u/MajesticCounter4174

So one thing I don't get about the modern GOP is how strongly Trump is still identified with “conservative values” even though several things associated with traditional American conservatism seem to have been weakened, abandoned or outright reversed under him.

For example, older Republican conservatism was much more associated with free trade, fiscal restraint, limited executive power, institutionalism and scepticism of excessive federal intervention.

Trump-era Republicanism, by contrast, has embraced tariffs and protectionism, much stronger presidential power, large deficits, aggressive federal intervention in cultural issues and a much more nationalist, leader-centred political style.

At the same time, Trump obviously still aligns strongly with modern conservative positions on immigration, abortion, guns, DEI, trans issues, judicial appointments and religious/cultural politics.

So I’m curious how people here understand that shift. Has the meaning of “conservative” simply changed within the Republican Party? Are cultural and social issues now more important to conservative identity than older economic or institutional principles? Or do Trump supporters still see things like tariffs, executive power and deficit spending as compatible with conservatism in a way that older Republicans would not have?

I’m tired of people acting as though judging someone for their politics is inherently shallow or intolerant.

When people say, “You shouldn’t judge someone based on their political views,” they make politics sound like an abstract disagreement over tax rates or agricultural policy. But those are rarely the disagreements people end relationships over.

Usually, we’re talking about human rights: whether LGBT people should live openly and equally, whether trans people should receive healthcare and legal recognition, whether women should control their own bodies, whether immigrants deserve dignity, and whether racial discrimination should be confronted or dismissed.

None of these are simply harmless differences of opinion. They affect whether REAL people can live safely, freely and equally.

So politics isn’t separate from your character. It reflects whose suffering concerns you, whose freedom you respect and whose rights you consider negotiable. If you support policies that make vulnerable people’s lives more dangerous or restricted, that tells me something morally significant about you.

Yes, people can be misinformed and can change. But an explanation for someone’s beliefs is not an exemption from moral judgment. Adults are responsible for what they advocate and what they vote to impose on others. You cannot support cruelty at the ballot box and then demand that everyone assess your character as though that choice exists in a vacuum. Being pleasant to the people around you does not automatically make you a good person if you’re willing to strip rights from people you’ll never meet.

Nobody owes you friendship, affection or respect regardless of your beliefs. Refusing a relationship with someone whose values fundamentally conflict with yours is not intolerance just a boundary.

If you believe certain people deserve fewer rights, less freedom or less dignity because of who they are, then I do not think you are a good person. That judgment is simply the consequence of taking morality (and the people harmed by politics) seriously.

(Fictional hypothetical; I’m not seeking personal legal advice 😂)

The film is set in Hawaii. A father keeps a chimpanzee named Ben at his family home. Ben contracts rabies, becomes violent and kills several invited guests while the father is away. Assuming the father legally owns the home and is Ben’s owner or keeper, would he face strict liability for the deaths because a chimpanzee is a wild animal, or would the unforeseeable rabies infection affect liability? Could he also face criminal charges, and would homeowners insurance normally cover anything like this?

I genuinely do not think men should have any decision-making power over abortion. Not “less influence.” None. A man will never be forced to remain pregnant. He will never have his organs displaced, his body permanently altered, his health endangered or his genitals torn open during childbirth. He can cause a pregnancy in minutes and then physically walk away from every medical consequence. Yet men have somehow appointed themselves judges over whether women must endure those consequences which is just completely indefensible.

Guys can feel whatever they want about them but the moment your preference becomes a demand, a veto or a law enforced against unwilling women, you have crossed from expressing an opinion into claiming ownership over another person’s body and that is why being politically “pro-life” makes no logical sense for a man especially. You are demanding that someone else accept pain, medical risk and permanent bodily consequences to satisfy your moral convictions. You sacrifice absolutely nothing, yet you want the authority to decide what sacrifice another person must make. Huh?

Before anyone tries to do the whole “the father contributed half the DNA” no just stop. This does not give him half the control over the pregnancy and never will because DNA is not pregnancy. Ejaculation is not gestation. Parenthood may eventually create equal responsibilities, but pregnancy is not an abstract parenting decision between two equivalent bodies. It is a medical condition occurring entirely inside one person. You do not acquire voting rights over somebody’s organs because your sperm helped create what is growing inside them.

