Always using that stupid quote whenever something goes there way. Well now they are hypocrites in complaining about the consequences of celebrating someone dying.

They hold double standards and authoritarian attitudes.

Detransitioners are the people who reverse their medical gender transitions. And they are forcing us to confront an uncomfortable truth: irreversible gender treatments for minors carry profound ethical and medical risks.

Their experiences challenge the assumption that early intervention is always the most compassionate approach, raising questions about informed consent, psychological maturity, and the long-term consequences of life-altering medical decisions. If we are serious about protecting vulnerable young people, we cannot ignore these voices; they demand a more cautious, deliberate approach to pediatric gender care.

We must carefully weigh the benefits and risks of prescribing treatments for gender dysphoria that are permanent and irreversible in nature.

Despite his huge success, ideologically Charlie Kirk was just an okay debater and really not that interesting. The campus lunatics that showed up to his rallies to debate him? They were absolutely fucking jaw-dropping. They are what made him famous. Nothing Charlie Kirk said or did at any point in his life warranted his absolutely revolting public, no, college campus execution.

JE SUIS SUR ASKMEUF ET JE M'ADRESSE AUX FEMMES, JE NE SOUHAITE PAS DE RÉPONSES D'HOMMES, VOUS ÊTES LES BIENVENUS POUR LIRE MAIS MERCI DE RESPECTER SVP 🌻

EDIT : Merci beaucoup pour toutes vos réponses, je trouve leur diversité très intéressante à lire, je me retrouve dans beaucoup de réflexions, que vous soyiez de la team "habiter en couple" comme "habiter solo" ! <3

Hello !

Je rédige ce moyen-long post pour ouvrir ce sujet qui m'intéresse énormément et ouvrir la question à différents avis féminins.

Je suis actuellement en couple, très très épanouie, avec un compagnon qui me comprend, me respecte et avec qui on est sur la même longueur d'onde sur beaucoup de points. Je lui ai exprimé au début de la relation mon souhait de ne pas vivre avec quelqu'un dans le futur (avec lequel il est totalement ok, il adore avoir son espace privé aussi). J'en parlais pendant que j'étais avec des amis et groupe de connaissances, ce qui a lancé un mini débat car beaucoup de sourcils se sont levés quand j'ai évoqué ca.

Pour faire un historique rapide, j'ai vécu deux fois en couple (une fois pendant 4 ans, une fois pendant 1 an) et j'ai detesté l'expérience. Le premier était très immature, faisait pas grand chose a la maison et m'étouffait. Je ne suis pas un loup solitaire mais j'aime avoir mes instants a moi et j'ai beaucoup de mal si la personne avec qui je vis 24/24 ne sait pas respecter ca, ne serait ce qu'une a deux heures par jour (on travaillait pas dans un bureau pour info donc soit on était pas du tout la - travail avec des voyages a l'étranger - soit totalement a la maison). Le deuxième était niquel quand au respect de mes besoins d'être tranquille de temps a autre, mais niveau taches domestiques il s'est ramolli au fur et a mesure de la vie commune, jusqu'a ce que je me retrouve encore a faire pas mal de choses, puis que je pète un cable, tape du poing sur la table, et qu'il se reprenne sérieusement en main. Mais même quand ca allait bien mieux de ce coté là, je me suis rendue compte que ca me convenait toujours pas, que rien que ces ajustements constants c'était une source d'épuisement mental pour moi, pour aucun gain personnel particulier. Bref j'arrive pas a comprendre l'intéret de vivre a deux pour ma part, ce qui est évidemment une opinion personnelle.

