u/Aggressive-Guest290

​

If you want to find the devil, stop looking at Indigenous cultures and start looking at European history.

People are quick to associate the devil with Indigenous religions, colonized peoples, and cultures they don't understand, yet conveniently overlook the history of European societies that claimed to be Christian while participating in colonization, slavery, exploitation, and the dehumanization of entire populations.

Jesus said, Love thy neighbour as thyself.” How do you reconcile that commandment with enslaving your neighbour, conquering their land, and treating them as less than human?

You cannot serve two masters. If you claim to follow Christ but consistently act against the principles he taught, what exactly are you following?

Maybe the real problem is that people have been conditioned to recognize the devil in the cultures of the colonized while refusing to recognize him in the actions of the colonizers.

Apparently, the devil is always somewhere else, never in the history of the people claiming to represent God.

People love comparing countries by GDP, ranking nations from richest to poorest, and acting like living in a wealthy country automatically means having a better life. But how is that wealth distributed? Who actually benefits from it?

What's the point of having one of the largest economies in the world when people are homeless, can't afford food, and have to sell their own bodies just to survive?

Look at the United States. One of the most powerful and wealthiest countries on Earth, yet thousands of people struggle with homelessness and food insecurity. A country can be incredibly wealthy on paper while millions of its people struggle to meet basic needs.

What actually makes a country great isn't just how much money its economy generates, but how much access ordinary people have to the opportunities and resources that money creates.

And this is where people get the whole Africa argument wrong.

Someone will hear that you're from an African country and automatically assume you're poor, as if your nationality determines your standard of living. But imagine someone born in an African country whose parents can afford to send them to an expensive university in the United States or Europe, provide them with housing, and give them access to international opportunities.

Do you honestly think that person lives according to the stereotype people associate with Africa? Of course not. They might have access to a lifestyle that the average person in a much wealthier country could never afford.

Meanwhile, someone born in the United States might have no financial support, no affordable housing, no access to quality education, and no realistic way to escape poverty.

The point is that your country's GDP doesn't determine your personal quality of life. Your access to opportunities, resources, security, and financial support matters enormously.

So when people ask which country is the best or the worst, I think they're asking the wrong question.

The better question is: What kind of life can an ordinary person realistically build there?

Because I don't care how rich your country is on paper. If the system makes it nearly impossible for you to access the wealth and opportunities surrounding you, how much does that national wealth actually mean to you?

​

You’re broke, stuck in the same environment you grew up in, have no real accomplishments, and have no idea when your life is actually going to change.

But then you find someone who looks like you, comes from the same background, or belongs to the same group who is rich, successful, talented, famous, etc.

Suddenly, you’re proud.

Bro, you didn’t do shit.

You didn’t make the money. You didn’t build the company. You didn’t win the championship. You didn’t accomplish anything. You just happen to share some characteristic with the person who did.

And that’s where group pride can become unhealthy. It gives people a way to feel accomplished without actually accomplishing anything themselves.

There’s nothing wrong with being happy when someone from your background succeeds. But when another person’s success becomes your entire source of self-esteem, you’re basically living vicariously through a stranger.

At some point, you have to ask:

“What have I actually done?”

Relationship fases

video People love to say that character matters more than appearance, but everyday social interactions often suggest otherwise. Attractive people can get away with arrogance, selfishness, or even objectively terrible behavior because people are more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Meanwhile, unattractive people can be judged more harshly for the exact same behavior or even disliked before they've done anything wrong.

We like to pretend we judge people by their character, but physical attractiveness has a much bigger influence on how people are perceived than most of us want to admit.

​

Some biracial people talk as if being mixed means they're automatically caught between the Black and white communities, constantly misunderstood and victimized by both.

But being biracial doesn't automatically make someone a victim, and mixed people can also participate in racial gatekeeping, prejudice, or double standards themselves.

Doja Cat is one example of why the “poor biracial person caught between two worlds” narrative can be far more complicated than people make it seem.

k keeping your eyes open while kissing is actually more intimate than closing them.

Everyone acts like closing your eyes automatically makes a kiss more romantic, but honestly, there’s something much more intense about looking at someone while you’re kissing them. You’re not escaping into the moment you’re consciously watching the person you’re sharing it with.

And yes, I know it can feel awkward as hell. But that awkwardness is exactly what makes it intimate. You can see their expression, the little changes in their face, and the way they react to you in real time.

Maybe closing your eyes isn't necessarily about intimacy. Maybe it's just our way of shutting out the outside world because eye contact during a kiss feels way too vulnerable.

I'd actually argue that the person who can comfortably keep their eyes open while kissing you has a different level of confidence and intimacy.

Closing your eyes is romantic. Keeping them open is vulnerable.

crianças não precisam ser beijadas na boca para receber carinho. Além da questão dos limites e da intimidade, existe também uma preocupação de saúde: o vírus da herpes pode ser transmitido pelo contacto com a boca, inclusive quando a pessoa não apresenta feridas visíveis.

Há muitas outras formas de demonstrar amor abraços, beijos na testa, carinho e palavras de afeto. Para mim, não há necessidade de colocar uma criança em contacto desnecessário com a saliva de adultos principalmente Pessoas que praticam sexo oral não devem dar beijinhos em crianças:herpes.

well,” as if having good intentions automatically makes the outcome acceptable. It doesn’t.

