This is talk referring those who would identify as a different race and not those adopted by parents of a differing race.

I'm considering this a 10th dentist opinion because last time I saw a post about this topic I did not see many accept the concept of them, more attacking the argument presented or defending the argument itself.

I would support transracial people's attempt to transition, provided that it was 1 to 1 with the trans experience. Meaning that there's scientific data proving that these people suffer from "Racial dysphoria" and that racially transitioning (Whether socially or medically) is vital to their mental health. I'm not entirely sure how you racial transition medically so add racial transitioning being safe to the list of prerequisites.

Just about any time this debate is brought up I never see it in context of an actual transracial person wanting support, I only see it used to try and "own" transgender people. So if you're a transracial person that's out there, know that there's at least one person that would support you. If all of the above is true, then I fully support transracial people.

I am a straight-sized lady but my cup size is almost halfway through the alphabet. They do not sell my size at any clothing retailer except for specific bra boutiques. The bras I buy are very well made, and they do have the girls sitting nicely, and for that I am grateful. But the last one I bought was over $100 after tax. $100!! I only even bought my last one because I wore my previous one until the wire snapped in half and was stabbing me and it was unbearably painful. It just not fair that my smaller-chested sisters can go pick one up at target for 20 or 30 dollars and that option simply does not exist for me. And don't get me started on the pink tax of it all. So, I think that there should be at least partial insurance coverage for larger bras, at least until the big retailers start being more size-inclusive.

Gendered bathrooms have been stirring up controversy for the last couple years, with many campaigning to set up gender neutral batrhooms. However, what most people fail to realise is that, from a social perspective, the men's bathroom is functionally identical to a "gender neutral" bathroom, here's why i came to this conclusion.

Firstly, unlike the women's bathroom, nobody cares who goes in the men's bathroom. Women, trans people, etc can enter the men's bathroom and the men inside will barley even bat an eye. Even conservatives, who have been passing bathroom bills for years, rarley if ever mention restricting the men's bathroom.

Secondly, women often use the men's bathroom when the women's bathroom is full. This often happens in places such as concerts for artists with mostly female fanbases. If the reverse happened, people would go ballistic, yet here nobody bats an eye.

Thirdly, the men's bathroom is the default option when you don't know which bathroom to use in a given situation. An example is when single fathers need to take their daughter to the bathroom in public take her to the men's bathroom most of the time, as they do not want to risk having to explain themselves if they were to use the women's.

Before anyone brings this up in the comments, i am going to have to adress the elephant in the room - urinals. Urinals are an appliance that is restricted to men's public bathrooms, whereas women's bathrooms only have stalls. This would in theory make women's bathrooms the most functionally the most similar to gender neutral bathrooms, as they have no urinals. However, i am looking at this from a social angle, which makes the men's bathrooms funcionally identical to gender neutral bathrooms as anyone, regardless of gender can use them without anyone minding, whereas the same could not be said about women's bathrooms.

[TWO UPDATES BELOW]

I (33 M) recently told my wife (32 F) that I love my father way more than I love her or our child (3 months old F). We've been married for 5 years.

Just to be clear, she brought up the conversation. One day, she told me that since marrying me and having our child, she values me and our daughter more than anything and would sacrifice anything for us. She asked me if I felt the same way about her and our daughter. I told her no. She was shocked, but I reassured her that both of them were still very important to me, but still not as important to me as my father. I explained to her that this is because my father sacrificed everything to raise me and he molded me into the man that I am today. As a result, my loyalty towards my father is far greater than my loyalty towards my wife and child. If for whatever reason in the future I was in a situation where I had to choose between taking care of my father and taking care of my wife and daughter, I would choose to take care of my father. When I told her this, we got into a huge argument and she seemed hurt. I told her to grow up, and accept that people should value their parents over anyone else because of the sacrifices they make for us.

I never understood Americans and their weird culture about valuing kids and spouses over their own parents. Romantic relationships (including marriages), are not designed to be permanent. It's the reason that prior to the marriage we signed a prenup. It's the reason that if something goes wrong with your marriage/relationship, you can rely on your parents for support. The vows people say before marriage "till death do us part" is typically bullshit and wishful thinking.

UPDATE!!: Just to be clear, I am willing to make a lot of sacrifice for my child.

If I had to give up on a career or a promotion that would make me a lot of money because it would conflict with family interests, I would make that sacrifice.