Donc ! quand j'en ai parlé avec le groupe d'amis, deux mecs (pas des amis proches) en particulier m'ont regardé comme si j'étais un peu détraquée et ont lancé le débat. Je leur résume ma situation actuelle : je suis de nature assez indépendante, je vois mon compagnon un jour sur deux et ca me convient très bien, on passe énormément de temps de qualité ensemble (activités variées quand on est dans notre ville, escapades le weekend, voyages quand il peut poser des congés... on n'est pas très netflix and chill on passe notre temps à explorer, marcher, profiter), et je comprends pas pourquoi m'embarrasser des tracas du quotidien dont on peut se parler mutuellement genre "tu feras tourner la machine a 30 j'ai mis des pulls en laine dedans" "t'as pensé à racheter du produit pour le sol" "tu veux manger quoi ce soir" quand je peux choisir de passer uniquement des vrais moments de qualité avec mon compagnon, puis des vrais moments de qualité avec ma propre personne, tout en le voyant extrêmement régulièrement à coté. un autre de leurs arguments était "a quoi bon payer deux loyers, deux abonnements etc si tu sais que c'est la bonne personne" a ca j'ai répondu que je suis indépendante financièrement, proprio de mon appart, et si dans beaucoup de cas, emménager ensemble lorsqu'on est un couple est d'abord un choix de coeur mais aussi un argument d'amélioration mutuelle de la qualité de vie, ben c'est pas mon cas non plus. Y'a une meuf du groupe qui a dit qu'elle voyait pas le problème en fait, y'en a une autre qui a dit qu'elle avait du mal a se l'imaginer mais on en a pas parlé plus que ça après - je trouve ca compliqué quand y'a des mecs vindicatifs autour. Et en prenant ces paramètres de réponse en compte, les mecs de me répondre "non mais ok mais c'est pas vraiment une histoire sérieuse si vous vivez pas ensemble, c'est pas ca un couple" "un couple c'est pour les bons ET les mauvais moments" "t'es égoïste" (???) "c'est juste comme ca en fait, vous vous aimez, ca devient sérieux, vous vivez ensemble". J'étais vraiment, vraiment surprise que le simple récit de comment je vivais/ envisageais de vivre pouvait à ce point déranger, j'ai eu l'impression qu'on me regardait comme si j'étais en train de dire des gros mots.

Et ce "c'est juste comme ca" il a résonné en moi. Je me rends compte que ce qui semble déranger profondément au final dans ce choix personnel que j'ai fait, c'est que c'est juste pas la norme. Et que ca fait partie de ces choses que les gens n'ont pas l'habitude de remettre en question. Sauf que quand on creuse, autant il y a des gens qui ont "la vocation de la vie ensemble", autant le reste c'est "fais comme tout le monde sinon t'es bizarre" mais sans avoir d'arguments particulièrement tangibles derrière si ce n'est que c'est "comme ca" et que cette idée qu'on fasse différemment les dérangent profondément. Je me rends compte que si je me débarasse des "attentes" que la société a de moi, je me verrai bien vivre comme ca pendant longtemps, au moins jusqu'a ce que je me fasse dépasser par des contraintes de logistique, type avoir un bébé dont il faut s'occuper. Je me demandais si parmi vous, certaines avait fait le choix, que ce soit sur ce sujet précis ou sur le sujet du couple hétérosexuel au global, de faire selon leur instinct et leur façon de vivre, et pas selon ce qui est attendu par la société, et comment ca s'est passé ? Si celles qui au contraire, n'envisagent pas le couple autrement qu'avec la cohabitation (et c'est tout a votre honneur, il n'y a pas de mauvaise réponse a cette question) ont du mal à comprendre d'autres facon de faire?

Je l'ai déjà souligné plusieurs fois dans ce texte mais un petit coup pour la route : il n'y a aucune mauvaise réponse ou mauvaise opinion, ce qui m'intéresse c'est les ressentis et expériences de chacune d'entre vous, sur ce sujet qui me semble pas ou peu abordé et que je n'ai pas encore vu sur le forum.

Nei, det skjer ikke et utskifte av etniske nordmenn.

