, it's still massage me because even if he doesn't want to do it regularly, I suppose it's a sexual curiosity for him, he still engaging in the act of misogyny. As for a lesbian couple, that's a little bit more difficult to quantify

.

Do you really think that there is never any pleasure for any woman when they receive anal sex?

[deleted]

Anal, much like many things, is an acquired taste when it comes to enjoying it. It's something you have to get used to. Initially yeah it's gonna feel like taking a shit. But, much like alcohol, the smell of certain things such as musk, sweat, or weed, or certain foods like hot food, you have to power through the less fun part before you start enjoying it. How it actually works gets into how the brain works.

That said anal is much more fun for gay or bi men than it is for straight couples(aside from pegging, fellas find you a woman who will peg you) as men have a prostate which women lack. Having your prostate poked will give you one of the best orgasms you've ever had. Would reccomend.

Or, here’s a wild idea: some women genuinely don’t enjoy anal sex. They don’t have to get used to it, and many never will. This applies to many other sexual acts.

“Power through the discomfort” the man says to women.

Did... did you just not read my comment? Like I know you're not the brightest but this is just sad. Also my comment was about how ANYTHING that's an acquired taste requires you to power through the AQUIREMENT part. Like good lord please use your brain babe.

It's just sad that you're trying to make this sexist when it's just not. OBVIOUSLY some people just don't like certain things. Duh, no one with two halves of a braincell is disputing that. God it's painful to even have to write that.

When I say you have to power through it I'm speaking from expiriance lmao. I'm a Bi man who has had his prostate poked. It took a LOT of getting used to for it to start feeling good and stop feeling like I was gonna shit myself. But once I got used to it? Best orgasm ever.

I'll repeat myself, I, a man had something shoved up my butt, made myself work through the uncomfortable phase, and now enjoy it because I acquired the taste for it. Holy shit Celatine this is a braindead take even by your incredibly low standards.

Did you not read the post and comments? We’re talking about women engaging in anal sex.

Your comment comes across as dismissive of the reality that not every sexual act is going to be an acquired taste. But you think that anal is an acquired taste.

Some discomforts are just that—discomforts, and no one should have to “power through” something they don’t enjoy. People don’t owe it to themselves or anyone else to push past discomfort. That’s the response to what you were saying. And we’re talking about women, still.

Your personal experience doesn’t matter. People are different.

You clearly lack basic reading comprehension. No one has to power through anything. No one is forcing anyone into anything. If someone is being forced into doing a sexual act they're not okay with that's called rape and that's a bad thing. Duh.

Anal is an acquired taste. Just like alcohol, hot food, and certain smells. But, once again, OBVIOUSLY, not everyone is willing to acquire that taste, and thats not a problem. Most people don't need to have that spelled out to them but apparently you do. I can't stand the smell of weed, I could go out of my way to change that, but I don't want to, so, like a normal person, I'm not going to.

If you can't see why I'm mentioning my personal expiriance then you need to go back to grade school so you can learn how to read. Good lord. Its genuinely painful that you can't or won't understand the point.

Lmao, buddy, you literally wrote in your first comment, “it’s something you have to get used to.” “You have to power through the less fun part”

When we’re talking about women’s pleasure or discomfort with anal sex, your experience as a man is not going to be the same. Did you even know that women are more likely to experience anal sphincter injury when engaging in anal sex? Because they’re not built the same as a man’s.

And it’s not about forcing anyone—it’s about the underlying suggestion that discomfort should be tolerated until pleasure is eventually found.

Some people just don’t want to “acquire” that taste, and they shouldn’t be made to feel like they’re missing out or doing something wrong for not wanting to.

You now say “that’s okay!!11” but you didn’t in your first comment.

Someone attempted to report the sub. Their post was taken down, though they for some reason did not provide a reason as to why that post was removed, leaving their users to wildly speculate about Reddit supporting menhating while not condoning womenhating​.

​​​Some drama under that post:

> If you made a subreddit with every post bashing on females it would be banned in less than an hour. If you make a subreddit hating on men then it gets sent to r/ all. Welcome to reddit.

>>Using females and men in the same sentence says a lot about you. Hate to break it to you, but misogynistic sunreddits exist, and this is one of them. Not the mention that a lot of the "man-bashing" is a result of men being assholes. Should women just be silent when men mistreat them because it'll hurt your feelings? Most women don't even hate men, they just wish men would stop hating women. Other women hate men because men hate women, and it becomes a sick cycle of hate that helps nobody.

>>>How dare i use men and females in the same sentence. Truly heinous behavior. And you act like we are the fragile ones. Lol Edit: Actually they are in different sentences. But whatever makes you feel better.

>>>> want you to seriously think about why you made that distinction. I see men do this a lot, and it's usually in an effort to distance women from personhood.

>>>>>8/10 times it's not that deep bro​

People on this sub are trying to ban another sub for promoting hate……. The type of comments in both are similar in nature, just with genders swapped. Do y’all really not see the irony? 😂​

>>No, no they aren’t. This sub would be shut down if it even approached that sub’s toxicity.

>>>(Comment has been removed)

>Is this sub not doing something similar?

>>Where's the woman hating here?

>>>(Comment has been removed)

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/1x13ws8/what_are_your_thoughts_on_the_pentagon_live/

Background:

Nidal Malik Hasan is a former United States Army officer who, in 2009, committed the infamous Fort Hood shooting, killing 13 people (one of whom was pregnant) and injuring 32. Hasan is a Muslim, and stated that his motive was to stop soldiers from going to Afghanistan and killing Muslims. As a result, Hasan was charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted murder, and sentenced to death.

On October 5, 2026, the Department of Defense issued a statement that Hasan would be executed via firing squad. This was followed by another statement on October 8 that Hasan's execution would be livestreamed, making it the first public execution in the United States in almost a century. Reactions to this have been mixed, with some conservatives being excited to watch it, and others (including JD Vance, of all people) feeling that the televised aspect is a step too far.

Highlights:

A step in the right direction since our culture is too sanitized. It makes me wonder if this will set a precedent for future sentences like Charlie Kirk's assassin, who is also facing potential capital punishment. There has been a lot of talk about that outcome on the right.

I think this tangibility can promote healing and closure not only for the victims, but the entire community wounded.

Yeah I'm sure the grieving will heal over the livestreamed execution discourse 15 years later.

Thomas Aquinas wrote about this but yeah, usually it happens sooner rather than later. Times are changing now though.

Is it? Pretty sure conservatives have been screaming for several decades about America’s moral decline. Do live-streamed public executions not exacerbate that?

That’s a worldview issue. For most people who are conservative, the lawful execution of a convicted murderer, especially one so vile as the Fort Hood shooter, is not representative of moral decline. It is a positive step in society recognizing its duty to delete such people with zero misgivings. And from a Christian religious perspective, which I hold, it is a tacit acknowledgment on the part of the civil magistrate concerning the fact that God requires the life of such people (Genesis 8). The right of human beings to execute capital punishment is sourced in our status as divine image bearers. In other words, in such circumstances, we have been created and appointed to act as God’s avenging angels. Our social duty is to eject murderers out of this life and up to a higher court, so to speak, for final sentencing.

Nothing you wrote here appears to address the fact that this will be a public execution. I support the death penalty, but it is abhorrent that the US government is going to literally live stream a death by firing squad.

Aside from the moral implications, do you not think this would be an extremely terrible thing that no modern Western country does?

I have mixed feelings. After the Muenster rebellion, in which crazed religious cells took over a German city and committed murder, rape, and all other manner of evil deeds, they were eventually apprehended, publicly killed, and their bodies were set in cages, high top of building for centuries. Whatever you think of that dreadful occasion, one thing is sure. It was the last such uprising that area ever saw.

I am probably not in favor of any kind of killing being live streamed so it will be treated like entertainment. That is grotesque.I have much less of a problem with there being public witnesses in the local area.

This entire paragraph reads like the thinking of someone who would ultimately progress to mass murder. Do you see no comparison between what you just wrote and the thinking of suicide bombers? They too believe that they are enforcing God’s will in deleting people that their deity finds repulsive. This is the same line of thought that probably led the Fort Hood shooter to do what he did.

