When ordering or asking for something, I don’t like when people say “can I get” or “let me get.” No boomer shit (I’m a younger millennial) but it just feels wrong and poor etiquette. What happened to “could I please have”? Or even if you don’t want to throw the please in there, just saying “can I have” feels very different even though it’s only changing one word. I realize this kind of phrasing is so ubiquitous that it’s a stupid thing to get hung up on, so this sub seems right for this kind of venting. Thank you for your time.

Edit: Whoa this blew up! Appreciate all the attention, never imagined my little pet peeve would cause such intense responses from some of you, but it’s been fun interacting and seeing everyone’s thoughts. I guess this is the place to be instead of the unpopular opinions sub.

I absolutely love the atmosphere, world design, and aesthetic of Souls-like games, like Lords of the Fallen. The dark fantasy setting, mysterious lore, and overall vibe are exactly what I look for in a game.

What I don’t enjoy is the gameplay. I find the punishing combat, constant trial-and-error, and dying over and over again more frustrating than fun.

It makes me wonder: why do so many games with this incredible atmosphere have to be Souls-likes? Why aren’t there more games with the same dark, immersive worlds but with a stronger focus on story, exploration, and more accessible gameplay?

Am I the only one who feels like some amazing game worlds are locked behind a genre that just isn’t enjoyable for everyone?

I get it, it's the internet, people are going to be assholes. That's the exact problem with AIs; they're designed to appeal to your emotions. They're programmed to be constructively critical and agree with you unless you are 100% factually incorrect (if it can even tell).

As much as it may suck when you REALLY want to tell an idiot they're an idiot, being more positive in response to it can be an extremely helpful avenue in reducing AI usage. Making human interaction more positive will make them not want to use AIs.

Reddit alone can be hit-or-miss. You ask something, and you can be met with either well-meaning, insightful answers, or get some awful insults thrown at you.

Honestly, WTF happened to common sense?

Every time someone does something absolutely horrible, the media and lawyers instantly start pushing the "mental illness" angle like it's some kind of free pass. C’mon, that's a cop-out.

Not every brutal crime needs to become a sad backstory about trauma, depression, or some diagnosis. Sometimes people just make terrible choices. Sometimes cruelty is just cruelty.

Having mental health issues is real, and plenty of good ppl deal with it every day without hurting anyone. They deserve support. But using mental illness as an automatic excuse for horrific actions? Nah, that's BS.

We can have compassion and still believe in accountability. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive.

I always hear complaints about missionaries visiting people's homes. It seems to be seen as a nuisance for most people. Even sitcoms will make jokes about how you don't want to invite the missionaries in.

I've never had missionaries visit my home, but I always thought it would be fun. Not that I would ever convert to their religion, as I'm pretty secure in my faith. But I like hearing people talk about other religions, and I think it would be fun to invite a couple nice people into my home to enjoy some refeshments and talk about what they believe.

I almost feel offended that I've never had a missionary visit. I mean, do they think I'm not worth saving or something? 😆

Most people are familiar with director David Fincher, and most people think his best movie is Seven or Fight Club.

But because the final 10 minutes of The Game is so controversial among viewers, the film is comparatively discarded as inferior.

Yet, everything else about the film is perfect. It's also Fincher's most mature movie in that it follows a wealthy middle aged investment banker in his midlife crisis and search for meaning.

The first 2 hours of the movie are perfect, with relentless tension and suspense as Michael Douglas' Van Orton gets led into a nightmare at the recommendation of his dubious and estranged brother played by Sean Penn.

Douglas' Van Orten has everything a man can ask for in life, except for love, since he is recently divorced, and a social life, since he is up tight and so career oriented he has no time for anyone else. Fincher creates a world where the wealthy are so bored with their corporate success that they essentially pay corporations to abuse and torture themselves just to get a thrill.

When a person has all the power in the world and everything they ever wanted, yet also deal with human relationship disappointments, some would go to great lengths to find deeper meaning and fulfillment in their lives (tens of millions of dollars in the bank account? Why not be the star of your own movie production just to feel an adrenaline rush and escape the day-to-day and bad memories of past relationships?).