We understand this everywhere else. Nobody can be legally forced to donate blood, marrow or a kidney, even to save their own child. A corpse’s organs generally cannot be taken without prior consent but anti-abortion politics grants an embryo a right that no born person possesses which is the right to use somebody else’s body without continuing consent. It then appoints predominantly male lawmakers to enforce that supposed right against women again huh??

Men created the political, religious and legal institutions that treated women as property, criminalised their reproductive choices and excluded them from power. Now men expect their voices to receive equal weight when women argue for freedom from those institutions. No. The oppressor’s desire to retain influence is not an overlooked perspective that needs balancing.

If you cannot become pregnant, abortion is not your decision. You may support the person who is pregnant. You may offer advice when it is wanted. You may decide whether to remain in a relationship afterward. What you may not do is commandeer somebody else’s body because you dislike what they intend to do with it. Men should be pro-choice for the same reason they should oppose rape and forced organ harvesting: consent does not become optional merely because another life may benefit from violating it. You do not need to like every abortion. You do however need to understand that it was never yours to permit.

https://preview.redd.it/sjs45qfoh4kh1.png?width=474&format=png&auto=webp&s=cfe0c75485540e167d82daf08867a33a9f1901b2

I know asking this subreddit to say something positive about Spider-Man 2 might be a difficult exercise, and I’m fully aware this probably won’t get as much traction as the 300th post about everything the game did wrong, but let’s try anyway. What was your favourite story moment in the game?

For me, it’s probably Miles and Li’s resolution. I really like that Miles doesn’t suddenly forgive Li or pretend what he did to Jefferson is okay. He just finally recognises that his hatred is consuming him and chooses not to let Li control that part of his life anymore.

And I think Li giving up his powers to help save Peter is a really satisfying conclusion to his side of that relationship. It doesn’t absolve him of anything, but it allows him to genuinely do something selfless after everything he’s done. Their entire dynamic is probably one of my favourite parts of the story.

So, against all odds, say something nice about the game. What was yours?

​

I know this probably isn't the most interesting take in the world, but SM2 is still comfortably my favourite of Insomniac's three Spider-Man games. I think the first game has the tighter story overall, and I definitely wish SM2 had given Venom and the final act more time to breathe, but in terms of actually sitting down and playing it, this is the one I enjoy the most by quite a distance.

The biggest reason is traversal. The first game already nailed the basic feeling of swinging around New York, but the sequel makes it so much faster and more expressive. The web wings, slingshot, loop-de-loops, corner tethers and lower swing-assist options all add up to a movement system that I can mess around with for ages without even doing a mission. I barely use fast travel because getting somewhere is half the fun.

Combat is better too. Peter and Miles feel more distinct, the symbiote abilities are exactly as over-the-top as I wanted them to be, and I really like having the parry as another defensive option instead of just dodging everything. The bosses are also a massive step up from the first game. Kraven, Lizard, Mister Negative, Peter and Venom all feel much closer to the sort of proper superhero fights I wanted out of the series.

Kraven in particular is probably my favourite villain in the game. His motivation is simple, but I think that's part of why he works. He's dying, he wants something capable of giving him a worthy death, and he arrives in New York treating villains who used to be major threats like prey. He has a great presence throughout the story, and his eventual fight with symbiote Peter is one of my favourite sequences in the game.

I also love how willing the game is to just go completely stupid with the spectacle sometimes. The Sandman opening is ridiculous, the Lizard chase is great, Peter and Miles fighting each other was something I had wanted to see since Miles became Spider-Man, and the playable Venom section is pure fan service in the best possible way. Sometimes I don't need everything to be deep. Letting me smash through Oscorp as Venom is just fucking cool.

At the same time, I appreciate that Insomniac still makes room for the smaller Spider-Man stuff. Howard's mission is probably the obvious example, but I like the quieter neighbourhood-level stories in general. Aunt May's line from the first game, "When you help someone, you help everyone," still sums up what I like about this version of Spider-Man. Saving New York matters, but so does helping one random person who needs you.

And while the story isn't perfect, I genuinely like a lot of what it does. Peter's symbiote arc works for me because I don't think the suit creates his problems from nowhere. This Peter has always had a bad habit of taking every responsibility onto himself, and the symbiote gives him enough power to start convincing himself that maybe he really can do everything alone.