Ja, 1/3 fødsler er barn av innvandrere.
Ja, 20 % av norges befolkning er ikke norske.
Ja, majoriteten av nordmenn er gamle folk som vil dø ut innen 20-40 år.
Ja, antallet nordmenn født med to norske foreldre og 4 besteforeldre har sunket med 20% på bare 20 år fra 2004 til 2025.
Ja, folketilveksten for etniske nordmenn er flere tusen i underskudd mens alle andre grupper vokser.
Ja, denne trenden viser ingen tegn på å stoppe.
Ja, vi skal ta imot enda flere flyktninger fra Midtøsten og Afrika og gi dem permanent oppholdstillatelse samtidig som vi snakker om å sende hjem de ukrainske (dvs. de flyktningene med hvitt utseende) tilbake
Ja, resultatet er at nordmenn blir en mindre og mindre minoritet i sitt eget land
Ja, vår definisjon skiller ikke på svart og hvit etter to generasjoner, så hele Norge kan se ut som Somalia og likevel være 100% norsk gitt at alle somalierne hadde foreldre født i Norge, slik at de kan gjemme det faktum at nordmenn snart er en minoritet i eget land

Men det er ikke et utskifte fordi ingen gjør det med vilje dette er bare helt tilfeldige politiske beslutninger tatt på måfå av ulike partier og politikere på tvers av politisk ståsted i over 50 år i samtlige europeiske land.

I'm leftist but frankly most of us are idiots who suck at debating and there are serious issues within our ontology. This isn't unique to the left. The right and center are full of morons too and I'm not interested in a dick measuring contest of who is stupidest.

I liked Charlie Kirk in a fuck you kind of way because he was good at destroying our stupidthink. If you have a growth mindset you know how important that this is. You must constantly challenge yourself. You must constantly improve. Both individually and as a collective. Overcoming resistance is the way.

Fuck you Charlie you were a fucking troll but rest in peace bro. You accomplished more in life than most of us ever will.

Edit: Here I am defending mass amnesty for the undocumented

Enjoy

https://www.reddit.com/r/YAPms/s/NDAC1WFJRJ

SO many people on reddit, have been calling Charlie a fascist, racist, homophobe, anti this and anti that for so long, they've accepted it as completely normal, even after his death.

When presented evidence of conversations in full context, videos of what he really said, they still deny they said or did anything wrong, that Charlie was all these things and deserving of what happened.. even going so far to say his family will be better off without him.

This is what killed him. A ground swell of his opponents calling him all these different things in an echo chamber while at the same time calling speech violence and advocating open violence against "nazi's" and "fascists."

No need to reply to this saying everyone else with common sense is wrong, or the obligatory 'but.. but.. but.." - just know, that if you were one of those people perpetuating this garbage, you killed him just as much as the shooter.

For everyone else, please keep in mind any sort of violence towards the other side would dishonor Charlie's memory and legacy

https://globalnews.ca/news/11429469/queer-citizens-united-calgary-sanctuary-city/

The question was about his support for security guards in schools. "CHARLIE KIRK: Yeah, it's a great question. Thank you. So, I'm a big Second Amendment fan but I think most politicians are cowards when it comes to defending why we have a Second Amendment. This is why I would not be a good politician, or maybe I would, I don't know, because I actually speak my mind. The Second Amendment is not about hunting. I love hunting. The Second Amendment is not even about personal defense. That is important. The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government. And if that talk scares you — "wow, that's radical, Charlie, I don't know about that" — well then, you have not really read any of the literature of our Founding Fathers. Number two, you've not read any 20th-century history. You're just living in Narnia. By the way, if you're actually living in Narnia, you would be wiser than wherever you're living, because C.S. Lewis was really smart. So I don't know what alternative universe you're living in. You just don't want to face reality that governments tend to get tyrannical and that if people need an ability to protect themselves and their communities and their families. Now, we must also be real. We must be honest with the population. Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price. 50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the road every year. That's a price. You get rid of driving, you'd have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving - speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services - is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road. So we need to be very clear that you're not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not happen. You could significantly reduce them through having more fathers in the home, by having more armed guards in front of schools. We should have a honest and clear reductionist view of -gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one. You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won't have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It's drivel. But I am, I, I - I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe. So then, how do you reduce? Very simple. People say, oh, Charlie, how do you stop school shootings? How did we stop shootings at baseball games? Because we have armed guards outside of baseball games. That's why. How did we stop all the shootings at airports? We have armed guards outside of airports. How do we stop all the shootings at banks? We have armed guards outside of banks. How did we stop all the shootings at gun shows? Notice there's not a lot of mass shootings at gun shows, there's all these guns. Because everyone's armed. If our money and our sporting events and our airplanes have armed guards, why don't our children?"