I don’t see your point.

I could just as easily say that the normalization of abortion as reproductive healthcare and the dehumanization and denial of rights for unborn humans will ultimately progress to mass murder.

It actually already has.

But regardless of your opinion on that topic, any idea can be taken to an extreme.

I don’t believe in having the death penalty, but I don’t see any evidence for your point.

How does following your religious text on this topic, ultimately progress to mass murder?

It may not always, but the underlying thinking is the same. The minute that we believe we are God’s avenging angels and it is our duty to remove those who fail to fit that image, we are on the slippery slope of extremism. What usually_fuente wrote us akin to the types of things written in manifestos. If you can’t see that, I can’t help you.

The beliefs I described have been the default view in western society all the way up to about 1965. And yet somehow society rose and progressed all the while. That has a lot to do with how communities interacted with Christian scripture. I am not setting out to change your mind on that. I am simply stating it as a fact. The vast, vast, vast majority of all Christians have never been inclined toward vigilantism because the book itself speaks against it. The Bible is very clear, for those who actually want to read it, that individually motivated killing is forbidden under the New Covenant. The civil magistrate bears the responsibility of executing judgment against murders. This puts a natural limit on personal bias or malice.

Is the system perfect? No. Which is why I can be comfortable with not having the death penalty at all in states where the scales are regularly tipped against justice.

I will only add that the concern you have about certain religious beliefs, leading to insane actions is how I feel about the secular framework that is not tied to transcendent moral realism. The difference is, Christianity did not kill 100 million people in the 20th century. But secular political philosophy is did. The secularism of modern progressivism carries the germ of its own annihilation.

Why do you think it’s a step in the right direction? What is the benefit? Seems like we’d be trending more towards the cultures of the Middle East.

The Middle East has a bad rap for that because they do it for monstrous reasons like apostasy and homosexuality.

Ok but what value do you think public executions would provide?

The community is healed by a visual sense of finale. There's Christian writings on this.

Keep us posted with the link when it actually happens

[deleted]

Christ wouldn’t say that.

[deleted]

Is your vision of Christ the biblical version or the Ai meme dual wielding AR’s Jesus?

So you’re good with children being exposed to live executions?

Did you also say this about the 2026 VMAs and the Superbowl?

Who was killed on live TV during those events?

Children's brains are adversely affected both by sexual content (even when a show just talks about it) and violence. That's scientific fact.

didn’t realize people were publicly put to death as part of the halftime show. guess that happened when i went to the bathroom

Children were exposed to sexually suggestive visuals, bud. Plenty of secular neuroscience and developmental psychology research supports that exposure to sexualized material can influence how children's developing brains process sexual cues, rewards, expectations, and relationships. Both bad for children.

The Patriots didn't lose that bad.

Make it PPV for the deficit!

Is this a joke or do you really want to go full dystopia?

So you aren't interested, cool. Why not raise funds for the deficit for those who are? PPV not public. Do you even think before you post?

As a Christian, I don't like it –and I think it's particularly dystopian– but so long as people aren't MADE to watch it, it's whatever and no different morally to all the weirdly sexual stuff seen on national television, honestly.

You believe that a public execution is equivalent to sexuality on television?

They both contribute to the moral bankruptcy of society, yes.

There's a wee bit of difference in degree of bankruptcy, isn't there?

What type of stuff on tv are you equating this to?

They both have adverse effects.

Very based.

The Islamic terrorist group ISIS used to videotape and publicize their beheadings. Did you consider that "very based"? The Taliban did mass executions in stadiums. "Very based?"

The difference is he has had his day in court and due process has been followed. Do you think due process was violated ?

Did I state anything about his due process being violated? This isn't about having his day in court or violation of due process in convicting him. This is about livestreaming a public execution. We are, presumably, better than ISIS and the Taliban are we not? Do you consider America's public live streamed execution of the Fort Hood shooter "based"?

I consider it justice.

A mass murderer has his day in court had due process and has been convicted. We as a society should be allowed the justice to see that monster removed from this world.

So you approve of his execution being livestream.

I believe this is an example of "conservatives" having lost their way.

Yes absolutely. There is no doubt he did it. I welcome watching the breath leave this mass murderers body

The difference being those were innocent people. Here its a criminal. Context matters.

Innocent according to people other than ISIS and the Taliban you mean. Do you consider America's public live streamed execution of the Fort Hood shooter "based"?

Exactly. That's one of the many reasons the West is a superior culture to the Taliban and ISIS. The Taliban and ISIS are actually in the wrong there. Acting like they have an equally valid point of view in determining guilt and innocence is gross.

That being said, live streaming an execution is also gross.

Okay, agreed.

Now let the user to whom I asked my question-the red flaired rightwing conservative who states it's "very based"-reply for themself.

Good!

Are you going to watch it?

Yeah and possibly bet on the outcome.

We are so cooked as a society

Why is live streaming an execution "good"? And why do you think most of your fellow conservatives in this thread disagree with you?

I don't think he is looking for group validation. That's very much a leftist mentality.

Their down votes mean nothing I’ve seen what makes these people cheer

If downvotes meant something to me, I could go to pretty much any other sub, comment "fuck Trump/Drumpf" and collect upvotes en masse. It'd be like honey to flies. But they mean nothing, so I just do my thing.

If adherence to traditional values isn’t looking for group validation idk what is..

You know that anti-tradition circles are also ways of validating yourself right?

It’s good because we get to see justice done upon a coward and a traitor.

I understand the disagreement. I don’t think that they’re valid.

is seeing it as something barbaric not a valid argument?

Don’t like it? Don’t watch.

Just because I chose not to watch something doesn’t make it go away. The government live-streaming an execution is still barbaric.

You know what is really barbarous? Shooting unarmed people because you think your God commands you to do so.

He did just that so he will be punished.

i never said that wasn't barbaric. it will give him the martyrdom he wants. live-streamed executions are what jihadists do. do we really want to be like the taliban?

Ok, I’m fine giving him what he wants in this case.

Well, I’m not sure if you know this but the Taliban also drives cars owns guns beats meat and drinks water therefore if you drive a car if you own a gun if you eat meat or drink water, therefore you’re just like the Taliban.

There’s an important thing called context and you’re willfully ignoring it.

It's weird - but the more I think about it, why not? If the death penalty is legal, if we aren't ashamed of it, then why would we need to hide it from the public?

If you are against the death penalty, then I understand being against this. But if you for it - what is the problem here exactly?

What about live streaming prisons? Sound like a doable idea?

Sure. But I don't think anyone would want to watch.

Good.

Put it on pay-per-view.

Fantastic, one of the best things to come of this administration

Hot take. Care to elaborate?

The death penalty is nessary to ensure justice as a society. If we collectively will have the death penalty it is best that the public can see it. Some people are so craven and disgusting that we as a society need to remove them from this world.

r/Grimdank is a meme subreddit for Warhammer 40,000, a tabletop miniatures wargame, with countless novels and video game spinoffs. The sci-fi setting is (most of the time) a satire of fascism, religious fundamentalism, and British football fandom. In this universe, the religion of the Imperium of Man revolves around Emperor, a rotting corpse sustained by feeding it thousands of psychic souls every day. Those who do not worship the Emperor as a god are deemed "heretics" and are purged to death. The Ecclesiarchy, the Imperial religious administration, is represented on tabletop as a bunch of guys with chainsaws and flamethrowers.

OP:

What is stopping you from praying? Have you given it a chance? What do you have to lose? (Self empowering non political post, wh40k borrows from religious texts why this fit's here)

https://www.reddit.com/r/Grimdank/comments/1x5rn85/neuroscience_confirms_this_small_scripture_will/

I’m going to use the same argument as I use against low effort political posts: Yes, warhammer is inherently political/ theological, but posting this is like posting reheated McDonald’s in r/cooking. Also this is a meme sub and this isn’t a meme. I say this as a devout Christian.