There’s a story about a monkey that sees a fish struggling in the water. The monkey assumes the fish is drowning, so it reaches into the water, grabs the fish, and pulls it onto land to “save” it. In the monkey’s mind, it just did something compassionate. It had absolutely no intention of hurting the fish.

But the fish dies.

The monkey’s intention was good. Its understanding was completely wrong.

And I think humans do this all the time. We interfere in situations we don’t understand, give advice on things we know nothing about, try to “help” people without actually understanding what they need, and then expect our intentions to excuse the consequences.

Good intentions don't compensate for ignorance.

Sometimes, the most harmful thing you can do is confidently “help” someone when you don't actually understand the situation.

If you genuinely want to help, learn first. Understand the problem. Ask questions. Listen.

Because from the perspective of the person being “helped,” it doesn't matter that you meant well if your actions made everything worse.

Not Every Culture Deserves Automatic Respect

Nowadays, there is an idea that every culture should be respected simply because it is a culture. I disagree.

I can respect people's right to exist, practice their religion, and maintain their traditions. But that does not mean I am obligated to respect every custom or value that comes with them.

If a culture normalizes domestic violence, child marriage, persecution of minorities, female genital mutilation, or treats women as second-class citizens, then I don't see why it should receive respect simply because it is "part of the culture."

To me, saying that all cultures are equally valid is a form of moral relativism that ignores the real suffering of millions of people.

Respecting people is one thing. Respecting every tradition and custom without questioning it is something completely different.

Not everything deserves to be preserved simply because it has existed for a long time. Some traditions improve people's lives. Others merely perpetuate suffering.

It’s not wrong to consider certain as practices “inferior” and a setback for humanity.

Religion and culture shouldn’t be immune to criticism.

Everyone has the right to choose their own religion, culture, tradition, or lifestyle. Fine. Nobody should be persecuted for it.

But it seems that the moment something is labeled as “culture” or “religion,” it automatically becomes untouchable.

“You can’t criticize it, it’s their culture.”

“Don’t speak badly about it, it’s their religion.”

Okay, and?

Having the right to follow a belief doesn’t mean everyone else is obligated to respect the ideas behind it. People deserve rights and respect; ideas can be questioned, mocked, criticized, and even considered absurd.

If a tradition, belief, or practice can’t survive criticism, maybe the problem isn’t the criticism.

Religious freedom and cultural respect should also include the freedom to say: “I think this is bullshit.”

It’s not wrong to consider certain as practices “inferior” and a setback for humanity.

Religion and culture shouldn’t be immune to criticism.

Everyone has the right to choose their own religion, culture, tradition, or lifestyle. Fine. Nobody should be persecuted for it.

But it seems that the moment something is labeled as “culture” or “religion,” it automatically becomes untouchable.

“You can’t criticize it, it’s their culture.”

“Don’t speak badly about it, it’s their religion.”

Okay, and?

Having the right to follow a belief doesn’t mean everyone else is obligated to respect the ideas behind it. People deserve rights and respect; ideas can be questioned, mocked, criticized, and even considered absurd.

If a tradition, belief, or practice can’t survive criticism, maybe the problem isn’t the criticism.

Religious freedom and cultural respect should also include the freedom to say: “I think this is bullshit.”

It’s not wrong to consider certain as practices “inferior” and a setback for humanity.

Religion and culture shouldn’t be immune to criticism.

Everyone has the right to choose their own religion, culture, tradition, or lifestyle. Fine. Nobody should be persecuted for it.

But it seems that the moment something is labeled as “culture” or “religion,” it automatically becomes untouchable.

“You can’t criticize it, it’s their culture.”

“Don’t speak badly about it, it’s their religion.”

Okay, and?

Having the right to follow a belief doesn’t mean everyone else is obligated to respect the ideas behind it. People deserve rights and respect; ideas can be questioned, mocked, criticized, and even considered absurd.

If a tradition, belief, or practice can’t survive criticism, maybe the problem isn’t the criticism.

Religious freedom and cultural respect should also include the freedom to say: “I think this is bullshit.”

It’s not wrong to consider certain as practices “inferior” and a setback for humanity.

Religion and culture shouldn’t be immune to criticism.

Everyone has the right to choose their own religion, culture, tradition, or lifestyle. Fine. Nobody should be persecuted for it.

But it seems that the moment something is labeled as “culture” or “religion,” it automatically becomes untouchable.

“You can’t criticize it, it’s their culture.”

“Don’t speak badly about it, it’s their religion.”

Okay, and?

Having the right to follow a belief doesn’t mean everyone else is obligated to respect the ideas behind it. People deserve rights and respect; ideas can be questioned, mocked, criticized, and even considered absurd.

If a tradition, belief, or practice can’t survive criticism, maybe the problem isn’t the criticism.

Religious freedom and cultural respect should also include the freedom to say: “I think this is bullshit.”

“Mãe raiz” muitas vezes é só um termo gourmet para comportamento tóxico.

Gritar, humilhar, controlar, bater ou fazer chantagem emocional não vira educação porque a pessoa é mãe e “quer o melhor para os filhos”. E o clássico “mas olha como o filho ficou bem criado” não prova que os métodos eram bons.

Às vezes o resultado foi bom apesar dos métodos, não por causa deles.

“Os fins justificam os meios” é uma desculpa conveniente quando não queremos admitir que certas práticas abusivas foram normalizadas culturalmente.