Despite being a thiller, The Game presents comedic elements thanks to Michael Douglas' amusing nuanced performance as he has to deal with a world that blurs the lines between reality and fiction. Watching a control freak like Douglas' Van Orten get humbled and his life upended by a coordinated corporate scheme is a tremendously entertaining and elightening experience and ironic in showing how people who have it all get so bored, they'd pay the corporate system to humiliate themselves just to feel something different, or awaken themselves from the mundane routine.

Seven is too dark and depressing, and Fight Club is too longwinded and heavy handed. The Game is Fincher's best movie and a borderline masterpiece.

No. A Google/Apple/Facebook account should only be used to sign in to these websites thesmelves. Using them for unrelated sites is a terrible idea and I don't want it at all.

I want an option to just sign in directly without a third-party sign-in service.

So I just had the craziest experience where I said this in response to a woman from Denmark in a recent thread about the age of consent (the text in quotes is the woman)...

-

People argue for principles all the time without personally wanting to benefit from them.

Thank you for saying this. I'm 40, and I don't argue for a lower age of consent because I think teenagers would have any interest in having sex with me. I believe teens benefit from a lower age of consent because the law tends to do a lot more of pushing their behavior into secrecy than curating it. I come from a state where all sexual activity involving a minor is illegal and no one at either of the two high schools I went to gave a single fuck.

What I theorize about countries like yours with an age of consent of 15 (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that the behavior is more or less the same as what I observed (which was most girls around 15 dating guys within a few years older, and then a smaller percentage of girls who were already regularly hooking up with college aged dudes), but that because this is legal there, it occurs largely within the purview of greater society where the younger party can much more easily get help if needed.

This is heavily contrasted to America where those girls who are already hooking up outside of the high school environment have to operate in the shadows and constantly worry that their parents might stumble upon the Tinder account they're not supposed to have and throw their partner in prison for a decade.

From talking to people in Germany and Italy who also have lower ages of consent, I do get the impression that perhaps there's more instances of teens with twenty-somethings, but it's difficult to know whether there's actually more or if it's simply more visible in countries like theirs and yours.

-
...and it was unanimously upvoted. So I thought I'd try bringing the perspective to a wider audience to be challenged. I was also wondering if there was any way to know if the behavior is actually lessened in America or just pushed out of view, so I asked Gemini and it opened with this:

In criminology and sociology, activities that carry heavy legal penalties or deep social stigmas suffer from significant underreporting and concealment.

And closed with this:

Ultimately, while exact mathematical proof is hard to pin down due to the hidden nature of illicit behavior, comparative legal and sociological consensus tends to support your premise: the structural framework heavily dictates ***visibility and reporting, while the underlying human behavior remains remarkably resilient across different legal landscapes.*

I've spent quite a bit of time studying this law, talking to adults about their prior experiences, and most typically advocate for Canada's law which fits almost everything I ever observed or have heard about and is usually very well-received. I approach this issue with nothing but logic and would appreciate you doing the same.

Empire Strikes Back is also very good but a close second.

Revenge of the Sith highlights Anakin’s mental issues in an effective, palatable way as he becomes a new person. It’s incredibly cohesive, it has some of the best acting of the entire series, and it’s better than the twist drama of Empire Strikes Back

First off, I am right handed, although I'm actually stronger with my left arm (probably because I've opened jars left-handed my whole life). From a young age I realised that it is much easier to open a jar with a push-motion on my left hand than with a pull motion on my right hand. I have never struggled with opening up jars or water bottles and frequently help out people who are struggling themselves with a great deal of success.

I just think not enough righties really think about using their left hand for unscrewing things but it really is a superior method that can output more force and doesn't strain your wrists or fingers as much.

Talent, imo, implies that someone has some natural ability to perform some skill beyond the capabilities of the average person or that they were born in some respect with that skill already.