Hitler used the same to silence Christians.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Grimdank/comments/1x5rn85/neuroscience_confirms_this_small_scripture_will/pgp2ksg/

Silencing things you don't agree with?

Silencing religious dickheads spreading their crap where it isn't wanted or allowed.

Where does it say I can't post this?

Rule 5. Posts should be humorous and related to tabletop gaming. Your post is irrelevant and should be removed.

For a game that is borrowing so much from Christianity, that seems unfair.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Grimdank/comments/1x5rn85/neuroscience_confirms_this_small_scripture_will/pgow0zp/

You do understand that warhammer shits on Christianity, right? You're kinda coming to the wrong fam base to preach too.

Or just the right one.

I think you would get more attention if you preached to a mirror. But hey! What do I know?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Grimdank/comments/1x5rn85/neuroscience_confirms_this_small_scripture_will/pgozzac/

Suggesting people to pray is apparently is a great insult in the modern world.

Are you giving food to the hungry, medicine to the sick, or shelter to the homeless like Jesus told you to?

I am the poor and hungry.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Grimdank/comments/1x5rn85/neuroscience_confirms_this_small_scripture_will/pgp0e42/

There is no god.

Maybe you should read some Nietzsche again? A guy who agreed with you, yet decried the loss of God more than any other man.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Grimdank/comments/1x5rn85/neuroscience_confirms_this_small_scripture_will/pgovv65/

Mods ban this fucking shit

Change the rules before you do.

Mods, ban the OP too, they are acting in bad faith (ironically)

https://www.reddit.com/r/Grimdank/comments/1x5rn85/neuroscience_confirms_this_small_scripture_will/pgp1ltn/

You know what I'll bite, you say WH40k borrows from religious texts. In what way and specifically what messages?

Read the bible and find out?

Dude come on, trying to have an earnest conversation here, this is what you wanted. Tell me your thoughts.

You're not trying to have an honest discussion, you're all hostile. Come on look around this thread once again.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Grimdank/comments/1x5rn85/neuroscience_confirms_this_small_scripture_will/pgp1qyu/

Read what they commented again. What you're doing right now is part of the indoctrination plan you've been put on. You're being told to intentionally go to places that will be hostile to you so your church can use it as "proof" that they're the only people you can trust. You can still break free.

I haven't had a real conversation with another human being in 15 years. All I have is Jesus.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Grimdank/comments/1x5rn85/neuroscience_confirms_this_small_scripture_will/pgp07bi/

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/comics/comments/1x4toay/the_day_all_billionaires_died/

HIGHLIGHTS

Yeah, that's my thinking too. When you reach the point of being able to live in every possible luxury and just want money for money's sake....that's mental illness right there

All it takes is to start a really successful company and go public. Ya don’t really have the billions in cash, but being a majority holder means your networth goes through the roof. No billionaires are holding that in cash, it’s just pieces of paper saying they own parts of companies. Companies that are hiring people and paying wages, producing products for consumers to buy.

They can still borrow money against those assets or use shares of the company as bargaining chips. If their company is worth 1billion, that still makes them absurdly rich even if they don't have that actual billion in cash . Nevermind those that are worth over 100 billion

Why does that matter? What I’m saying is they’re not “hoarding” cash like a dragon. The difference between a trillionaire, a billionaire, and a 100M is just how many pieces of paper they’re holding. It’s not changing life for anyone else. Them having it isn’t what’s keeping you from obtaining it.

The idea that billionaires having billions doesn't effect you doesn't stand up to even the slightest scrutiny. As the easiest, most in your face example - individual billionaires own or financially control most media companies (social, legacy and now LLMs). That has a huge impact on everything. The whims of individuals decide what's important to nations.

Just don’t use their products? Parents have influence over their kids. Trachers over students. Principals over the whole school. Deans over whole colleges. Religious leaders over vast swaths of the earth. The higher you go on any ladder, the more people your decisions influence. If influence is the problem, let’s assassinate anyone who can cause 1M people to tattoo themselves through any actions they have available to them. Violence, money, words, anything. Why are y’all so hellbent on financial influence?

Again, what nonsense. Even if I don't use their products, they influence societies globally. Their 'pieces of paper' mean they can increase hate towards certain groups, they can make laws more or less likely, and they themselves are barely constrained by laws because of their leverage and deep pockets for lawyers. Other people having influence does not negate the fact that they do because they have money. You said "them having it is not life changing for anyone else". That is clearly not true.

This is the most fantasy BS ive ever seen. Their spots would just be filled with someone else

You didn’t even make it to the third page?

So in this fantasy BS if you accrue over 999 million dollars you just explode? Plot hole. The point is there will always be someone. The majority of people who espouse this nonsense would take 1 Billion dollars in a heartbeat.

That’s not a plot hole. That’s how the plot works. That’s the premise of the story. Your point is that people would take a billion dollars for free, knowing that doing so results in them exploding. That’s moronic.

I think you are just assuming that rather then it being objectively established.

It’s objectively established when it talks about how every attempt at inheritance leads to them exploding

Nah that is a plot hole. Inheritance isn't the only way to get a billion dollars.

Child left behind

A real reddit take, billionaires are the singular and only problem in the world and if they are gone all will be well.

How do you suggest the world be improved instead?

How about fixing broken institutions, getting rid of corruption (at all levels, not just billionaires), educate people better and reduce hatred for example?

Who do you think is causing the corruption and hoarding the wealth that would fund those broken institutions?

People at all levels of power? You don't understand how corruption work in poorer countries and have cleanly never been to one. Institutions are broken due to a multitude of complex factors. If you think "you just get rid of all the billionaires and suddenly all institutions are fixed" this is a level of naivety that should be illegal. Life is not a children's book. It's not a movie. Nothing works like that.

I'm still not seeing any ideas beyond platitudes from you. "Fix the insitituons", "reduce hatred", how do you do that? If you wanna ignore the underlying premise of the comic, no one can have an honest conversation with you.

Because "explode all billionaires" is your idea? How do you fix all institution and reduce things like racism? You understand those are very difficult questions with bo simple answer. I'm not dumb enough to think I have the solution to solve all the world's problems or that it could fit in a Reddit comment. Idk start by even reading the Wikipedia page instead of arguing with me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption?wprov=sfla1

Liberal hopeslop is so funny to me. I'm not a right winger or centrist but divine intervention murder isn't a good look and this would only drive the world into actual chaos and likely just trigger a global economical collapse. Massive corporations would totally fracture and die because anyone who takes ownership would explode in that instant. Pepsi for example would have to be split into 200 entirely different companies just to stay under a billion in value while over 500 brands of food and beverage totally halt. Now apply that to 11,000 companies, hundreds of politicians and political leaders, etc. Also, of course, any major movement would be forced to be governmentally owned because the second it gets too big, even if it's for a good cause, people will start to explode. The unfortunate reality is that there's is so single easy fix for the current climate and the best we can do is advocate and push for better rights for the people and globally making everyone's quality of life better.

Nonsense. PepsiCo can be worth a trillion dollars and so long as no one individual owns more than a billion dollars worth of shares, being a publicly traded company, no one explodes.

That still doesn't fix any of the problems with the companies since they would still be controlled by the rich just in the eyes of profit instead of focused, smart leaders who actually can care about the quality of the products. It would just limit their total individual ownership over everything to just 900 million instead of a billion.

Since when do the CEOs of multi-billion dollar companies give one single fuck about the quality of a product? They would sell you poison if the regulatory penalties were lower than the potential profit.

I'm not saying that they currently do or don't. It's just easier for one person to make decisions over hundreds or rich investors.

You know, instead of wishing for divine intervention to usher in a new period of less wealth inequality, a society could institute collective ownership of the means of production to eliminate wealth inequality forever. And it wouldn’t require divine intervention. You could manage it with just regular people.

This time it will work for sure. All those other people did it wrong

You should read up on the topic and learn more about it. Not saying it’ll change your mind or anything, but learning more about the things you continue to disagree with has value. I’ve done it several times myself.

