u/BearingCostOfPassion

That's it. Hitler is way too discussed. Yes, he was an evil, horrific perpetrator of genocide, but he wasn't as historically significant as people often make him out to be. He was, ultimately, another authoritarian politician who happened to gain enormous power and cause catastrophic destruction.

P.S.: Halfway through writing this, I realized this could sound insensitive to Holocaust survivors and victims, which is absolutely not my intention. The Holocaust and WWII must be studied and remembered so we never forget the horrors humans are capable of. My point is simply that Hitler himself is often given disproportionate attention. WWII affected people across the world, including millions of Indians and Japanese, and the Allied powers were hardly saints either, Britain, for instance, exploited India during the war. They created multiple man made famines in India. USA dropped second nuclear bomb for no reasons at all. and there are countless war crimes done during , before and after ww2.

I’m not going to say respect has to be earned. I think we all deserve some basic respect and consideration.

But women who think men should always make the first move (from asking out to proposing), hold doors, pay for dates, or that men are inherently immature and should therefore always date younger women, etc., are being naive. All of these expectations can reflect a sense of entitlement and, frankly, a greedy nature. And you know who loves greedy people? Con artists and manipulators.

These women may either end up with a “nice guy” who lacks confidence, meaning they settle for someone they don’t genuinely want, or they may fall for a love-bomber who gives them the “princess treatment” and eventually makes their life hell.

Obviously, people can outgrow these expectations, and I genuinely hope they do. I don’t think they deserve to end up in an abusive relationship. But if they keep refusing to outgrow this fantasy of being treated like a princess, they may end up paying a very harsh price for it.

I don’t respect that mindset, but I still don’t want anyone to suffer because of it. Chivalry is one thing; expecting men to constantly prove their worth through money, attention, and special treatment is another. At that point, it can either become love-bombing from manipulative men or plain entitlement toward men who simply aren’t interested in playing that role.

I’m not going to say respect has to be earned. I think we all deserve some basic respect and consideration.

But women who think men should always make the first move (from asking out to proposing), hold doors, pay for dates, or that men are inherently immature and should therefore always date younger women, etc., are being naive. All of these expectations can reflect a sense of entitlement and, frankly, a greedy nature. And you know who loves greedy people? Con artists and manipulators.

These women may either end up with a “nice guy” who lacks confidence, meaning they settle for someone they don’t genuinely want, or they may fall for a love-bomber who gives them the “princess treatment” and eventually makes their life hell.

Obviously, people can outgrow these expectations, and I genuinely hope they do. I don’t think they deserve to end up in an abusive relationship. But if they keep refusing to outgrow this fantasy of being treated like a princess, they may end up paying a very harsh price for it.

I don’t respect that mindset, but I still don’t want anyone to suffer because of it. Chivalry is one thing; expecting men to constantly prove their worth through money, attention, and special treatment is another. At that point, it can either become love-bombing from manipulative men or plain entitlement toward men who simply aren’t interested in playing that role.

What is RW and what is LW? Broadly speaking, RW tends to be more pro-establishment and comfortable with existing power structures, while LW is generally more sceptical of concentrated power. Obviously, not every LW person is a Marxist, and not every RW person wants a theoretical dictatorship. These are broad political tendencies, and their meanings vary across contexts. Some people also prefer the label liberal rather than leftist, which is a separate discussion. Also there are socialist leftist and communist leftist so it's very broad spectrum.

But honestly, if someone proudly identifies as RW, I already have questions. There is a difference between being hypocritical and licking the feet of the rich for personal benefit, and being proud of doing it. How can you be the pro establishment ? Isn't that morals 101, stand for weak speak against the powerful ? Stand for right.

The bigger problem is that many RW people seem to treat anything contradicting their ideology as propaganda. If every criticism is propaganda and every opposing argument is dismissed before it is even considered, then there is no meaningful debate. You cannot win a debate with someone who does not accept evidence, logic, or the possibility that they might be wrong.

And if such people gain power through a flawed information environment, logical fallacies, or by manipulating young and vulnerable people, the consequences can be much bigger than simply losing an argument.