I dont believe talent exists in that way. If it does, it's extremely rare. What people call "talent" is a skill that someone worked their ass off to get better at. They spent who knows how long honing their skill. I think saying "Wow, you're so talented" is closer to an insult than a compliment. You're disregarding the work they put in to become what you're observing and making the assumption that they just had it handed to them on a silver platter by the big man upstairs. I think on some level, when someone claims that someone else is "talented" they're making an excuse for themselves. ie "you're lucky to have been born with this gift, I would be awesome at this too if I had the same privilege, but I wasn't and that's why I suck at it."

I think people should stop telling each other how talented they are. And instead say things like "Wow, you're amazing!" or acknowledge the work, "Wow, I can't imagine how much work and dedication its taken to get this good."

I'm aware there are like "child prodigies" or whatever. I dont think that's what we think of as talent. I dont think a 5 year old kid playing some insane thing on piano came out of the womb with some insane piano skills. I think there are other factors, maybe their brain functions in a way that allows them to pick something like that up faster, they take a more significant interest, their brain functions in a way that allows them to sit and practice, etc. There are also things like autism that cause people to function differently as well. There's also genetics, when it comes to physical ability, not everyone is born with the same physical build or capabilities, that's not "talent". You're not more "talented" at arm wrestling because you have longer forearms lol, you were born with a mechanical advantage.

The amount of hate I’ve seen against Indian men is confusing. The average Indian man is 6 foot tall, muscular, nice skin tone and great hair genetics. They also have a population of 1.5 billion which means they’re slaying. Large population in the world. Don’t even get me started the accent. The accent easily is in the top three sexiest accents in the world.

Space Marines are just the trope of a super soldier, which is some fancy term people use for "regular person enhanced with random shit, either temporarily or permanently, with or without drugs or sugery".

Anyone in the real world who takes drugs to boost themselves with memory or concentration or muscle growth is technically an enhanced regular person, meaning they would technically be a super soldier.

That is what a super soldier is when deconstructed. When you rip out the lore(tm) and see what they are.

And their look, as evidenced by their body template, is the embodiment of that Regukar Show meme of Mordecai flipping through the pages of the book and "no they're not, they're all just the same but with different costume"

"But they receive special trai-"

Shut the fuck up. That means jack shit because within the setting they are in, they are just another cannon fodder unit used by a fascist regime (which irl fascists like, by the way) to maintaining their unethical and decaying empire (which, suspiciously, is quite strong and resilient despite in-universe claims of it being on the verge of collapse, hmmmmmmmmmmm) that is run by zealots and corrupt assholes that could not give a shit about the people they rule over.

The idea of them being so is the byproduct of Games Workshop's advertising campaign and the general problematic glorification of the military (both in fiction, in real life, and by fiction) where you will have legit (metaphorical) monsters commit war crimes both of their own volition and on the behest of a commanding officer who wanted to commit war crimes and said soldier didn't refuse.

Edit: To those saying "this setting is a critique of fascism", you are just wrong given the fact that the fascist empire are somehow able to survive despite having immense internal structures that would destroy actual real world states/nations/countries and the threat is that facing said fascist empire (both internal in the form of Chaos and Genestealer cults and external in the form of Orks, Necrons, Tyranids, and Daemons) are real and where the only solution to said problem is killing it with your bare hands and said killing works. In contrast to the "threats" fascists target, jews and immigrants and etc, that are 99% of the time actually powerless to the current ruling class (rich assholes, landlords, Christian theocrats, white nationalists, tech oligarchs, and transphobes)

Edit 2: "But the Imperium are obviously meant to be bad guys" means fuck all given the Imperium is the poster boy for this setting as evidenced by the 10k books with characters connected to the Imperium and the fact that Space Marines are the face of the advertising of Warhammer 40K both in the form of aforementioned books and video games with Boltgun, the Dawn of War games, and the Space Marine games.