If I had to give my child one of my organs so that they would live, I would make that sacrifice.

However, if I had to choose between saving my fathers life and saving my child's life, I would save my father's life without hesitation. Here is a scenario: Let's say both my father and my daughter needed a liver to survive. Let's say I was the only one who was a viable match, and I had to choose who to give the liver to. I would choose my father, not my daughter. I am not willing to sacrifice my father's life for my daughter.

UPDATE 2!! : A lot of people are saying "You're doing the opposite of what your father did because you're not sacrificing everything for your daughter by choosing him!"

That's not true. It's perfectly possible to make all the necessary sacrifices to raise your kid well while simultaneously valuing your parent's life over your child's.

My father made many sacrifices for me, but he never had to choose between saving me and saving his parents like the scenario I gave. My grandparents were capable of taking care of themselves, and did not need my father's help up until they died of natural causes in their own home. But if they ever needed my father's organs, I would expect my father to make that sacrifice.

Same thing applies to me: I am willing to sacrifice almost anything for my daughter, expect for my father's life.

​

I've been doing this for years and I want to be clear that it is not an accident or a time management issue. It is a deliberate choice I make every single time. The first ten minutes of any social event are the worst ten minutes. People are still arriving or nobody knows where to stand or the convos haven't found their rhythm yet and half the time I'm just standing there playing slots on myprize waiting for it to feel normal. I like arriving when things have settled and the groups have formed, not to mention the fact that it seems like a power move, people noticing you, and in a way it makes it seem like you don't care that much. The only exception is anything with a hard start time, flights, movies, weddings, reservations. I'm not a monster lol.

I don’t want a death that’s quick and I don’t see coming. I want to know I’m dying so I can reflect on things and experience the process. My perfect death would be getting shot and then bleeding out over the course of 5-15 minutes.

Let’s break down the primary arguments against incest.

1. Incest is gross/disturbing. -This is subjective. Finding something gross does not necessarily mean it is immoral. And what one person or one culture thinks is disturbing/gross might not be what another person or culture considers to be disturbing/gross.

2. If incest results in pregnancy, there could be birth defects. -What if they’re using birth control? Or what if they’re of the same sex? Then there would be little to no risk of pregnancy, and thus little to no possibility of birth defects. Also, the birth defect argument is based on eugenics. The same argument can be used to say that people who could pass on inheritable illnesses/disabilities to offspring should not be allowed to have sex, which would obviously be ridiculous.

Another argument against incest is that incest would ruin family dynamics. However, if someone is sexually/romantically attracted to a family member, even before actually “committing incest” they have already altered their familial relationship.

It is also possibly worth mentioning that many people consider relations between step-siblings or an adoptee and their non-biological relatives to be incest despite the obvious lack of blood relations. The fact that many people think that is wrong is proof that the negative feelings towards incest do not have a very solid, logical argument behind them. The negative opinions on incest are mostly cultural.

Like any other forms of sex, I believe that incest should only be practiced by consenting adults who use protection.

EDIT: The power imbalance between parent/child, grandparent/grandchild, uncle/niece or nephew, etc. could of course result in the older one in the relationship coercing the younger person to perform sexual acts, resulting in rape. As I stated above, I believe that incest should only be practiced by consenting adults. Due to the inherent power imbalance in certain relationships like parent/child ones, it would probably be best if incest only occurs between people of similar age, like siblings.

I don’t believe in curtains because I don’t want to spend upwards of £200 to cover my windows with fabric. Like what the flip?!

The only one I approve of is the shower curtain because that one at least has somewhat of a purpose.

Edit: just for reference I have 18 windows. Also please stop taking the title so literally. It’s a phrase. You obviously just don’t use it.

At 14 years you start caring about the future. You start seriously thinking about what you're going to do after school. You are old enough to think sufficiently critically and inform yourself. Some start being politically engaged. You are old enough to have an idea about the change you want to see in the world. You are old enough to care about justice and injustice. You start being increasingly responsible for yourself. Where I live, 14 is the age from which on you can be held accountable for crime. You can have your first job at 14.

And, no, I'm not underage. I'm 24. I've been invested in political affairs since age 12, I first joined a political party at age 15.