The more I learn of communism the more I disagree with it. I consider myself pretty open minded

Ok. Which parts do you disagree with?

Im not him but Im talking for me because I wanted to answer this. I don't think that communism was "created" in bad faith, the opposite, it was created believing that humanity can be good and support each other. But it always happens that when tried, it gives all the power of the state to one person, which is dangerous because everything is at the will of what someone believes, lived, wants and thinks what is correct and what is not.

You should take a look at how the political system in Vietnam works. It’s a very pluralistic system.

"It threatens violence or physical harm at someone" Do... Do those people think this is real?

It's almost 100% likely that Reddit Admins are 90% bots. I made a comment warning a guy that sneaking weed into his coworker's brownies wasn't a good idea and had to fight an accusation of 'threats of violence or physical harm'. sure. cause wanting someone 'not' to get in trouble because of their own stupidity is a threat. That being said, this comic seems a little blanket and I'm wondering what your opinions are on people like Taylor Swift or Warren Buffet. Shouldn't you be less against billionaires in general and more against people who abuse the systems of Capitalism to enrich themselves at the expense of others? Or to put it another way, I'm fairly certain their are billionaires who would happily settle for only being millionaires, and that wealth and the wealthy aren't inherently evil, it's... how did the old saying go? that love of money is the root of all evil?

Billionaires can absolutely settle for being millionaires, there’s nothing preventing them from doing that. This is the dumbest part of that whole comment.

Wow, you can read. That’s what I just said dumbnuts. But you have to address the economic systems or new billionaires will keep popping up.

"But you have to address the economic systems or new billionaires will keep popping up." No because then they would die. Every new billionaire dies the instant they become billionaires.

Than be more clear in your language dipshit. That isn’t what they said. They implied a one time thing. And that still doesn’t handle the economic systems. Those potential billionaires will just stop at 900 million and finagle their finances. Keep screeching and thumping your chests though. That’ll change anything.

The cynicism/defeatism in the comments is very frustrating. Edit- The current economic system had my mom's cancer treatment cost 120,000$, student loan debt is crushing me, I've seen multiple recessions, wars based on rich wanting to make money through defence contracts, grocery shopping now is a nightmare, and y'all want to just whine and act like we can't do anything because getting rid of the billionaires won't really change anything? Stay home then, and sulk. Just don't drag others with you

The economic illiteracy to take this comic seriously is also frustrating, it's not 1000 guys that make sure teachers don't get paid "closer to their worth" or insurance is for-profit. These are structural issues that don't get fixed by putting an extremely high cap on individual wealth. If people don't understand any economics beyond "billionaires bad" it's kinda correct to be defeatist. Cattle that will be ruled by slopulism til the end of time.

Billionaires bad is the biggest problem since we cant do anything else until they are sorted

Utter nonsense, and the real defeatism.

America only thrived when we taxed them into ovlivion, which is why we aren thriving now

Bruh. This is proving the other guys point

That billionaires shouldn't exist? Thanks!

Figure its a typo, but you're right billionaires should exist!

Billionaires are parasites on society. Why would we want them to exist?

Hot damn, the amount of bootlickers crawling for a crumb or a sniff in this thread is insane. yeah, it's not a well thought out worldview, but the vehemence with which some of you are deriding it could be studied by psychology for years. They're not going to annoint you into their special club just because you defend their honour online. They wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire. They hate you as much as they hate the people who hate them. Go enjoy your own life instead of spending it angry on behalf of billionaires who wouldn't care if you died in front of then.

We’re trying to save your souls and our own. Hatred and envy are poison.

You’re not trying to save shit, you just hope you’ll be a billionaire one day too so you let these jerks run rampant.

No, I have no intention of becoming a billionaire. I’m just content and not covetous.

Oh, so just a wanker then

Another person trying to sell “if we kill all the bad people, there won’t be bad people anymore, and things will get better” as a serious idea.

Who said anything about killing? It could just be illegal to own that much money

Did you miss the part where every billionaire exploded. They’re pretty dead.

I think you missed the part about this being a comic, not a political pamphlet. Billionaires exploding was just rethorical

It would be nice though!

One can hope..

So, the real question everyone is thinking: how can we make this happen?

easy. those billionaires are billionaires because everyone else made them billionaires. Zuckerberg is only a billionaire because you use Facebook. Bezos is a billionaire because you like the convenience of Amazon. they are billionaires because "normal people" promoted them to that state.

"how can we make this happen" does not mean " how did we let this happen"

both have the same answer. stop using their stuff. if everyone stops using Facebook/Instagram, Zuckerberg will lose everything. if no one uses Amazon anymore, so will Bezos. and so on, and so on...

And ton of people who work in those companies would lose their jobs, what a great plan. You can't really affect billionaire by ignoring their product, they already had the wealth, boycotting company or straight up doing something with it would only hurt regular people who are far from being even the middle class.

"And ton of people who work in those companies would lose their jobs" they can work somewhere else. and if there are no more jobs, doesn't that mean that those billionaires are actually a net positive because they created those jobs for those people?

there is not a single downside to all billioneies dying

Yes it is, what about gave newell? He is a billonare he whould die too

He would rip us off more too, if he could. He just does less sht than other billionaires, so he looks good compared to them.

How dare you to speak like that to the hand tha give you anual gane discounts, a good support system and good comunication with the comunity💔 gave aprecieates the ocean life and his consumers thats why steam its the best plataform to bouy games and vavlve the wet dream for working

Gabe isn't some wholesome philanthropist, he is a greedy billionaire. You can't be a good person and own one of the biggest yachts in the world.

Bruh, he owns a yatch because like what i said later he likes ocean life and he lives in the yatch to study and watch the sea life you dumbass

I don't care what he does on it, you can't own a yacht and be a good person.

/r/science

Really interesting paper that definitely lines up with my (older Gen Z) experience. I wonder if there's some relation between this and the "Gen Z hates sex" narrative in the media these days. Would really like to see larger/international studies on this subject.

So.. now they get to experience what women have felt about sex for a very long time re: shame?

And ironically, the actually predatory men aren't anxious at all, in fact, they think they're in the right. You hear about false accusations all the time online, but take a step back: Who do you know in real life that's had that happen to them?

The problem is, a lot of young men will see anonymous comments like “My friend of a cousin’s roommate was called a creep because he looked at a woman weird” and decide that’s all it takes to turn them away from dating forever.

We’re never getting replacement fertility

Depends on who 'we' are. The ones that reproduce will have the genes that are able to thrive and reproduce in the current environment. Over a long enough timeframe they may reach replacement fertility. Everyone else will be culled by the Darwinian filter.

/r/psychologyofsex

I’m sure it will have no effect on performance anxiety…

That's not necessarily women's problem though so it doesn't matter.

Interesting. None of the 20-30 year old gay men I know feel this way.

I get the concern about consent . I've never ever seen any consent education that says Women must also ask Men for consent

Of course everyone must consent to each other, men and women . But most men are physically larger and stronger than most women.

/r/conspiracy

Sorry, but a study based on 32 interviews across a 14 year age gap is just not worth considering. I could pick 32 people at random and ask them if they drink and if 28 of them say they don't, I am either in a non-drinking country or it's a coincidence. 32 is just too small a sample group to consider. I have two sons aged 18 and 21 and they definitely don't see sex as a hazard to manage, we have raised them to be open and honest about sex and to be respectful and considerate with women, but they certainly aren't anxious about it. The language used here sounds like alpha male bullshit, or they are asking men who have no confidence in life in general.

Wtf is "getting consent wrong"? Omg. Weird that STDs and pregnancy aren't in there. Then my favorite "sex is like trying to diffuse a bomb"...

[r/amioverreacting](r/amioverreacting) mod removed user’s post and comments, claiming that “pedo” is a slur. When the user asked why it was removed, he was muted.

Edit: a Mod of that server has entered this comment section and claimed there is “missing and twisted context,” so here is the original comment with the “context” that should allegedly lead a reasonable person to claim that“pedo” is a slur:
The “Missing” Context

When users posted screenshots the situation itself in “amioverreacting,” the posts were deleted, and they were banned.