That's also why I think "Be Greater. Together." actually fits the game pretty well. Peter doesn't grow by becoming even stronger. He grows by accepting that Miles, MJ and the people around him can help, and that taking responsibility doesn't mean destroying Peter Parker's life in the process.

Miles and Martin Li are another highlight for me. I really like that Miles doesn't have to forgive the man who killed his father in order to move on. He simply reaches the point where he doesn't want that hatred controlling him anymore. It's a small distinction, but I think it's handled really well.

The game has flaws, obviously, but they don't come close to outweighing how much fun I have with it. The traversal is fantastic, combat feels great, the bosses are much better, Kraven is excellent, the set pieces are ridiculous, and the quieter moments still feel true to Spider-Man.

For me, it's still the best superhero game I've played and still my favourite PS5 game.

Easy 9/10 for me

I’m asking this without wanting to ridicule anyone, because I’m genuinely trying to understand what the experience feels like from the inside.

I often hear men describe dating as something where they are expected to initiate, absorb repeated rejection, prove their value, compete for limited attention and continue investing even when very little interest or effort is being returned. Sometimes it seems to go beyond ordinary vulnerability or courtship and reach the point where someone is accepting disrespect, abandoning their boundaries or performing a version of himself purely to remain in consideration.

From the outside, opting out would appear preferable to feeling constantly evaluated or unwanted but clearly loneliness, hope and the desire for intimacy can make that decision much more complicated than it sounds.

For men who have experienced this personally: what made continuing feel worthwhile, or at least preferable to walking away? Where did you draw the line between making a reasonable effort and sacrificing too much of your self-respect? Looking back, do you understand your choices differently now?

To be clear I'm talking specifically about material that wasn't in the original manga/light novel/etc. and was created for the anime so a character, scene, storyline, relationship dynamic, piece of characterisation, or even an entire arc.

Not necessarily the best addition, but the one that ended up having the biggest influence. Maybe it became so associated with the series that a lot of people don't even realise it wasn't in the source material, influenced how the characters were written later, got incorporated into the wider franchise, or permanently changed how fans see the series.

There are adaptations that substantially expand on their source material, and I'm curious whether there are any anime-original additions that became more culturally significant than the material they were adapting...

I understand preferring Joel Kinnaman. Mackie didn’t preserve much of Kovacs’ mannerisms or the exhausted noir presence Kinnaman brought to the role, so saying he didn’t feel like the same man in a different sleeve is fair criticism. What I don’t understand is why discussions about season two so often treat Mackie as the main reason it failed?

The lead actor wasn’t the only thing that changed. Season two had a different story, setting, supporting cast and overall tone. It moved away from much of the noir atmosphere and mystery that people liked about the first season. I think even people who hated Mackie’s performance usually also admit that the writing and creative direction were worse.

Yet the conversation regularly gets reduced to “Anthony Mackie ruined Altered Carbon,” as though replacing him while changing nothing else would have fixed the season. He became the most visible difference, so every wider problem with the show seems to have been placed on his shoulders.

To be clear I’m not arguing that he was better than Kinnaman or that criticism of his performance is invalid. I just don’t think one actor explains why an entire season felt weaker in nearly every area...

I'm excited for the X-Men and the Mutant Saga, but I’m starting to get slightly nervous about what happens to a lot of the characters Marvel has already introduced.

There are quite a few characters who, realistically, may not have another solo movie or Disney+ series waiting for them after Secret Wars. Sam Wilson could potentially get another Captain America film, but that’s far from guaranteed. Joaquin Torres is basically dependent on Sam continuing to appear. Ant-Man may be finished as a solo franchise even if Scott survives. The Thunderbolts could easily become characters who only occasionally appear in crossovers.

Then you have Captain Marvel, Monica Rambeau, Shang-Chi and several others who still have plenty of story left, but whose next major appearance might also depend on an Avengers movie.

That wouldn’t concern me as much if Avengers films were fairly regular, but Marvel has increasingly treated them as massive saga-ending events. If that continues into the Mutant Saga, we could potentially go four, five or even more years between Avengers movies. At that point, characters who don’t have solo projects could technically still be part of the MCU while barely ever appearing.