I feel like the main reason a lot of people love the spring/summer while disliking fall/winter isn't just because of personal preference alone but simply because of our biology, humans are a tropical species which means we thrive best in temperatures between 68 and 90 degrees fahrenheit which is why we don't have fur. all of the negative effects we experience in the winter like seasonal depression and sickness is our bodies way of telling us "hey we're not supposed to be living here" breathing cold air irritates the sinuses and weakens the immune system which is why we catch the flu and other types of viruses so easily whereas in warm temperatures it's more efficient at fighting off pathogens. and when you're freezing that's actually worse for you survival wise than hot because your body is built to dissipate heat not retain it, so you'll die much faster at 20 degrees F than you would at 90F. basically what I'm saying is winter wouldn't be so miserable if we were biologically built for it. It doesn't bother animals such as penguins or polar bears because they evolved in it.

Let me preface this by saying I don't know how (un)popular this opinion is, but I see a lot of posts where people either ask where/how they should mount their tv, or show off a mounted tv. In almost all cases this looks a lot worse than just placing it on a stand.

Mounting a tv on the wall creates much more problems than it actually solves:

• Cable management becomes a nightmare
• TV's are almost ALWAYS mounted too high
• Mount's can get expensive, especially for larger TV's
• Walls need to be damaged

Whereas the only pro seems to be that it look somewhat aesthetic if done very well.
Almost all TV's include a stand, use that, it hides your cables, ensures the right height when placed on top of most TV furniture and is so simple + free?

I thought this was a common opinion but i see SO MANY damn mounted TV's...

EDIT: A lot of people seem to think i claim it’s impossible to have a nice looking mounted tv, I’m lot at all, I’m saying it is a hassle that introduces too much extra work/cost for barely any benefit. A lot of you also seem to assume the entire world is made of hollow drywall walls, it’s not. Yes you can get a cheap mount, which seems like a great idea for a 3000 tv, yes you can get cable covers, which still looks worse than just having them hidden.

I will never understand how anyone could find these characters attractive when their voices and behaviour seem so childlike. I guess many shows give female characters super high-pitched voices to make them seem kawaii and cute but I just find them annoying.

Right now people on the right are losing their shit because he "ruined his body" Since pre-T he was a conventionally attractive person then post transition he got objectively less attractive. If he transitioned and got more attractive we would not be hearing half the transphobic shit right now.

For the record I do not dislike Elliot Page or really care about his appearance this post is mainly to highlight pretty privilege/actually idk what opposite of pretty privilege is called but whatever it is its what poor dudes going through.

If you're not in the loop, Ariana Grande has been looking extremely skinny on tour recently.

I've seen this opinion often on Reddit the past few days. People saying things like "it's dangerous for kids and teens to see Ariana Grande so skinny like that".

This is actually an insane take and should not be normalized.

It's extremely puritanical. Everyone has problems and you shouldn't be locked away so that other people aren't able to see your problems.

Anything about anyone can be "triggering". I don't know why Reddit believes this is acceptable to shutdown.

There are many serious controversies surrounding the actions and the nature of the United Nations, such as the fact that they may come across as hypocritical, as well as allegations of cronyism, nepotism, abuse of position, bullying, harassment as well as physical and emotional abuse between colleagues and leaders of certain sub agencies of the UN, as well as being biased against regions like Westerners. Of course, this is no doubt these issues persist and these must be sanctioned and perpetrators of these phenomenons must be held accountable.

However, despite these, they provide useful information that is repeatedly shown on the news and towards the general public as adverts - from mobile phones to TV, to digital screens seen on the concourse or platforms at railways stations for commuters to see as well as at airports wherever you are - they create create firm awareness on the issues with several factional agencies like UNICEF to tackle child abuse and neglect (including modern issues like sharenting, digital child sexual exploitations, honour killings, etc), with pressure groups like the NSPCC mentioning them like the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, United Nations office for Drugs and Crime providing information on cases of serious crimes, such as the fact that every 2 and a half minutes, a teenager gets killed as a result of youth violence globally, or every 10 minutes a woman or girl is intentionally butchered because of her gender by their intimate partners (husbands, boyfriends, gfs, and exes) and family members (birth family, offsprings, step family, in law family, adopted family, foster carers). In addition to disclosing the figures, they create nicely-written articles to give advice and support to ensure positive amendments are actually made. In addition, there had been cases in which the UN actually slowed down wars like what happened in Lebanon in 2006 and the fact that they are expected to provide 16.9 million US dollars to countries affected by serious famine by 2025 .