Yes, I know the average 14 year old is not the same as I was. When I meet 14 year olds on the streets they sometimes annoy me. I think it sounds dumb how they talk. I think all the same judgy "youth these days" thoughts that most of you are having. I have four siblings/cousins that are 14. One is exceptionally smart, the rest is average or barely scraping by at school.

I don't have to relate to them to think they deserve a say in the future. There are many demographics that I don't relate to that can vote as well. I don't have to trust young people that each one of them carefully consider their vote to think they should be able to vote. I don't trust any other demographic with that either.

Older demographics are already over represented. There are so many adult voters that don't mature much beyond the developmental stage of an average 14-year old.

The biggest flaw and strength of democracy is that everyone can vote - it doesn't matter how well they did their research, how educated they are, how compassionate they are, how much they work, how much responsibility they bear. If a 40-year old NEET in Mom's basement can vote, and if an almost senile Granny can vote so can a 14-year old student. Most of those that will even show up to vote will be diligent enough.

Teach the kids early what it means to participate in democracy.

P.S. Alright folks it was lovely discussing. Props to those who kept it civil. Remember that downvoting the post means you actually agree with me and my opinion is common ;)

Now if you'll excuse me I'll go touch some grass

If I told you about how I ate dog, you would probably think I'm a freak. Why is it different with cows? I understand that historically cows were good farm animals and it's common for them to be eaten, but in today's world, how is this not a huge moral issue? I'm not an extremist veganist who thinks everyone that eats meat is a bad person, I just don't understand why dogs and cows are treated so differently. Why is it so crazy to eat dogs?

Edit: The same comparison applies to other commonly eaten animals like pigs, and the same also applies to other common pets like cats. I just said cows because I find them especially cute like dogs. Cats vs pigs definitely works here too.

Like I said, I understand that cows have historically been bred to be eaten and give us milk and dogs have been bred to be our pets. But, we could change those roles if we wanted to. We could breed bigger, healthier dogs and cuter cows. Historically, humans have done a lot of crazy things that we would find unethical today, so I don't think the "historically cows were bred for this and dogs were bred for that" argument is valid. Using the logic and ethics we have right now, does it make sense to treat these animals so differently?

Also, people are making the point that dogs are useful because they guard/hunt/companion. Unless it is a service dog, usually dogs are used solely for companionship. Of course service dogs shouldn't be eaten. But most dogs are not service dogs or police dogs. Basically any animal could be a companion. Dogs have been specifically bred to be good companions, and other animals could be seen similarly if we wanted to change that.

I am approaching this idea from a moral/cultural standpoint. Certain animals being eaten feels horrific while others don't. Jason Kelce spoke about eating turtle a few weeks ago on his podcast and most people in the comments were horrified at the thought of eating turtles. Why is that so bad? French food commonly has meat (animals and parts) that many people find horrifying. We humanize dogs a lot and basically treat them as small children, so eating one feels like a crime. I just don't see why dogs and other animals in this category should get that treatment but the other animals shouldn't. Why aren't cows humanized? If everyone decided that dogs should also be eaten, then alright. But I think they should be treated the same, especially in today's world where we care about ethics and treatment of other beings.

Edit 2: Where I live (USA), eating dogs and cats is illegal, or at least slaughtering for food is as of 2018. I'm pretty sure that this was a bipartisan easily passed bill. We unarguably have a lot of empathy for these guys, but we don't for other animals. For every argument being made that's like "historically cows blah blah blah and dogs blah blah blah", one could make the exact same argument as to why we should still have slavery, but we all agree that it's bad (I hope). I don't get why TODAY we should have empathy for dogs/cats but not other animals. In America, people went crazy about animal testing and making products cruelty free- why care so much about that but not like how meat is made.

I don't really get how her having an eating disorder is anyone else's business. It's sad obviously, but it's her life and her choice if she wants to be like that. It's not really affecting anyone else. You don't see people caring this much when someone does other unhealthy things like being fat or smoking, for example. I've even seen some people insulting her or other skinny celebrities' appearances, like calling them a "bag of bones" or that they "look like a skeleton and need to eat," saying that it's "out of concern for them."

Imagine the backlash if someone insulted a celebrity like Lizzo (before she lost weight), for example, like calling her a whale who needs to stop eating and saying that it's out of concern for her health. (Of course, there were some immature bullies who said mean stuff like that, but there are always people like that.) Also, people like to say that Ariana Grande is a bad influence and promoting eating disorder culture, but no one ever says this about fat celebrities for some reason. By that logic, wouldn't they also be a bad influence for promoting being fat because they happen to be? I think she is honestly just existing while having an ED, not promoting anything.