So instead of wasting time trying to “win” debates against people who don't respect intellectual debate, we should have serious intellectual debates with people who actually value intellect and reasoning—regardless of their political ideology.

The point of debate should be to test ideas, not protect an identity.

I saw a meme here with painting of a drunk mother saying, “I’m not happy, but my kid will be.”

As someone who is pro-children but antinatalist, I think that’s actually too generous toward many parents.

A lot of parents, especially those struggling with addiction, poverty, or dysfunctional relationships, don’t necessarily love or even want their children. Sometimes they simply see them as a responsibility they’re stuck with. Abortion also has legal, moral, social, and practical barriers, and once someone is far enough into pregnancy or has already given birth, there is no options left.(Literally you can do nothing.)

People often treat children, elderly people, and disabled people as burdens. Even parents who planned their pregnancy can become neglectful or abusive when the reality of raising a child becomes difficult.

I honestly think society greatly exaggerates how much unconditional parental love exists. I know people who stay and care for struggling, alcoholic, abusive, or financially dependent partners. But never see a parent talking care of kid going beyond their limits and they literally leave the kids on their own once they get adults (means the legal and social responsibility is over.)

A lot of people have children simply because that’s what society expects them to do and once they have them there is nothing they can do about them until they become adults and move out on themselves.

Sometimes, after 2–3 dates, you realise you’re simply not compatible. That’s okay—you can reject someone without being rude.

The problem is that people often use vague excuses like “I’m not ready,” “I don’t have time,” “Maybe we can be friends,” or “It’s not you, it’s me.” Some even excessively praise the person they’re rejecting.

Even when well-intentioned, this can create mixed signals and false hope. Eventually, people may just start avoiding each other instead.

You don’t need to insult someone by saying “You’re ugly,” “You’re weird,” or “You’re a loser” just to be honest.

Just be clear and kind:

“You’re genuinely a nice person, but I just didn’t feel the connection I was looking for, so I don’t think we should continue seeing each other romantically."

The point is: don’t use “I” or “you” unnecessarily. Use “I” when expressing your own perspective, and “you” when praising or criticising the other person. But when the message is simply that neither person is wrong or bad and that you just don’t work well together, use “we” as much as possible. It makes the rejection feel mutual rather than like one person is being judged or blamed.

Being polite doesn’t mean being vague. Being honest doesn’t mean being cruel.

I know some people genuinely play hard to get even when they’re interested, and yeah, that sucks. But there’s not much you can do except ignore those games.

What I find more interesting is how people assume, “They texted me, smiled at me, checked me out—they must be interested!” And when that person later says no, they convince themselves that the other person is just hesitant, confused, or playing games.

But maybe they were interested initially and simply lost interest. Or maybe they liked you but realized you weren’t romantically compatible. People’s feelings change. Attraction isn’t a contract.

I don’t think rejection before the 3rd or 4th date should be treated like some huge betrayal. You can be disappointed, sure, but before that, you barely know each other. 😂

And getting angry because someone smiled at you, talked to you, checked you out, but later left you on seen or didn’t accept your Instagram request is just ridiculous. 😭

Someone showing interest once doesn’t mean they owe you continued interest.

Sure, if you stop chasing mixed signals, you might lose someone who genuinely liked you but was too hesitant to confess or played stupid games. But honestly, that’s life. Why should one person have to do all the work—solve puzzles, decode signals, and play games—just to figure out whether someone likes them?

I’d rather lose that person anyway.

Sometimes the answer is simply: they liked you, then they didn’t. And that’s okay. 😅

Using “virgin” as an insult may seem like harmless teasing, but it reflects a deeply problematic attitude toward sex, consent, and power.

When someone uses “virgin” as an insult, the implication is usually that sexual experience makes a person more desirable, mature, masculine, feminine, powerful, or socially valuable. In other words, they are treating sexual access to another person’s body as a measure of someone’s worth.