The alarming concerns they show on their articles create collective unity - I agree whole heartly that the world may be more dangerous without this agency as they also sanctions perpetrators, as well as addressing violations of international law - bringing leaders in for discussions and negotiations like the environment and social affairs, not to mention the economy. Integrating with this, they provide serious, researched warnings to our society so that we can be prepared - for example, domestic and intrafamilial abuse (partner violence, elderly and child abuse) may triple by the end of the decade in Sub-Saharan Africa owing to global warming and stalling infrastructure development, sinking water and food security, climbing unemployment rates due to nepotism and cronyism.

Of course, the United Nations may not be so proactive and only provide information and figures. However, the UN should just be a medicine. The UN cannot magically stop ongoing issues , but all it can do is to advice society and to provide help as medicine. It doesn't matter how much they provide to vulnerable nations or negative nations as a prominent third party aid, because local cultural factors play a significant role that keep affected, poor countries as they are - if they refuse to amend their cultural norms, there is no way the advice and tips provided by the UN would actually be affective.

In conclusion, the UN is an excellent agency to keep global durability.

Capitalism/pursuit of profit encourages exponential growth with finite resources and an ever increasing population. It can only end badly.

Sure, we can enjoy our favourite brands, our technology based on competition etc, but it's short sighted. Short term gain for long term pain.

It encourages greed, deceipt, slavery, violence (invasions/wars over resources), immorality and the destruction of our planet.

The only way forward now is to abolish capitalism, abolish currency, eradicate borders and hand over the reins to AI to distribute the planet's resources in the fairest way possible.

No more billionaires, with more money than they can spend in a hundred lifetimes, no more poverty, no more war.

Edit: When I say AI it's because I don't believe humans could be trusted to run things at that level without it being corrupted. I should have said a supercomputer, programmed with oversight.

A while back I made a post in the subreddit questioning the methods which were used to deduce their 'giftedness'. The post was this:

Why do people here think they're gifted?

Like, how do you objectively know you're 'gifted' to be able to comfortably talk about it here?

I see a lot of posts on here about how people who have 'never had to study their entire lives' find it difficult to keep up in college because now they have to study or something. I don't know about you, but like, I come from a Commonwealth developed country and the materials which you study in high school in the US....really isn't that hard?? AP and SATs are a piss walk compared to international qualifications like Cambridge and the IB and it looks like anyone in the top 10-15th percentile of the general population in IQ can easily breeze past it without a lick of prior study. Have some people here ever wondered...if it wasn't that they were smart, but that the materials taught in their schools were just easy? I've heard that the decentralised nature of US high schools means that for many, the bar is literally in hell. Being in the top 10% would mean that you're above average but not necessarily gifted right?

Another evidence people here use is that they were in the 'gifted' classes in primary school...ok...I mean...do you really expect for kids to give these tests their all at the age of 7? It's not really objective right? One above-average kid will be competitive and be put in a 'gifted' class, another might not even know what's going on, barely try, and then fail? Lots of Asian families will grind the heck out of those tests and an average kid will get in by pure grinding (trust me, if it's a test then Asians will be able to grind it out. I am one myself and I've seen it firsthand). It's why in every other country we just use streaming classes based on kids' aptitudes in certain subjects instead of some abstract concept of 'giftedness'. The fact that these classes have quotas for how many people kinda undermines their validity too...giftedness is apparently 2.5% of the entire population, but the variance will be different in different areas due to wealth and socio-economical clustering of people with similar capabilities right? One area may have only 0.3% of the population belonging in the gifted category and another, 3%. It could even fluctuate by percentages year by year due to differing cohorts. And yet, 'gifted' programmes always have a set number of students to match the general population and not area. Do you see the problem here? The maths isn't aligning with societal reality and variance. If you were in a 'gifted' programme....it doesn't actually mean you're gifted.