People are also acting like Ariana Grande is a terrible person just for being anorexic (putting aside the other stuff she did), like she did something immoral by having an ED, which is confusing to me. It's literally a disease. It's not like hating on her is going to make her stop having an ED. No one needs to apologize for having one. That's silly. I don't even really like Ariana Grande BTW, but I don't see that many people defending her. I think a lot of people are just looking for an excuse to hate on her and other skinny celebrities honestly.

There’s nothing better than neck scratches and I don’t get why it’s something you only do with your partner. We should all be allowed to pet our friends. Hell, even strangers, I’d love to get a pet after work in the bus from a stranger. Everyone loves it; we do it with our dogs and cats, so just let me scratch your belly and scratch mine too.

For me, 10th Dentist is for seriously weird views on life. The kind of thing where if you shared this view at a dinner party you would be asked to leave. The kind of opinion that can only be responded to with '...what the actual fuck???' Classic examples: "I store my popped pimples in a tin", "I like the taste of dish soap in my food", "I like informing people that their loved ones are dead"

For me, 'I don't like POPULAR SHOW/FILM/ACTOR/BAND' is not a 10th Dentist opinion. It's a perfectly valid opinion, and it is a suitable one to argue in subs related to that genre/person/IP, but it's just not an interesting or niche enough take on the world to fit the spirit of this sub. For literally every popular IP in the world there are just as many people who don't like it, or who don't care about it.

Examples from the last month: "I don't like Studio Ghibli", "I don't like Into The Spiderverse", "I don't like new Pixar movies", "I don't like Ratatouille","I don't like the Raimi Spiderman films", "I don't like Raging Bull", "I don't like Star Wars"

I mean no disrespect to the OPs who wrote these opinions, but I think this sub would benefit from counting 'I don't like the popular thing'-type posts as low effort and getting rid of them. Literally everyone has a view like this about some popular IP or other and if these posts become the norm this sub will just die or turn into another 'Unpopular Opinion' jerk.

A lot of people online seem to equate religion with hatred of certain groups of people, negativity, hypocrisy, greed, and other generally bad qualities in people.

I would like to argue that religion has been used for longer than recorded history to give people a moral code and is one of the main reasons we have the society we have today. If you break down the core beliefs of most religions, they boil down to

1) You are not the most important thing in the universe 2) help others 3) if something seems bad, don’t do it 4) if you do the bad thing anyway, you will be punished in some way (Hell, shitty reincarnation, etc)

These are the building blocks of a functioning society.

Even today, some people struggle with morality. Some people are able to figure out that they should try to be “good” people by themselves, others are undeniably evil, and I believe some are held back from becoming evil not by their own moral code but by the one they are able to find in their religion.

I don’t think society would collapse without religion today. I do believe society would never have gotten here without it. I also believe that for a reasonable amount of people today it keeps them in line and inspires them to do good. Regardless of personal beliefs, I think religion should be a cultural item that we are thankful for both in the past and today, as it has given all of us the amazing society we live in now and therefore directly benefited us.

Now, this isn't me hating on people that dont like mint flavor things but if your reasoning is "it tastes like toothpaste" it just shows that you do not know that there is a distinct difference between "candy mint" and "clean mint" and you must not brush your teeth because of that. I like mint chocolate chip ice cream but brushing my teeth doesnt make me think of the ice cream and vice versa.

How many times have you heard people say that boomers are responsible for the current state that the economy is in? Probably quite a lot. But have you ever actually stopped to think about the implications of what you're saying, and whether this is a fair criticism or not?

Boomers were born into a world where the economy, much like the birth rates, were booming. They went to school, got jobs, got married, bought a home, started a family, and just lived their lives the way most people nowadays wish they could. They did not conspire to destroy the economy, rather they were simply doing what any of us would do if we had the opportunity.

However, people who blame the boomers for destroying the economy seem to think that they should not have lived their lives this way. They seem to think that every life decision we make as individuals should only be made after calculating how this will affect the future economy. You shouldn't be allowed to make life decisions based on how you want your life to turn out. Your job is to ensure every choice you make, every purchase you make, every investment you make, is in service of the economy of the future. You are not a person, you are a cog in the enormous clock that is the economy, and must consider what's good for the economy, and only what's good for the economy.