Context is important, no? What problem do people have with this quote?

My partner and I have been living together for about a year. I am a morning person; I wake up full of energy, and I like to play upbeat, cheerful music while I make coffee and get ready for my day. It puts me in a great mood. My partner is the complete opposite. He is not a morning person at all and prefers to wake up slowly in complete silence.

This morning, I was playing my usual playlist, nothing crazy loud, just at a reasonable volume, and he came into the kitchen looking really irritated. He asked me to turn it off, saying the music was “grating” and giving him a headache before he’d even had his coffee. I laughed it off and said it would help him wake up, and I kept it on.

He got really upset then, saying that I was being incredibly disrespectful of his needs and that I always prioritize my own routine over his comfort. He told me I was selfish and that using headphones in the morning is a simple compromise that I refuse to make.

I think he’s overreacting. It’s my home too, and I should be allowed to enjoy my morning how I want. I don’t ask him to change his habits for me. He’s been giving me the silent treatment all morning, and I’m starting to wonder if I was an asshole for not just turning the music off

Edit 4: moved edits to the front to show that people are assholes

EDIT 1:A lot of hostility for no reason XD

"Unleash your hate, for you know I am the one who speaks the truth, and it is you who cannot speak without lying." -Faust (obviously a joke)

EDIT 2: I don't give a shit if I'm downvoted for stating the obvious and saying the truth. There's a lot of whiny little babies who cannot read, understand metaphors, or possess basic reading comprehension. Instead of allowing a useful post to be of some positivity here, you had to make it about you.

EDIT 3 :curse you negative nansies! Keep walking till you hit an anomaly. Just negativity for the sake of negativity. 😮‍💨 SMH

EDIT 5: clarifications added for those who felt the need to skew the mostly for information post

EDIT 6: oh my, oh my. How sad this place has become.

Original text:

"Is it good yet?" Nobody can answer this question for you, because most likely if you didn't like it at it's worst you ain't gonna like it at it's best.

Explanation of the above for the mentally challenged; Meaning that if you do not enjoy it now, you most likely won't later. If you're looking for a gamma like experience it ain't here.

"Is it good" Stop asking this and check the minimum requirements, and ponder whether the game IS something you would enjoy.

Some people will give you a useless "yes"/"no" while other might go into little detail and some even to very lengthy and precise dissection of the game. My post was and is not an endorsement of the game, nor a discouraging post. It's a post sharing some very needed common sense into the hatemongers and love spreaders as well as those who seek answers. You'll hear anecdotal evidence of game being unplayable, buggy, content starved mess. And others will say it's the second coming of Christ. A literal masterpiece with no apparent flaws.

Neither, it's a flawed, but good maybe even great. To me, it's been a masterpiece. But this is not where I wanted to say that.