One quote from the screenshots that particular drew contention for implying that pedophiles were a “protected class”:

“We understand that you may not personally consider the word or language you used to be a slur or believe that you intended anything hateful or bigoted.
That does not make it appropriate for this subreddit.
We moderate the language being used, not whether we believe the person using it is racist, transphobic, ableist, homophobic, or otherwise a bigot. Slurs and identity-based insults are not permitted here, including terms that some people use casually or do not personally consider offensive.
You are welcome to disagree with or criticize someone without using an identity, disability, gender, sexuality, race, or other protected characteristic as an insult.”

The posts:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AIO/s/AEGTpJOv1C

https://www.reddit.com/r/AmIOverthinking/s/WDor1Mg0Xt

Here is the immortal post on the user’s page, which cannot be deleted by moderation:
https://www.reddit.com/u/DueDistribution5502/s/NTIHPPXisb

[r/amioverreacting](r/amioverreacting) since has shut down its server and is only allowing verified posts.
[r/aio](r/aio) (where the post blew up) has similarly disabled reposts and deleted the post.

This is the Moderator Statement exactly as it was originally posted from [r/amioverreacting](r/amioverreacting):
“Moderator Statement: Clarification of Our Rules and Ongoing Harassment
Earlier today, a moderator responding to multiple conversations incorrectly identified the word "pedo" as a slur. That was a mistake, and we are not going to pretend otherwise.
Our automated moderation system uses a prohibited-word list containing primarily discriminatory slurs. It also includes terms we prohibit for entirely different reasons, including
"pedo." Because these terms are caught by the same filter, they receive the same generic removal message. In this instance, a moderator repeated that classification incorrectly.
We were wrong to call it a slur. We are not wrong to prohibit its use in this community.
We do not allow accusations of pedophilia, nor do we host discussions or debates about child sexual abuse, grooming, or exploitation. These are extremely serious matters. Unsubstantiated accusations can cause tremendous harm, and genuine situations involving the abuse or exploitation of children are not questions of whether someone is overreacting. They require appropriate intervention and support, not a Reddit comment section debating their validity.

Our volunteer team handles hundreds, sometimes more than a thousand, reports daily. Expecting moderators to manually investigate every use of a prohibited word, particularly when none of those uses would be permitted, is unreasonable. Our filters are necessary and functioning as intended.
We have also seen demands to identify, punish, or remove the moderator responsible. We are volunteers and human. A mistake in explaining a decision does not justify publicly targeting someone or invalidate an otherwise correct moderation action.
We are not changing our rules, weakening our filters, or removing moderators over this incident.
Criticism of moderation is permitted. Harassment, personal attacks, and organized attempts to disrupt another community are not. Brigading is a violation of Reddit's sitewide policies, not simply a disagreement with our subreddit rules. We are now dealing with outside interference, including vile and entirely unfounded accusations directed at our moderators not only here but on other subreddits and in modmail. As well as actual threats.

We will not make this community less safe simply to avoid having our moderation team subjected to false and vile accusations. Our responsibility is to protect this community and the people who use it, not to abandon longstanding safety policies because enforcing them has made us targets of harassment.”

It has since been slightly altered after substantial backlash and them freezing comments on the post, but so many people screenshotted, shared, and commented on the original post that it’s more relevant than the update. Also, they froze comments on it and massbanned people before updating, so any backlash to that post is drama on a different subreddit.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AIO/s/AEGTpJOv1C

https://www.reddit.com/r/AmIOverthinking/s/WDor1Mg0Xt

Here is the immortal post in case they make it where you can’t see it:
https://www.reddit.com/u/DueDistribution5502/s/NTIHPPXisb

I've posted about this sub here before. Exact same OP of both drama posts as well.

In the clip posted to the sub, Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed answers a question from a pro-life conservative about if he should vote for him. The main powermod of the sub asks if AES is a real ally or not and to "send receipts", causing some people to question OP's intents (each linked comment is the powermod's comment):

How come when this sub pops up on my feed it’s usually showing something vaguely anti progressive? I get being skeptical but if you think the right has something better for us you have to rethink where you stand morally…

This sub doesn’t exist to toe the line and make white people comfortable. Wrong sub for that.

Don't start this shit because the alternative is MUCH worse

Vote for whoever you like. Black people like myself can ask questions and demand answers and receipts. We aren’t children who have to do what we are told…or else. You can’t scare me. My ancestors lived and survived so I can have a voice to ask questions of anyone. The alternative is to that is much worse.

You’re asking the wrong question. Is he a better ally than the guy he is running against is the question you should be asking.

I’m asking what I’m asking. I will not be bullied into being told who to vote for the states are too high as they are always high. Nothing new. Those were old enough to see seen this cycle before.

Wtf kind of question is this? Kinda weird, OP

You don’t want me asking questions? Why ?

We're not gonna have any allies if we put each thru a historical purity check in order to be down. Also, do your own research.
What allies??? Show me allies of Black people. I’ll wait

Yeah and we ended up with Trump because of talk like yours. I would take the lesser evil of Kamala or Hilary or Biden every God damn day over the nightmare we have now.

The Democrats ran Biden. You would run him again I suppose. Brilliant. (OP)

I would vote for a sentient pile of shit over Trump. Fuck ICE. Fuck Steven Miller.

I figured you’d vote for anyone even if they aren’t an ally and will do nothing for our people. Got it. You’ve proven my point.

Detroiter here, he has my vote. Even if I didn’t agree with him, my other choice is Mike Rogers, and that’s not really a choice at all.

You vote for him because he’s gonna pass reparations? Make racism illegal? Make the KKK a terrorist organization? Make racist hiring practices and income inequality criminally illegal? Or are you just voting because of fear of more MAGA? I’m not saying who to vote for. I’m just hoping we get more for the vote than we have gotten over the past hundred years

Overall there are TONS of people calling that powermod out for what they think is astroturfing/agenda pushing.

UPDATE: the powermod posted a pinned comment on that thread where they are getting slammed.

For reference, the new mod has a LONG history of taking over womens' spaces and shilling his business. His first "official post" as a moderator was to ban discussion of sexism, which is a very relevant topic when it comes to healthcare as women face multiple layers of hostility and sexism in trying to get care. Conveniently, when this rule was criticized, he then deleted that post as well.

Several people have caught bans (we are discussing this elsewhere) for pointing out his authoritative and dismissive tone towards anyone and everyone with concerns, ranging from a simple "why was no one involved in this decision" to "why is a cis man telling us how to manage our emotions" (in his first action, he told us to go outside).

I can't even provide much in the way of proof of what's happening because he is deleting everything he doesn't like. Even posts talking about moderator code of conduct have been deleted, he's hidden himself from the moderator list (which is now just him) so that people can't report him directly.

People with no history of offenses are getting temporary and permanent bans despite the fact that those are lower on the tier and require more offenses to be the given moderator action, so he is breaking his own rules.

On a personal note I haven't seen any slurs or anything of that nature thrown his way, mostly just questioning why a man is in charge of a female space, why no one was asked about this, why specifically he is against the discussion of sexism in healthcare.

https://www.reddit.com/r/hysterectomy/comments/1x430mr/comment/pfhsoi1/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

A link to his "official first action"

OP:

https://www.reddit.com/r/whatdoIdo/comments/1x3xc4s/my_girlfriend_of_7_months_has_been_telling_hotels/

(OP is 33, his gf is 25)

Opinions vary about what, if anything the lies mean about his gf's character, and if the brownie and special treatment is worth it:

All that lying for a free brownie? It’s not like you are getting a chilled bottle of champagne. What about if you ever get married, the novelty of someone doing up your room will wear off. I would ask her to stop doing it going forward. It’s classless.. low mentality … all for a free brownie

I can see that I'll be in the minority here. I agree with the others that have posted thus far that its not the case that she is trying to rush the relationship. Her objective is free stuff. There is an integrity component. She lies easily. This is not lying to for some noble cause, say like saving the life of a child.