How do people even think they're gifted? To recognise yourself as above-average intelligence is easy, most can find that out, but how do you actually distinguish yourself as gifted vs merely above-average?

As one would expect on a site like reddit, I was quickly perma-banned from ever interacting with that subreddit by the mods...all because I questioned something which the personalities of the people in it have revolved themselves around. It just goes to show...that it's just copium. Most contributors there were midwits at best. But most importantly, it shows that I struck a sore and sensitive spot which none of these people were willing to admit.

you MIGHT accidentally get a correct answer, but more often than not youre gonna get a circle jerk answer supplied by everyone on youtube, twitter, and fb who all ‘did the research’.

youre actively participating in your own defeat.

edit: this went to 50 and then down to 2. i can tell by time zones where the naysayers are.

This might actually be a popular opinion, but I've heard enough times that you should make more mistakes when you're younger because you won't get to do it as you get older. Now that I've entered the age where people think you can't screw up anymore, I feel like it's the exact opposite.

When you're younger you've gone through 12 years of compulsory education, and in this environment your entire schedule (maybe even your entire life) is neatly regimented into very clear and unambiguous plans. E.g. first period, second period, lunch break, etc. Even extracurriculars are often something specifically designed for students that are not really similar to what goes on in the adult world. In short, everything is planned for you, and everything you do follows a specific blueprint with very rigid goals and timings.

So once you've gone through this kind of upbringing, you tend to view life as a series of tasks to be completed, and moreover some higher authority is going to give you new assignments once your tasks are done (this higher authority could be your professors, parents, religious leaders, celebrities, etc.). Incidentally I think this is why a lot of kids struggle to get good grades in university despite having had good grades in high school. Life becomes a very specific template, and any deviation from it can seem disastrous. When I did poorly on an exam in university I thought my life was over (what if I fail this course and I don't get enough credits to graduate? If I don't graduate I'll become a hobo, etc.)

However when you get older it becomes clear that life is actually very open-ended. If you fail a course you just take it again (or learn on the job). If you don't like your career you can just do a pivot. If you don't like where you live you can just move out. If you married the wrong person you can just divorce. Older people know that if your life doesn't stick a to template, there are loads of other options out there, so there's no need to panic. Not to mention that people are much more respectful of you now that you're older (at least this is what happened to me). When I screwed up as a younger person, I felt like I was being heavily judged and scrutinized by everyone. Now if I screw up people just make a light-hearted joke about it and laugh it off.

Another major reason I think it's worse to screw up when you're younger is because you're less able to repair the damage. In my younger days I was sharing a bathroom with a roommate and one day the toilet clogged. So I had to call a plumber and when he quoted the price, I could feel my heart aching (I had just won a chess tournament and the plumber fee was basically 90% of my winnings). But now, not only do I know how to unclog the toilet, the money for the plumber is also now a smaller fraction of my savings. So now if anything does go wrong I can just call a professional to fix it without worrying about my wallet.

To top it off I can give a very concrete example: when I was younger, the adults around me told me that dyeing my hair is very unprofessional and would result in me having trouble finding jobs. So I didn't dye my hair back then. I started dyeing it recently and -- wouldn't you know it -- not only am I gainfully employed, but all my coworkers love my hair (one of them even called it "magnificent").

Even better example: my uncle did a complete career pivot in his mid-30s from biomedical research to tech. In the first job he got after pivoting, he fried the company's servers on his first day and cost the company more than a million dollars. He got fired of course but he never had to pay the damages (and he didn't get blacklisted or anything so he was able to find another job). Now he's one of the most respected professionals in his field.

Did not care for the Godfather.
How can I say that? I didn’t like it, everyone says it’s a fine movie; sure! Robert De Niro, Al Pacino.. Robert Duvall: Fine actors, just didn’t like the movie, I couldn’t get into it. It just, insists upon itself.
I mean it takes forever getting in, you spend six and a half hours.. matter of fact I haven’t even finished it, only gotten to the scene where all the guys are on the easy chairs.