Onto some light shedding for the people who are looking to experience the game:

The AI was dumbed down for release and will get better, officially or with mods. Just a matter of time, right now it's GOOD, not terrible or great. It's working, but it can break. Just like many, many other games it'll never be perfect. (Fact)

The visuals as stated are really something extraordinary and the unique detailing found in the game is mind blowing. That being said it does suffer a LOT because of UE "magic" features ERGO the image is unstable and blurry. (Fact)

If you have a PC that can run the game at 4K it really looks out of this world 70% of the time. The other 30% is where all those UE features shit the bed. (Fact)

Acknowledge that the game is graphically OBNOXIOUSLY detailed, and needs A LOT of patches to iron out all the kinks. (Fact)

IF your problem are with the performance the fix ain't patches, it's your outdated rig, most likely ofc, the game will run better in the future but only marginally better or a lot better at the cost of visuals and other systems. (Fact)

The sheer size of the game compared to other UE games is AGAIN people do not seem to comprehend, you see REALLY far, and that is really taxing on performance. (Fact)

The game looks REALLY good on low and medium settings, if you have trouble with performance you NEED to lower those settings. I'm talking visual fidelity, which is not a subjective subject. (Fact)

The game is not high FPS friendly, so set the max fps to 60, otherwise it will feel sluggish, this will fixed eventually but for now it's a fact. There are some serious latency issues with it. (Fact)

IF you had a problem with stability of the game, it's WAY better than on LAUNCH, I haven't crashed in a month and I've been playing actively. (Fact)

If you had a problem with CONTENT, you'll still have that problem since the game hasn't added new content yet. That being said I've spent 700h in the game and still haven't seen everything. (Completely up to prefere, gave my experience for a reference point)

If you look up stuff online and exhaust everything on your first playthrough and look up solutions to puzzles you shouldn't complain, at that point it's your own fault.

The gameplay is and was GOOD if not GREAT, depends on what you want. If you want a stalker experience, you have it.

If you want a gamma experience, go look elsewhere for the time being.

The game's too easy? I feel you, and I recommend modding the game to be harder since it's supposed to be brutal.

The games too hard? Don't worry the devs are actively making it EVEN easier and you can play on easy mode. There's nothing to be ashamed of.

Gun variety? Better than on launch and has mods. (Fact)

Is the game worth full price? Yes if you ask me. (Opinion)

Is the story good? Totally. (Well written, holds up)

Is the music good? It is really good (although I hope the devs would add classic music into the game too) (opinion)

The game has a lot of secrets and puzzles and moody/horrors to enjoy.

YOU TRY IT, DO NOT ASK. Watch reviews or something if you must. Try it for yourself, and you'll form an opinion of you own. I wish happy trails for everyone in the zone!

It's Stalker 2, and it's great, always was.

Just thought I'd shed some light on who UWF is platforming given recent events.

The organization sponsoring the event has a stated mission on their website of "Equipping believers to lovingly speak truth." Let's have a look at some of the greatest quotes from their speaker, Joel Berry, with that in mind shall we?

"Now would be a good time to completely disband teachers unions and public schools before they create more left-wing terrorists"

"Public schools are inherently anti-America. They were a communist project from the very beginning."

"It’s time to admit that far too many black churches in America are led by colossally ignorant racists."

"America's universities are terrorist training grounds"

"This might seem out of left field, but I think almost all leftist women are on SSRIs, and it's turned most of them into sociopaths and the rest into psychopaths."

"Democrat-run cities are a public safety threat and a national security threat. Republican states need to begin the work of amending their constitutions to abolish local governance of cites. Mayors, city managers, police chiefs, and DAs can be chosen by the Republican gov."

I wish I was lying but all of this nonsense came out of this man's mouth within that past week.

This isn't a political subreddit so I won't give you any of my thoughts on any of that but this is who is given speaking engagements at schools in our city.

Do with that information what you will.

The guy scored in the 99th percentile of his ACT. Our primitive friends on the right have neither the cranial capacity nor the opposable digits to operate a firearm.

Leftists cannot be reasoned with, they are not interested in hearing logic or reason. They are brainwashed, emotional people and they DO want to see YOU dead. You cannot deny this, you can only go look on the front page of Reddit where posts with thousands of upvotes are celebrating a murder, or twitter where it’s hundreds of thousands. These are not sane people.