This is an integrity issue - same kind of person who claims their dog is a service animal, every day is their birthday, their grandmother died yesterday, and so on. I think a large part of our population sees no issues with this and a large part of our population bemoans the loss of ethics in our society today. I have dated someone who was like this - fudged on their expense forms at work, told little white lies here and there, and was always trying to work the system for free stuff. He claimed it was cultural since he was from another country.

She's being clever, you're being silly and over thinking. My wife use to do this all the time and still does. Doesn't always work but when it does, it's pretty cool. We've had free room upgrades, free drinks, meals etc.

Omg shes a genius, ima start doin that 😬, ofc they wont care to fact check 😏….also its my bday guys …. Just go along with it OP, your GF has whimsy

I feel like she deserves so much better than a bf asking reddit if he should be concerned 😭 she’s a rebel and she’s getting you free fancy stuff. What a legend.

Various users seem to think the bigger issue is OP mentioning that this is "moving too fast" to involve even fake mention of marriage/honeymoon in their 6-month relationship:

33 years old, and you're consistently worried about women "moving too fast?" Buddy, the clock is ticking.

to be fair he is probably one of those dudes that likes the 18-25 range and thinks that means he has more time

If you ate that brownie and are still complaining I hope she leaves lmfao You’re 33 and this is the second time things are moving too fast..?? 🫠😬

And finally, the evergreen sub-drama of the "age/generation gap" between a 25 and 33-year old appears, along with insinuations that OP likes "younger women" for untoward reasons or can't date someone his own age:

Are you feeling like your 25-year-old girlfriend is being childish? Perhaps you should follow that train of thought a bit longer.

Stop infantilizing a fully grown adult woman. At 25 you are old enough to be fully graduated with a Bachelor’s degree. 33 and 25 is a perfectly reasonable age gap. You’re delusional.

You'll never see the men on Reddit rise up quite so aggressively as when you suggest they shouldn't date younger women lol

Date someone your own age?

You sound like you have commitment issues and that’s why you’re dating someone in their early 20s. You seem like the problem

“i’m worried about the maturity of my girlfriend who is a full generation younger than me” - you, guy who can’t get girls his own age

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/television/comments/1x44k0b/dan_levy_slams_shane_gillis_snl_monologue/

Context: Shane Gillis is a famous comedian, who while not explicitly right wing, does promote right wing talking points and manosphered figures, such as Joe Rogan and Theo Von. During his SNL monologue this weekend he said:

"I haven't been to the gym in so long, I didn't know women just dress like whores now?" he said. He followed up by describing their workout shorts in detail and adding, "And don't look! You're not allowed to look."

Which has stirred up a large amount of controversy, specifically from Dan Levy, a Canadian thespian, and the son of Eugene Levy, of American Pie fame

HIGHLIGHTS

He’s actually making fun of bigots kind of

Reminds me of that comic where a guy is pretending to be stupid, but to everyone else, he just looks fucking stupid. For someone making fun of bigots, he sure has built a fanbase of bigots.

Anyone who thinks Gillis is an actual Republican or a bigot is light speed stupid and that's on them, not him

Being an ‘actual Republican’ is meaningless though. He promotes guys like Theo Von and Joe Rogan who are ‘actual republicans’. Some of his jokes are making fun of them or those ideas but not in a way that actually ‘hurts’ them. The latter part is fine - he’s a comedian, it’s not his job to be an activist if he doesn’t want to. But the point is, his comedy doesn’t really stand with either side, and yet both personally and professionally he has done a lot for the misogynist and Republican perspective. He may well not be a bigot or Republican, but he sure acts like one in the public sphere, and we are who we pretend to be.

This reads as someone who spends too much time on the Internet. Theo von isn't a Republican, he's a self admitted politically ignorant fool, who everyone, including himself, thinks he is in over his head with politics. And Shane sticking up for his friends even if he doesn't believe in what they do is only strange to people that don't really have a diverse group of friends.

Telling someone they spend too much time on the internet is a classic sign of spending too much time on the internet, man. Only someone who’s self-conscious about all his time online would thinks this way. Nothing they said is super online and people in real life think this way too. Maybe not around you, but there are so many different communities in this country. Trying to use this weird ad hominem to dismiss what they said without addressing it says more about you than them.

Lmao did you seriously just turn "no u" into a paragraph?

No, I said YOUR “no, u” is pretty lame.

People are being way too dramatic about his jokes. They weren’t even that edgy

I feel like the bigger issues with his jokes discussed here is that you would just have to be brain dead to think they were funny.

Yes redditors, the judges of comedy.

We are each individually our own judges of comedy. For me personally, I think one would need to be a little brain dead to find humor in the shock-value comedy of “women are whores at the gym because they’re wearing workout clothing.” Just me though.

Shane has a hugely successful comedy career. He's funny whether or not you like it.

I could list a lot of comedians who have successful comedy careers who I don’t find very funny. This joke in particular of Shane’s is dogshit, in my personal opinion.

Put it on your blog.

Shane Gillis is real hit or miss. I don't have any moral issue with what he said I just didn't think it was that funny. That being said I also don't think it was shocking and upsetting enough to shun him from live TV.

So you’re going on the record saying you don’t have a moral issue with him calling women whores when they wear athletic clothing to the gym?

I didn’t like everything he said in the monologue, but the part about women wearing very little clothing in the gym and getting mad at him for looking kinda added up? That’s a TikTok trend that needs to be made fun of… plenty of other phrases and generally unfunny material for him to be embarrassed about though. He knew he bombed, he noticed when people finally cheered for the musical artist that he bombed. You have to remember the history of him and the show. They dropped him when he was canceled for saying racist jokes about Asians… he probably carries a little bit of animus toward SNL that allows him to use scrappy material. Still think he’s capable of being hilarious though.

So he’s mad that he got fired for being a racist and that gives him the juice to “use scrappy material”? What?

He goes on SNL quite a lot for a very popular comedian. I think it’s very funny that he swore in a skit and apologized for that though. Super ironic the stuff we care about and what we don’t!

People on Reddit don’t realize comedians are making jokes - it’s not what they actually think most of the time. It’s meant to be edgy. Not everything needs to be over analyzed. Liberals having no sense of humor makes us look silly. I’m a liberal btw. We need to be better.

Please tell us how liberals are bad while also telling us over and over how you’re also a liberal.

All this culture war stuff becomes talking points for the Conservative Party so we can’t focus on real issues. That’s my gripe. It hurts us as a whole. Just like 99% of liberals agree that men shouldn’t be in women’s sports but yet no one will say it. While I know not a single person (trans or otherwise) who thinks it should be allowed. Same goes for comedy. This is all just noise and not a hill worth standing on.

But I just need to you tell me that you’re a liberal and that liberals are bad more. Because that’s such an important detail that you’ve had to include a whole lot that adds so much to your point that you should hammer it home more.

Great feedback. Here’s your gold star ⭐️

Sorry to have pointed out how meaningless your contributions are. Rather than self reflect you’re just going to walk away thinking you can’t possibly be wrong in this situation and will double down on the future. Hopefully your children are smarter than you, but hopefully you don’t have any to begin with.

Personal attacks happen when you have no ground to stand on. Have a nice day. You can reflect today on what a justice warrior you are and all the people who’ve helped from scary comedians. You’re making the world a safer place.

For real, why SNL keep bringing Gillis back? Besides all the shitty things he says, he guy is just not funny!

Because he’s the biggest comedian in the world right now? Because it’s a comedy show? Because his episodes get way higher ratings than the rest of the season?

In the world? You must be the type of person who says a NBA champion is the champion of the world

Are there other professional basketball teams in another country that would beat the Knicks?

Oh the american exceptionalism in full motion. Literally thinking they can call a national league “champion of the world”

SHOCKINGLY you dodged my question.

The Knicks would face head to head with the best European teams. If you think they would dominate, you just don’t watch basketball enough. There, I answered it.

I put Rogan on ignore for a decade and it didn't work. He got bigger and helped elect Trump.

Are you under the impression that if you vocally criticized Rogan for that decade it would have changed the course of national politics? What a heavy burden to carry.