That mindset becomes especially disturbing when we look at rape. Rape is not simply about sexual desire; it is fundamentally about violating another person’s autonomy, boundaries, and bodily integrity. Sexual violence can be used as a tool of domination, humiliation, punishment, or control.

This is why I think the cultural obsession with virginity and sexual “experience” deserves more criticism. When society teaches people that being sexually experienced makes them superior while being a virgin makes someone inferior, it creates a hierarchy where sex becomes a marker of status and power.

Obviously, using “virgin” as an insult does not automatically make someone a rapist. Most people who make such jokes will never commit sexual violence. But the underlying idea, that someone's sexual history determines their worth or social status, is worth challenging because it contributes to a culture in which sexual conquest is treated as an achievement and sexual inexperience as something shameful.

Sex should be about intimacy, desire, and personal choice, not status, masculinity, femininity, or power.

Someone being a virgin doesn't make them inferior. Someone being sexually experienced doesn't make them superior.

I mean, Hindu nationalists can be incredibly hypocritical when it comes to selective outrage.

Just imagine if the same kind of videos coming from the Kanwar Yatra were instead coming from a festival associated with a minority community, or from a protest site like Jantar Mantar. The reaction from Hindutva groups would probably be completely different. There would be endless outrage, demands for action, and accusations about the entire community.

And it isn't limited to this particular situation. Even when it comes to serious crimes, the outrage often seems highly selective. They frequently accuse others of selective outrage, yet I rarely see a group so consistently willing to apply completely different moral standards depending on who is involved.

The principle seems to be: morality and accountability are important when others are involved, but somehow become negotiable when it is their own side.

Selective morality is still hypocrisy, regardless of who is doing it.

It feels like genuine one-to-one male friendships are gradually disappearing.

More and more, I see men relying almost entirely on women for emotional support while investing very little in building deep, emotionally open friendships with other men. As a result, emotional intimacy is increasingly reserved for romantic interests or women in general, rather than close male friends.

I think several factors contribute to this. One is the lingering stigma around emotional closeness between men. Many guys still worry that expressing vulnerability or forming a deeply affectionate bond with another man will be perceived as "gay," so they keep those friendships emotionally shallow.

At the same time, there's a growing tendency to seek emotional comfort from the opposite gender at the first sign of distress. That often blurs boundaries and makes many male–female friendships emotionally complicated, even when neither person initially intends for it to become romantic.

From what I've observed, this shift seems relatively recent, perhaps over the last two or three years, and it appears to be accelerating.

I can't speak for women's experiences, but many women still seem to maintain one or two close female friendships where they can be emotionally vulnerable. Among men, however, that kind of bond seems to be fading. But tendency to seek emotional comfort from the opposite gender at the first sign of distress is becoming common among the women as well. As I said this is relatively new shift you might not get affected by it yet but it's surely accelerating.

If this trend continues, I think we'll end up with fewer strong platonic friendships between men and even more emotionally dependent cross-gender friendships, which can easily become complicated.

All that hype, only to reveal that they were average, if not below-average, kids with virtually no extracurricular achievements. Mehta asked whether any of them had ever seriously pursued their hobbies, and every single one answered no. Even Tapu, who was always portrayed as a cricket enthusiast, never actually trained or pursued the sport seriously. What a letdown. 🥲

Mehta humbled them within minutes. In the end, they simply chose the most convenient paths. Fairly speaking, those paths weren't even aligned with their interests. Despite having so many privileges and opportunities, they essentially wasted the first 15–16 years of their lives without developing any real passion or skill.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with being average. But given the kind of privileged background they come from, you'd expect them to have developed at least a few extracurricular skills. If not, they could at least be a little more humble instead of constantly bragging.

It's perfectly okay to fail. The issue isn't that they failed, it's that they barely ever tried. None of them seriously pursued a hobby, attempted content creation, started a small business (apart from Sonu doing a few small gigs here and there), or worked consistently on anything productive. I'm not saying they needed to succeed at all of these things, but they never genuinely gave them a shot.

Even when they chose the conventional path, they did the bare minimum. We were never shown them seriously preparing for competitive exams, building practical skills, or putting in sustained effort toward any meaningful goal.