And once Marvel has to make space for the main X-Men, individual mutant projects, the Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, Black Panther, Doctor Strange and whatever new characters get introduced, I’m not sure where everyone else fits.

To be clear, I’m not saying the mutants shouldn’t become a major focus. They obviously should. My concern is that Marvel already has a huge roster of characters who haven’t received enough development, and introducing another enormous group could make that problem even worse.

This is why I think Avengers movies need to become smaller and more frequent after Secret Wars. Not every Avengers film needs to be a multiversal apocalypse with thirty characters and a decade of buildup. Give us a relatively stable team of six to eight heroes, let them deal with a more contained threat, and actually develop their relationships over multiple films.

That would give characters like Sam, Shang-Chi, Carol, Joaquin, Yelena, Monica and Scott somewhere to continue developing even when they can’t all support individual franchises. Otherwise, I worry a lot of the current MCU roster will be reduced to ten-minute appearances in enormous crossover films every five years.

I know people are going to say I’m overreacting because the game isn’t even out and the subreddit isn’t that bad yet. Fair enough but I’m still calling it now.

I’ve been around enough game subreddits to recognise how this usually goes. It starts with normal criticism and a few recurring complaints. Then the same people repeat those complaints under every post, increasingly minor details get treated like major writing or design failures, and eventually relentlessly shitting on the game becomes the subreddit’s entire identity.

Its clear to me a lot of people who are still bitter about Spider-Man 2, including people who probably spent years on r/SpiderManPS4, have carried that energy over here and are helping shape the tone early.

Maybe I’m completely wrong and this place stays relatively normal but my prediction is that once the game releases, this subreddit will become another endless cycle of repeated nitpicks, outrage bait and people acting like Insomniac personally betrayed them.

So consider this me putting the prediction on record early. I’m probably just going to stop following the subreddit rather than watch the exact same cycle happen again. Its boring.

To be clear I don’t just mean an unpopular opinion about an anime you like, or defending an entire show that has a bad reputation. I mean one specific writing decision that a large part of the audience seems to think damaged the story, but you genuinely believe was the right choice.

So it could be a character death, an ending, a romance, a timeskip, a redemption arc, splitting up the main cast or even completely changing the direction of the story. Something where you understand why people hate it, but still think the alternative would have made the anime worse.

Spoiler limit: I’ve read up to LN Volume 17, so please don’t discuss anything beyond that if possible.

I'm currently re watching S2 of the anime and maybe I'm reading too much into it, but Luke always seemed a bit cold or prickly toward Rudy to me, even after they were more connected through Sylphie and Ariel.

Have I forgotten something from the LN and is their a clear reason for this, or is it mostly left to interpretation?

They are genuinely Reddit at its most smug, pathetic, cringe, terminally online worst. Just entire communities built around people huffing their own farts, repeating the same approved opinions, the same dead jokes, the same lazy sarcasm, and then acting like they’re somehow smarter than the people they obsessively mock.

It’s not even funny most of the time. It’s just bitter losers jerking each other off over how above everything they are, while spending all day stalking other subreddits, reposting screenshots, and whining about people they swear they don’t care about.

Circlejerk subs are where Reddit’s worst stereotypes go to breed. Smugness, groupthink, fake irony, dogpiling, miserable contrarianism, pretending being an asshole is the same thing as being clever. It’s all there.

And the funniest part is they always think they’re the self-aware ones. They’re not. They’re usually just another echo chamber, except somehow even more annoying because they’ve convinced themselves their echo chamber is satire.

Absolute bottom-of-the-barrel Reddit behaviour.

Edit: Seems I've offended said CJ lowlifes 😆

I’m in the UK and we’re currently dealing with a pretty intense heatwave. I have an 11-week-old Staffy x Hungarian Vizsla puppy, and I’m trying to work out the best way to keep him comfortable, safe, and not too irritable in the heat.

For any of my fellow brits also going through this heatwave, or to anyone who lives/has lived in a hot climate with a puppy, how do you handle naps, toilet breaks, playtime, and general routine when it’s this hot?

I’m already trying to keep him indoors during the hottest parts of the day, offer water, and keep toilet breaks brief, but I’d really appreciate practical advice from people who’ve dealt with this before.

What’s worked for you?