Rogan doesn't have the power and influence he has because people just ignored what they objected to.

I… totally agree. Your ignoring him has zero relevance to whatever “power and influence” he has, and it’s bizarre that you seemed to think otherwise in your first comment.

Putting a spotlight on something bad has more impact ... than ignoring it. edit: Are you saying rogan has power and influence because detractors criticize him?

Rogan has “power and influence” because of the people who like him and listen to him, and they don’t give a fuck whether you criticize him or ignore him.

I disagree. They are humans and intelligent enough to grasp truth when they are exposed to it.

I can’t imagine the level of sheer arrogance it takes to believe that the people who don’t agree with you are such empty vessels that their mere exposure to your perspective would rewrite their beliefs and preferences. It’s ironic that you wrote that they’re humans, because this delusion is dehumanizing and treats them like props upon which you can impose your outlook. Hell, why haven’t I changed my mind now that I’ve been exposed to your “truth?”

The point of a joke is A) It's funny. B) It's rooted in some kind of relatable base. C) It has a punchline, or landing. This had neither. It was literally just him admitting (jokingly or not) to perving over women in the gym, then blaming them for not being able to stare. Literally bottom of the barrel humour that wouldn't have been THAT funny 20 years ago, and is just tired and embarrassing now.

Actually it had all three, but it's okay if you didn't find it funny. People are allowed to have opinions. Your comment didn't make me "speechless that something like it can exist on the Internet."

Misogynistic humour just isn't funny, regardless of the delivery, and especially when it's this... Tasteless. Like there's no class to the joke whatsoever. It's just 'hey attractive women might dress a certain, best not stare otherwise you'll get in trouble' Like... Ok? Assuming you were raised right, it's not a joke, it's just a statement of being a decent human lol

"Misogynistic humour just isn't funny, regardless of the delivery, and especially when it's this... Tasteless. Like there's no class to the joke whatsoever. It's just 'hey attractive women might dress a certain, best not stare otherwise you'll get in trouble'" Misogynistic humor is actually incredibly funny. As are fat jokes, race jokes, LGBT jokes, and nationalist jokes. Especially when they're made by women, minorities, and LGBT comedians. "Like... Ok? Assuming you were raised right, it's not a joke, it's just a statement of being a decent human lol" If you were raised right you'd know not to take jokes too seriously. If you're overly sensitive, don't watch comedy.

My point is that it wasn't comedy. It was just a drawn out insult aimed squarely at women. Comedy can be cruel, cruel cannot always be comedy. This was the latter.

People saying Shane Gillis is not funny, please stop. You may not like the guy, but the man is funny. We used to be able to separate things. Looks like nowadays, our personal opinions about someone have completely taken over our ability to acknowledge when they're good at what they do.

I don't think he's funny. Can he say things that are funny? Sure. That doesn't mean he's funny.

Lol wut?

Someone can say something you find funny but also not be a good comedian and therefore not a funny person. He's not funny.

His job is to literally make people laugh for a living. Hard to do that if you aren't funny. What is going on here people?!

So every comedian is funny to you? the fuck is wrong with your brain dude.

Comedy is subjective. There is also a difference between you saying "I don't think he's funny" and flat out declaring "He's not funny". You are just showing your ass with the later.

Here's what I don't understand: I'm constantly reading people on Reddit say "cancel culture doesn't exist!" and then reading comments like Dan Levy's. So is it that cancel culture doesn't exist, but you want it to?

This isn't hard. Don't go on SNL and talk shit about women and expect to not have consequences. He knew what he was doing and he can fuck off and tell jokes to his Nazi friends moving forward.

Why are making jokes about women off limits?

Please explain what the joke is

The joke is that Shane Gillis looks like a creep in women’s videos at the gym. His persona is that he is an oblivious chud, but the punchline of the joke is that he is the creep in this scenario. Redditors act offended that a well known shock comic uses dated language that goes against current cultural norms, more at 11.

And the “whores” part of the bit adds what context to the joke?

That he’s playing an asshole. It’s his stage persona. Same as how Larry the Cable Guy isn’t actually southern.

Funny everyone is so "offended" and not even mentioning he dropped an F bomb on live tv. Just saying how much the world has changed. 40 years ago his content would be fine but the f bomb would be front page headline with people calling for the shows cancelation.

Because the word “fuck” is not inherently offensive. It’s offensive when used at someone, which he didn’t. Calling women whores is offensive. I have zero issue with the cursing and don’t get the puritanical pearl clutching about it.

He said they dress like whores, not that they are whores.

“I said he ACTED gay, not that he was gay.” Surely you understand whore being the insult is the issue.

If someone says it on stage on a comedy show, it’s a joke and you really should lighten up

A number of people believe the person who uploaded the video is a "Hindu bot"

Hello Indian bot. Still trying to please Israel huh

Another user claims he deserved it

One must realize how genocidal Hindu Nationalists really are, this is interesting hasbara.

Another downvoted user replies

What does this have to do with anything? The issue at hand is that Saudi Arabia is sentencing a man to death over a Facebook comment

And the reply

Obviously he couldn’t keep his hindu supremacy to himself.

The downvoted rebuttal

Do you blame women when they get raped also?

/r/CleaningTips is exactly as it sounds, a subreddit for people to mainly share cleaning advice or call upon those with sudsy wisdom.

in todays episode, OP submits a photo of a stain they had found under a carpet in their newly purchased furnished home.

(archive of pic just incase, of course)

Recently bought a furnished home and lifted an area rug near a door to discover this on the engineered hardwood. Definitely dog pee judging by the location and smell. We do not have a dog, so there’s no telling how long it’s been there. In the meantime, I’m planning on using Nature’s Miracle enzyme cleaner to help with smell. Is it even possible to get the stain completely out or do we need to budget for eventual floor replacement?

As per the subreddit, people of course offer advice. Professional cleaning/flooring folk can of course help you with a dog piss stained wood floor. Simple answer, everyone go home.

UNLESS?

Some users immediately suspect that it's far more than just urine.

It looks like the shape of a body to me in your picture..

(OP) That thought crossed my mind too. It definitely smells like dog urine though.

Dogs can pee on dead bodies.

(OP) Good lord the absurd turn of this post has me cackling. It’s not a dead body guys. Go outside or something.

Now obviously some users are taking the piss, it's a funny idea of course. OP even acknowledges that the stain itself kinda looks like a body.

One user however is far, far more concerned. In comes Reddit's greatest criminal investigator.

In reply to OP understandably kicking themselves about not being able to look closer at the house before closing the deal, a concerned user presses the issue.

(OP) Yep, we are now kicking ourselves for not looking beneath it. It snuck by the inspector too. It’s one big downside we discovered in the home coming furnished. It would have been glaringly obvious during the final walkthrough if the place was cleared out.

You really really need to have the police come look at that and get the history of the house. People die and sometimes they aren’t found for a long time.

Another user counters this concern,

Theres not a chance this is from a body and calling police is a waste of time and resources. You're required to use a specialized cleaning service in the event of such things and if a body had been laying there they would have torn this section of floor out as it is a biohazard.

I’m sorry to tell you… that’s a body. Maybe it was required but they didn’t because that’s a body.

Happened in the building next to me once. They found the guy like two weeks later. Omg. That’s all I can tell you.

You really need to contact the authorities and do some investigation because something sketchy happened here.

While others in the thread reply in a range of ways to basically say "What the fuck are you talking about?" The OP replies back to the concerned user.

(OP) Is real life not exciting enough for you or something?

I'm sorry you've got this mess to deal with. I wouldn’t want to deal with it either.

If it smells like dog pee, and looks like dog pee (even in a weird shape)…

Weird shape like the exact outline of a body…

In another part of this thread..

Dog piss isnt sketchy. Op said it smells like piss. Its not a body.

Sure

Why are you being so weird? They said it smells like piss. Body stains are also much worse, and as the person above said they would have torn the floor out. Calling the police over that would be absurd.

Because piss doesn’t look like it’s wearing a tank top and pants and leave a clear head print.