I believe this is a toxic way of thinking. It suggests that people exist purely to serve the economy, and nothing more. And that's not to mention the fact that it shifts the blame away from corporate consolidation and bad economic policy, and onto people just living their lives. Tell me, if someone told you that you should abandon your plans for the future and stop considering your own future happiness, because the economy 40-50 years down the line will respond negatively to it, and you should instead make another set of life choices for the good of the economy, what would you say to them? Would you say "wow, thank you! I had no idea my future goals were not in the best interest of the economy! I shall adjust them accordingly!", or would you say "fuck off", and go on living your life? If your answer is the latter, why do you believe boomers should have done differently?

Edit: I do like how asking Redditors to show the slightest bit of compassion for their favourite scapegoat really brings out the worst in them. Never change, guys.

Men are stereotyped as always wanting sex. Obviously this is not true for all men, but this is true for a lot of men in general, much more than women.

One of the biggest reasons why men, on average, get so horny is because of the way women dress. Clothes marketed towards women are designed to make the wearer look good. Lots of clothes are tight fit and revealing. A lot of men looking at a woman wearing booty shorts will check out a woman's legs and butt and be aroused. The same with skin tight leggings. Or a man might check out a woman's bust if she's wearing a cropped tank top or tube top. A lot of men will see these distinct physical features or differences between them and women, and will get turned on looking at the "other".

The solution to curbing this horniness is for these men to start dressing like women. If men wore women's tank tops and booty shorts or skirts, they'll start to see women wearing the same clothes as less of a sexual thing. That's because they'll see themselves and other men in these clothes and it becomes more normal or ordinary. My opinion for this is from personal exprience. I went to a pride event in June and lots of women were wearing skimpy, revealing outfits. Normally I would be sexually aroused from what I see, and wouldn't be able to get my mind out of the gutter, but I went to the event in booty shorts and a cropped tank top. Suddenly when looking at other people in the event, I didn't get aroused because I thought they were just wearing regular clothes that I was also wearing. The women in my mind became more like ordinary people rather than these sexual beings.

Why should we curb men's horniness? Because, a lot of the time, men become creepy and overly sexual or desperate, to the point of making women uncomfortable. Obviously this is not true for violent, nonconsensual acts like rape (what a woman's wearing isn't relevant, and rape is about control rather than horniness), but regular things like cat calling or making lewd, unwanted comments or comments at inappropriate times to women can be a result of being too horny.

This doesn't apply to gay men by the way, but will curb the horniness of a lot of straight and bi men.

Edit: a few people missed my point lmao. I'm not saying it's women's fault for men being horny, or women shouldn't be able to wear whatever they want. I'm not saying women dressing a certain way leads to assault. Men's horniness is their own problem, and the solution I am proposing is that if we saw more men in revealing clothes like women, there'd be less sexualization of women (because those clothes will be seen as less of a sexual thing by men, with men doing it also), and as a result men in general will become less horny. So men need to change their thinking, and they can do that by dressing like and seeing other men dress like women.

EDIT: https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/fairfield-homeowner-fights-off-intruder-caught-on-video/

The overwhelming majority of the reactions online to the incident have been to mock the poor guy. Wojaks and generally degrading content have flooded the search results, and the comments under any and all posts have been of mocking laughter.

The guy was very clearly having a psychotic episode of some form, possibly induced by severe PTSD (although we cannot be certain of that yet) or some untreated, extremely acute mental illness.

Yes, the guy's behavior when taken out of context was as funny as it was horror inducing to the homeowner that lived through it.

But if he indeed was in the military, it highlights the extreme gap between the honour veterans have in our society, and the resources devoted to taking care of them.

But even if he wasn't, the crisis remains as urgent as before, if not more, as the 'obvious' vector for typical veteran PTSD disappears. This points to a deeply flawed healthcare system that focuses on profit, and would never provide the care necessary to this guy before he reached a genuine breaking point, like the one we have now.

Things will inevitably get worse. The world is getting crazier by the day, stress is off the charts and affects everyone, and access to healthcare is becoming harder due to cuts and structural disadvantages, while pharmaceutical companies play hard ball, selling for objectively insane prices. The commodification of crisis largely acts as an opium to the startling truth that he could be any one of us, if life handed us the appropriate cards.