They could at least be a little more humble instead of constantly bragging.

Idealists generally tend to lean left, but many also end up disappointed with the left because of its hypocrisy or its failure to take a strong stand on important issues.

If you can keep idealists away from the polling booths, that benefits the right the most. I don't think the right necessarily wins because it has majority support; I think it wins because a larger share of people who actively believe in politics and politicians tend to support the right.

At the same time, there's a significant group of people who dislike politics altogether. If they had to choose, many of them would likely lean left. However, because of their idealistic view of life and politics, even if they won't avoid voting all together, they might avoid participating in political activities such as campaigning on social media, attending rallies, or engaging in party politics.

I am a strong supporter of egalitarianism, but I think many young feminists are doing exactly what a misogynistic person would want them to do.

On the other hand, I see far more inclusivity and emotional intelligence in the LGBTQ+ community and Pride movements. Their slogan is simple: "Love is love." They actively make space for allies instead of treating them as an inconvenience. They don't mock their allies by calling them "white knights" or accuse them of having a hero complex simply for showing support.

The idea of love is love is inclusive by design, it gives countless people a stage to fight for their own love and dignity. Despite being one of the most marginalized communities, they seem far less insecure about sharing their platform with other equally important causes.

I've also noticed that LGBTQ+ people generally don't like associating with openly homophobic or transphobic people just for fun or social validation. They value their allies beyond the moments when those allies are publicly defending them.

Meanwhile, many feminist spaces don't seem to value their allies at all. Supportive men are often dismissed as "white knights," told they're doing the "bare minimum," or accused of being pretentious. At the same time, some are perfectly comfortable associating with openly misogynistic men. If a movement wants equality, it should encourage genuine allies instead of constantly pushing them away.

I recently saw a post where a woman said she had different standards for marriage and casual relationships. She mentioned that she preferred dominant men for casual encounters but that her husband wasn't like that. (Obviously rage bait to trigger men insecure about their masculinity. But even if single person is doing it in real life they are just idiot.)

On the other hand, some men make similar comments, saying things like they would marry women who aren't "sluts," or that sex with "crazy" women is exciting but they're not suitable for marriage.

Regardless of gender, isn't it just basic human decency not to compare your partner with your exes—even if you think you're praising them? Bringing your past partners into your current relationship serves no positive purpose. It can hurt your partner, and it's also a breach of the trust and privacy of the people you've been intimate with.

People become intimate to build connection and express love, not to be compared against someone's previous partners. Some thoughts are simply better left unsaid out of respect for everyone involved.

I've become about 99.9999% convinced that there is no God or afterlife, and I'm 100% convinced that all religions are human-made superstitious and pure bs. Yet I still believe that practicing kindness and letting go of possessiveness is the most sensible way to live.

Since we're all going to die one day regardless, the only meaningful thing we can do is make the limited time we have a little better for one another. I also believe that true freedom comes from being detached from material things and from trying not to control or possess other people.

At the same time, I don't believe in the soul, nirvana, or moksha. As far as I'm concerned, consciousness ends when the brain dies, and my body is just another material object.

That leaves me in a strange philosophical position. I value detachment and compassion, but not because I believe they'll lead to spiritual liberation or an afterlife. I value them simply because they seem like the best way to live.

In one line I can say, "You can't have anything so no point chasing anything..."

Does anyone else feel the same way?

https://preview.redd.it/1g83h2po2ihh1.png?width=502&format=png&auto=webp&s=0c44613688505859971995f612fdc23eb5d99278

Obviously, the post would get deleted almost instantly there, so I'm posting it here instead.

I understand why this subreddit focuses on women's issues. Women have historically faced discrimination, and dedicated spaces to discuss those issues are important.

However, I think this rule has an unintended consequence. By stating that posts must only be about women's issues and that discussions about other groups belong elsewhere, it can make men who genuinely believe in gender equality feel excluded from the conversation.