This user is so sure of this conclusion that you may even spot them popping up in other parts of the post.

(...) If it is the smell itself that bothers you, I wonder if there is some sort of treatment you can do or an ozone machine or something, but I think the biggest thing is you (could) have dog urine soaked into the wood.

If you bought the place, that at least opens up possibilities of what you can do. Godspeed

That’s a body. We don’t need to be helping them.

Like I said though, most of the other "its a body comments" are mainly jokes. But this stuck out as such an absurd hill to die on.

FLAIR FLEA MARKET

"They found the guy like two weeks later... Omg."

"Because piss doesn’t look like it’s wearing a tank top and pants and leave a clear head print."

I couldn't find a way to slip this comment in the main post but GOD I love it.

"Piss smells like piss. Dead bodies smell like dead bodies. There’s a distinct difference. I’d rather sauna in a steamy broth of piss for 10 hours than ever smell decomposition from a dead body for a mere 6 seconds ever again."

Post: Houthi missile striking Ummrah pilgrims, during attack on Riyadh

Archived Source: https://ghostarchive.org/archive/qdell

Context: OP shares CCTV footage of a Houthi attack on a Saudi airport that reportedly killed 12 travelers. For those who don't know the Houthi flag bears the slogan: “God is great, death to America, death to Israel, curse the Jews, victory to Islam.”

Highlights:

One user shares their own unique theory of the incident

This could be a false flag by Saudi Secret services. Iran has pre-warned about this.

The Houthis already claimed responsibility for the attack.

A user from Pakistan weighs in with their perspective.

May Pakistani air force flatten Houthi and their families. Attack on Umrah pilgrims is the worst thing that they could have done

pakistan ain't gonna do shit, this whole turkey-saudi-pakistan alliance is a clownshow

The top comment expresses solidarity with Yemen, prompting criticism from several users and sparking lengthy discussions in which others attempt to justify the Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia. Neither side ends up being willing to reconsider their positions, with users on both sides accusing their opponents of being bots.

Solidarity with Yemen

How could you say that after watching that video

Mistakes happen. 

Because Saudi Arabia has bombed the Sanaa international airport like a billion times already and yet I didn't see all those European and muslim countries protest or cry about it. That's considered normal apparently I guess Houthis decided to return the favour for once?

Saudi Arabia starved over 1 million yemenis to death with a blockade of 10 years.

The Houthis aren’t Yemen, they’ve been known as destabilizing Yemen since before most of us were born. Some might support an arc of what they stand far, but they are by no means heroes.

It's still fuck the Saudis (one of the most upvoted comments)

OP explains why they think the Houthi strikes on Saudi's airport was unjustified, which gets met with harsh criticisms

I think it’s quite telling that Saudi air strikes this year have only targeted Houthi positions, meanwhile the Houthis have been targeting Energy Plants and now Airport Terminals. Also quite telling that in the past 3 years of war, a Houthi missile hasn’t killed a single Israeli, yet they managed to kill 12 muslims in one air strike.

Why is a Jordanian who’s zionist slave king shoots down iranian missiles heading to Israel talking about killing israelis?

Saudi killed more than 12 muslims, i can say that much.

Iirc the Houthis warned that there would be retaliation to the bombing of Sanaa airport, and told the Saudis to clear the area.

The amount of people justifying this attack because of Saudi actions from a decade ago. We have reached the point where Iranian propaganda has convinced people that attacking people doing Ummrah is justified. What happens in the past doesn’t justify future actions

Right while half the ummah (gulf countries) are doing israels bidding and protecting israel. As a Jordanian im pretty sure youre a bot 😂😂😂

First, they weren’t attacking Ummrah. Glad you’re openly being deceitful. Second, this has nothing to do with Saudi actions from a decade ago you zionist. They’re responding to Saudi attacks from this recent incursion. Third, “what happens in the past doesn’t justify future actions”? What did Jesus clear Saudis of their sins or something? How far in the past exactly do you have to go before the sins are cleared? 1 millisecond or a few years?

Bombing a run way to an airport that’s only been used for military purposes, is a lot different to bombing an airport terminal, for an airport entirely used for civilians use, and killing a dozen Ummrah pilgrims

No they bombed the runway to prevent a plane from landing. They also killed 72 people in one strike including children about a week ago.

Some users discuss the comment section

wtf are these comments? when did this subreddit turn into a cesspool

It’s always been a cesspool hence the name, AskMiddleEast.

We live in an era where people are devoid of any critical and rationale thought.

Original post: People who show mercy and leniency to criminals are the ones who truly lack empathy

Top comment: Just like we need to, according to you, stop throwing men in jail for not paying their LEGALLY MANDATED, COURT-ORDERED child support*?* https://www.reddit.com/r/HonestHotTakes/s/RCH1ur7kck Don’t murder or rape people, but also don’t be a fucking bum-ass clown of a baby-daddy or father, and just pay your child support.

My god, can we please stop this coward behavior of searching random posts and using that as an argument? It has nothing to do with the OP. It is just such a coward method. “I can’t argue the point so I’m just going to look in your post history for something I might be able to argue instead” Everyone just private your profiles honestly

In a debate a person's previous held positions and statements are fair game.

Because murder and rape = lack of child support payments...

You're a few French fries short of a happy meal...

I don’t think that they are. People that refuse to support their children should have the book thrown at them, possibly rocks as well.

Some fathers can't afford to pay child support, especially in this economy. If the marriage dissolved over financial issues due to low income, trying to compel the father to pay child support after the marriage has ended only perpetuates the problem which ended the marriage in the first place.

Why? Why can’t a man just abort the baby from his life because he’t too poor to have it? It’s the number one reason abortion lovers cite to kI’ll babies. Why shouldn’t A man be allowed to do the same but without torturing the child to death?

Because the child still exists and still requires support, whether his deadbeat ass likes it or not. Abortion doesn't torture a child to death, and the fact that you think it does is ample evidence that you're not knowledgeable enough about it to qualify to have an opinion.

OP's previous thread: We need to stop throwing men in jail and stop suspending licenses for lack of child support payments

source

he was born in Germany. He is German because his mother is

Since when did Germans start wearing kanduras and talk about cutting off gay people's hands?

Your clothing style is not taken into account when it comes to citizenship. Anybody with German parents will become a citizen when registered.

…

Deport them to a country that aligns with their values. They can decide what country they want to go to since they love Sharia law so much.

You can't randomly "deport" people who were born in the country to other places lol. As much as I'm for punishing this type of talk, y'all are just acting like ICE 2.0.

Where are they being deported to? You shouldn’t just drop your citizens in someone else’s country without their permission, unless you’re happy with them doing the same to you.

Then monitor him closely for openly stating on television that he's threatening queer people with violence and normalising hate speech.

…

“German”. Sure. Those beliefs are imported from wherever he’s actually from.

He is actually from Germany. He is not an immigrant, and he acquired German citizenship at birth.

> Fun fact: The majority religion in Germany did this and was also imported from the middle east.
I recommend this documentation about victims of §173 where executing people for gay sex had fallen out of favor and they were "only" imprisoned, it has official english subtitles https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fMHXHaqsFo Some of these victims may still be alive today. That's what people should think about before voting for right wing "christian" "conservatives" that promise that "remigration" will fix all problems.
Actual German beliefs have not really survived but from what I have read they weren't the most accepting of gay sex either.
Secular humanism would be an example of a much more universal world view to strife for rather than dividing ethnically what is "German" and what is not.

https://www.reddit.com/r/religiousfruitcake/s/lqGiF7cUxG

There is no reason to be intolerant or anti-immigrant. You just need to apply the actual laws of any western country, Germany included. You do not approve of a crime, you do not incite to violence, you do not incite to hatred. All these are actual crimes. Just apply the law as it currently is and all problems will be solved.

…

That my fellow Redditors is what makes Islam unique among religions, at least these days.

You'll find similar texts in the Old Testament. And there are a few radical evangelical preachers who fully support passages like Leviticus 20:13, most prominently Steven Anderson

This sub is called religiousfruitcake for a reason.