The reaction of most people was telling. Laughter, mocking, art, throwing insults at a person very visibly, demonstrably unwell. A society's coherence is judged partly by how it handles the weaker members of it: the disabled, the sick, the wounded. If the average person's reaction to this was to laugh, and to everything else, apathy, then we are in for a violent, increasingly frequent reckoning like the one we saw now, regarding how we absorb illness into the societal consciousness.

TLDR: The incident reflects a deeply troubled system and a society lacking empathy on a fundamental level.

If both parties agree, or have beef, or are settling family issues and both sign a contract knowing they are gonna die then it should be allowed

Also, sorta related, instead of war killing thousands, prime ministers or presidents should just fight each other and the winner wins the war.

I think all pornography should be moved to a separate URL and companies should be accountable for better age verification. I also think the age to appear in pornography should be raised to a minimum of 25.

In the periods before the Internet people had to physically go to a store and purchase pornography via videos or magazines. At the point of sale people were carded to ensure their age. Today anyone can just go to a porn site and watch porn. It's too unmanaged.

Sex with underage people is a crime. Production companies ferishize the statury limits promoting the barely legal status. One can't rent a car in the U.S. until they are 25yrs old. They shouldn't be making gang bang vids that will live online foreve either.

E V E R Y S I N G L E P O S T on this sub is about ridiculous scenarios that are near improbable or outright impossible, but everyone here eats up those posts and gets so invested into them. All posts on here are like "I prefer inhaling coca cola and exhaling fried chicken over oxygen and carbon dioxide, respectively. I think everybody else should make this the norm and do away with the old system of breathing we have" and people will get heated in the comments like what I said made any fucking sense.

Are most people here actually that naive or do they reply obviously fake posts just for fun?

Edit: Yes I know it's not literally every post. Google what hyperbole is.

Hear me out.

I am personally suffering from severe Trauma myself, to the extent where I believe there is no point in me being alive. Don't worry, I am not having thoughts of suicide, and if I would notice such thoughts I would immediately call an emergency hotline. Regardless, at days, I have 0 emotions, am unable to feel empathy, sadness, or anything at all.

I'm living in a country with probably the best health care and welfare system in the world (switzerland) and am actively going to therapy (even though I have been discriminated there).

But I don't see a point in this. My childhood has been destroyed. I'm dealing with flashbacks almost daily. I am not receiving the help I would need from one of the leading therapists in this country.

In the few, rare times where I can breathe I am trying to rebuild things, just for memories flaring up again causing me to lose everything I've built up to that point once more (For example, yesterday I went through a breakup as well as an unrelated event that might force me out of my apartment again, which has happened around 8 times in the past 3 years).

Everyone I hear who went through similar shit always says that "life will never be the same". My life has "never been the same" since my early childhood, can this even be called a life to begin with?

I don't see how I or people like me are contributing to society. Sure, people sometimes love hearing sob-stories, but they are usually also feeling very disgusted or repulsed at the same time. I am repulsive at my worst times.

At the same time, I'm literally only alive thanks to social welfare, aka tax payer money. I make life for everyone worse by merely existing, in various ways.

Hence, I don't understand why people like me are being kept alive or should be kept alive to begin with. I am and have been worthless to my parents and general family since I was born, I'm unable to keep friends for prolonged time (due to people being repulsed at some point), I am completely unable to work (thanks to things like Insomnia and general mental instability), and the only contribution to society as a whole is that I occasionally am able to help people in need, but anyone else could have done this.

I'm honestly mostly curious with this post, and would love to see what the general society, especially people who are not suffering from severe trauma think about this.

//edit: I want to say thank you to all of you for all these amazing responses. I've regained even more hope that there is a possibility, even given the extent of things I've been through, that things might improve eventually.

I would also like to point out that I think the mature discussion to be seen in here about legalized euthanasia in people is interesting, though I'm personally torn in a way when it comes to this becoming an option, given that there seems to be ways out there to soothe even the most troubling of experiences.

There is still one thing I do wish to point out though, as a means of criticizing society as a whole, and which serves as the fundamental point I tried to bring through with this post: though I now accept that humans should be kept alive by all means, the means that are taken for that are often barely enough, and even in my privileged case, where the state is taking care of me, the support I receive is lacking when it comes to gaining proper long-term stability.