Many men who support gender equality don't fit into traditional ideas of masculinity. They challenge sexism, reject rigid gender roles, and advocate for equal standards. In return, they often face ridicule, social pressure, and labels like "white knight," "pick me," or "incel."

Those experiences exist because they believe in gender equality. Yet this rule seems to imply that those experiences are not relevant in a feminist space simply because they happen to men.

That can unintentionally send the message that men are welcome as allies only as long as they don't talk about the difficulties they face for holding egalitarian values.

If feminism seeks equality, shouldn't there also be room to acknowledge that challenging patriarchal gender norms can have social consequences for men as well? Recognizing those experiences doesn't diminish women's issues. It simply acknowledges that dismantling unequal gender norms benefits everyone and that those who actively support equality can also face challenges worth discussing.

I have been approached by quite a few women, and you know what I noticed? Most of them were habitual cold approachers. Many of them already had boyfriends, which I obviously didn't know at the time. And don't even get me started on people who keep multiple guys on the hook while actively approaching new ones.

My point is this: I wasn't approached because I was uniquely special. I was approached because those women approach every tall or attractive guy they find interesting. The number of women who regularly cold approach is relatively small, so most men experience it rarely. On the other hand, many more men cold approach because patriarchal, capitalist, heterosexual norms encourage that behavior without costing them much social respect, whereas women are judged far more harshly for doing the same.

Personally, I think it's better not to be approached at all than to be approached only to realize it meant nothing to the other person. The excitement you felt wasn't based on genuine interest. To them, it was just another Friday night.

I also think this eventually becomes a self-reinforcing supply-and-demand cycle. It is what it is. But at the end of the day, the number of men and women is almost the same. Even in societies with an unbalanced sex ratio, the difference is usually only a couple of percent. So if your goal is a serious, monogamous relationship, the vast majority of people will eventually be able to find one.

I also think there's another dynamic at play. Even if a guy isn't genuinely interested, he's less likely to reject a woman who approaches him, especially if he's single. So a woman who cold approaches might stop after two or three attempts because she's likely to get a "yes" relatively quickly, even if that "yes" isn't based on genuine interest.

Men, on the other hand, are more likely to be rejected, so they may have to approach ten women before getting their first "yes." By that point, some may have become habitual cold approachers and continue approaching an eleventh, twelfth, or twentieth person.

In that sense, cold approaching can become similar to gambling. Every rejection encourages another attempt because the occasional "yes" provides a powerful reward. The reward isn't just the possibility of sex; it's also intimacy, validation, and human connection. That's what can make it psychologically reinforcing, combining the variable-reward structure of gambling with the emotional and sexual incentives of romantic pursuit.

To me, that's like saying, "I'm vegan because eating meat is a burden," or "I'm not racist because being racist is a burden." Those are not moral arguments. They are arguments based on personal convenience.

I also dislike how much empathy society extends to parents while the child is often treated as an afterthought. People casually say, "Everyone makes mistakes as parents, it's okay." No, it isn't.

When you choose to bring a child into the world, you are taking responsibility for someone who cannot physically protect themselves for over a decade and will not be fully capable of functioning independently until much later because of both biological development and social realities such as education and life experience.

You cannot repeatedly fail that responsibility and keep comforting yourself by saying everyone makes mistakes. Some parenting mistakes leave lifelong consequences for a person who never chose to exist.

What makes me most uncomfortable is how little attention is given to the unborn or the child in these discussions. They are the ones with the least power, the least choice, and the most to lose.

P.S. I actually think parenthood can be one of the most wonderful experiences a person can have, if you genuinely love your child and didn't bring them into the world just for social validation or because everyone else was having children.

The only problem, from my antinatalist perspective, is that it being a wonderful experience for the parent does not necessarily make it a wonderful experience for the child. The child never chose to exist in the first place.

Why I care: I don't think antinatalism should be anti-child. If anything, it should place the interests of children above everything else.

I also find it difficult to relate to people who seem to dislike children altogether. In many cases, that attitude comes across as emotionally immature, self-centered, or driven by unresolved personal needs rather than genuine concern for children's well-being.