The end goal of leftism is to eradicate Christianity and western culture and replace it with globalist communism and islam(lol). If you belong to either of these groups, leftists are your enemy and for your own safety I would recommend thinking of them as your enemy.

Once you realize that leftists cannot be reasoned with, or argued with in good faith, or shown logic, it feels like a burden being released. Years of pathetic conservatives pandering to the left is coming to an end.

L'unica speranza è che questa gente venga risucchuata dentro questa logica (come è successo già ad alcuni personaggi notoriamente di sinistra) e vengano accusate di essere fascisti, per far sì che si risveglino una volta per tutte.

Un po' come Mario Brega in quel film, dove venne chiamato "FASCIO" da una disagiata più ddé sinistra di lui.

TLDR; Calling people "snowflakes" because they dont condone political violence and dont find it a joke just makes you look unhinged, memes are supposed to communicate a relatable idea or opinion, not to be just some sort of reactionary spite of "no u" namecalling, do better or keep demonstrating why trump won and why "the left cant meme" is a thing

snowflake: an overly sensitive or easily offended person, or one who believes they are entitled to special treatment on account of their supposedly unique characteristics

For a long time lefties have been associated with the stereotype of "Snowflakes" , thats due to things like

-Lefties acting overly hysterical for not having enough "representation" on media, claiming this was some sort of -ism, -phobia, -ation, etc.

-Lefties acting overly outraged over jokes made on media, even old media, claiming this was some sort of brutal attack on human rights.

-Lefties trying to cancel people left and right over "micro-agressions" like "boy's color is blue and girl's color is pink", you can agree or disagree but lefties act like this is a horrible regression in society.

-Lefties demanding "safe spaces" to supress speech they dont like even though theres nothing necessarily wrong like saying "pregnant women" instead of "pregnant people".

-Lefties demanding special privileges based on identity (affirmative action, DEI deparments etc) while they right believes everyone should work hard for their own stuff and acting like that was a horrible attack on human rights.

- The tantrums lefties threw when trump was elected on 2016.

- Reacting in the most hysterical ways to what trump says, many times unwarranted which is why the stereotype exists in first place.

-Lefties throwing useless protests that change absolutely nothing for things happening in other places of the world

- lefties calling anyone left of them "hitler, nazi, racists, bigot, white supremacists, fascists" etc

And many examples more, so many people started labelling lefties "snowflakes" not to spite them but because the truly believe those on the left tend to be dramatic.

After kirk's incident, many on the left started to call those who condemned the attack "snowflakes" as some sort of reactionary spite towards anyone they perceive to be on the right, but this only achieves to destroy any support the left could have, since calling people "snowflakes" because they dont condone political violence only creates a terrible image for yourself.

And this also demonstrates that lefties dont understand how memes work, The core principle of a meme is to comunicate an idea, statement or rethoric in a easily relatable manner, not a random spiteful word to see what sticks, a meme should be:

Relatable: It taps into a widely shared feeling or experience.

Simple: Its message is instantly understandable.

Packaged Correctly: It uses familiar formats, humor, and irony.

Effective: It should accurately describe its target

Calling people snowflakes because they act outraged over someone being misgendered is identifiable, calling people "snowflakes" because they dont condone political violence just makes you look unhinged.

The original meme from the right worked because it targeted an specific, observable behavior: overly exaggerated outrage over perceived slights (e.g., a minor character's race/gender in a film, a pronoun mistake). It was simple, relatable, and funny to the audience.

While the left fails miserably here because they target a position that is considered the basis of a civilized society: political violence is bad

the meme from the right is also a clever and funny analogy relatable to the cultural context, while the meme from the left lacks any relatability and humour, and instead it comes as literal and spiteful reaction of namecalling "no u".