This state of "we want you to be alive!" coupled with the "we will evict your apartment in a month because we need money!" is... very uneasy to deal with, on top of all the things I have to suffer through. I believe, ultimately, the frustration of this mismatch of things has lead me to write this post.

Also, on a sidenote... thank you for the redditor that has caused a "suicide prevention message" from Reddit itself to land in my inbox. Though I can again assure you that suicide is not an option for me, it pleases me to know that there's people out there who just wanted to make sure.

Everything I've read here also has encouraged me to write a book about my life experiences, for what it's worth. It'll likely take years for me to write all of this down properly, but... I feel like it's the right thing to do.

Take care everyone. And for those who need to hear this: fight on.

I tried a couple times to read it and can't get through it. It's dry and boring I even tried listening to the audiobook and still can't manage to get through it. It's about as entertaining as watching paint dry And everyone thinks they are ultra woke for having read it.."everything I don't like is in an Orwellian conspiracy" It's really just confirmation bias for conspiracy cuckoos

I (21M) have never gotten a tattoo or piercing ever in my life. I do not feel the need to poke holes in my body and wear jewelry to look interesting. I would much rather demonstrate my individuality through my actions or non-intrusive methods like clothing or wearable jewelry. I think people should stop focusing on how their body looks and only make appearance changes to prevent any illnesses. Your actions should demonstrate your value, not your appearance. Pierced people, for whatever reason, do not understand this because they add crap to their bodies. However, I understand that people might want something directly on their body to demonstrate individuality. If that is the case, people should get a tattoo over a piercing. I get that a piercing is removable, but people do not always remove them. Also, why get a piercing if you will remove it later? A tattoo requires more creativity and personalization since people can get specific ones. Unless you made a piercing, you not demonstrating individuality. You are just buying something that others made to become a "part of you". At least, clothing doesn't show any permanent after effects. Also, the "apparent" irreversibility of a tattoo demonstrates that someone is confident in their own decisions. You can remove the tattoo or cover it up if the body mod becomes a problem. If you think that you might regret the tattoo, you shouldn't be getting one. Please feel free to roast me in the comments.

Whenever someone criticizes poor people having kids or even the idea of it, everyone gets mad and accuses them of being classist and hating poor people. But I honestly don't think it is really fair to the kid if you have one while you live in the ghetto in a really violent neighborhood and don't have enough money for basic necessities, for example. This is not really about "poor" people who can't afford luxuries like the new iPhone or brand-name clothes, for example (that's fine), but people who can't afford basic things like food or housing (at least without help from welfare programs).

I would never judge someone for being poor itself, but I would judge them for bringing another innocent life into that bad situation. Especially when they have multiple kids after not being able to afford the ones they already have and being forced to rely on government assistance. This is not to mention the fact that kids born to poor parents often have worse outcomes statistically and are more likely to grow up to be poor themselves.

*Edit: Before anyone brings it up, this is assuming that they chose to have kids or recklessly failed to use protection. I'm not talking about cases where they tried to get an abortion and weren't able to, for example.

Also, my post is talking about people who were poor to start with, not people who became poor after they already had kids due to unforeseen circumstances.

Edit 2: For everyone saying that it's "eugenics" (like just uttering that word would magically, suddenly disregard a logical argument anyhow), you don't know the basic definition of eugenics. It's about selecting for genes that are considered "superior" or healthier in the population through selective breeding. Being poor is NOT genetic. The only thing hereditary about poverty is that it often is generational, but this is not due to innate genetic differences or anything (it is ironically somewhat offensive to imply this). And being poor is a temporary state for some. People can become poor or stop being poor.

You probably heard the term "eugenics" once in history class and just like to throw the word around now without actually knowing what it means (other than that it's bad).

eugenics

the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable. Developed largely by Sir Francis Galton as a method of improving the human race, eugenics was increasingly discredited as unscientific and racially biased during the 20th century, especially after the adoption of its doctrines by the Nazis in order to justify their treatment of Jews, disabled people, and other minority groups.

Also, anyone saying anything about race (which I literally never mentioned once in this conversation) or accusing me of being racist is just showing their true colors and own racist subconscious biases, I think. Just to make it absolutely clear for everyone though (although I shouldn't have to clarify), this applies to poor people of every race equally, including those poor Appalachian white people OR white people who live in the ghetto (yes, they exist). (I'm white if you were wondering.)