This feminist counterargument doesn't seem to be mentioned enough in these men's rights communities, even tho I've heard it IRL multiple times. So, I need to do it justice.

Is the claim, that women weren't allowed in combat, generally true of most societies? Yes, AFAIK.

Does it work as a moral justification for the draft, or as evidence that men were not disproportionally oppressed by the draft? Absolutely not.

Not being allowed to go to war is not at all comparable to being forced to go to war. Some militaries provide decent incentives to join, but missing out on that doesn't cause women or other potential volunteers to die. It's just a career opportunity cost. Being forced to fight means having your life gambled on behalf of the nation collectively.

In most wartimes involving a male-only draft and banning women, there were probably more men who wanted not to fight than women who wanted to fight, and for good reason as aforementioned.

Let me make a table of outcomes to drive home this ethical asymmetry. This is not considering the collective benefits of national defense and winning the war; only those outcomes which affect the individual.

-	I'm not allowed to fight	I'm forced to fight
I want to go to war	Too bad; I could've gotten a salary with free room & board	Doesn't affect me; I want to fight for my country for a living
I don't want to go to war	Doesn't affect me; I don't have to risk my life	I could literally die any day from this war ☠️

This change should also apply for all non-snowy taiga variants and most cold mountain biomes.

For years, I've wanted more biome-based variation for structures, especially mineshafts. We got this for the abandoned campsite as the fences supporting the tent are always a different wood type. Now that we're getting ice caves, which unlike the other cave biomes are specifically meant to complement the snowy surface biomes, now is a good opportunity.

The only reason I don't complain too much about mineshafts always being oaken (except in badlands, where they're dark-oaken FSR) is that it kind of cancels out by matching with the azalea trees bearing oak wood; so, in my headcanon, oak wood is also the azalea wood that was used to build the mineshafts, thus making oak the main underground woodset. Ideally, however, the mineshafts would be consistent with surface biomes or other cave biomes instead, since some of them are far from lush caves and wood is more abundant in the surface. Then in turn, that should be all the more reason for us to get an azalea woodset.

Lush caves already don't generate under any snowy biomes (except for some frozen oceans), and there are no snowy biomes that generate oak trees (altho oaks do generate in some mountain biomes where it snows at higher elevations). So, all mineshafts being made of oak wood creates this major lore gap. I like to call this problem oak centrism: Since oak was the first wood type added, it's often used by the devs as the default woodset and oak trees generate in biomes that should be too hot for them or where they're used as placeholders for tree species that never got added. When a structure generates with a wood type, that wood type is supposed to have some cultural implication based on the biome it's from.

Also related to cold biomes, igloos still generate with Oak Trapdoors and Oak Signs, because igloos were added in 1.9 whereas the spruce variants for trapdoors and signs came in 1.13 and 1.14, respectively.

I would like to see more wood type variation for mineshafts besides spruce, but this is a good place to start; and I don't think mineshafts in other biomes will change until those other biomes are updated in the future, like if we get desert and badlands caves (maybe with palm and juniper woods for their respective mineshafts) or an azalea woodset for the lush caves.

The main reason people are able to buy animal products is subsidies, the main motive being traditions that are greatly exacerbated by modern marketing.

What the people, particularly conservatives and libertarians, need to understand about animal agriculture is how bad it is for the economy, and that the government supports it. Without the subsidization of animal agriculture, taxes would go down significantly, and land in the US would be 4 times cheaper. A meat tax, too, could work, but it's kind of a scam to tax something that's already subsidized.

Would people stop eating animals if their exploitation was simply defunded? Maybe. I think this would be more effective than a ban because, if something becomes naturally prohibitively expensive, people will be faced with the reality of cost instead of feeling attacked by the government. Either way, if the majority of the population cannot eat animals too oft, the remaining practice will likely become less socially accepted over time, and eventually as taboo as eating dogs.

Agriculture is not the only form of animal exploitation that we're fighting, but it is by far the most significant form. The use of animals' bodies and secretions for food, which in turn kills countless wild animals from land wastage causing habitat loss, is what needs to be dismantled foremost, by the most effective means possible.

Currently, we have only a few blocks that can be silverfish-infested:

• Stone
• Cobblestone
• Stone Bricks
• Cracked Stone Bricks
• Mossy Stone Bricks
• Chiseled Stone Bricks
• Deepslate

This list is inconsistent as it excludes deepslate-derived building blocks. Furthermore, Infested Stone and Infested Deepslate replace Granite, Diorite, Andesite, and Tuff during worldgen, which doesn't make much sense and looks ugly; either the latter four blocks should be added to the list, possibly with some of their respective derivatives, or they should not be replaced by infested blocks at all upon worldgen.

Does this list need to be expanded? Maybe not; however, besides being inconsistent, it is very limiting for mapmakers, modders, and Mojang devs, when making custom or new structures, to only be able to use these seven blocks that were hard coded to spawn silverfishes.

Monster egg entities: a technical replacement for infested blocks

Instead, I have an idea for a new mechanic that would improve silverfish spawning. We can remove the infested blocks and replace them with an invisible technical entity, called the monster egg, that can stay inside of any full block indefinitely until the block is broken or another silverfish that gets attacked makes it hatch.

Silverfish Monster Eggs would be obtainable as a creative mode item alongside the spawn eggs. Creative mode players could place them inside of full blocks, with a sprite showing where the invisible monster eggs are when the item is held (similar to how Barriers show). Mapmakers and modders could then edit the tags of this entity to spawn any other entity (as opposed to just silverfishes) from a monster egg, with trigger conditions and other entity data. This could be good for adventure maps with crumbling surfaces revealing jumpscares, combat, and secrets.

Meanwhile, there still has to be a way to determine in which blocks a silverfish can hide post-generation. This can be done with a block tag infestable so that modders can custom-select which blocks can be infested. Silverfishes (and mobs modded to have this ability) will be able to hide in any block that has this tag. By default, the same list of seven blocks would have this tag, possibly with the addition of a few more blocks (as mentioned above) for consistency. Gamerules could also be used to disable these infestation mechanics.

A technical downside I could think of is that this might be slightly more computationally expensive, loading all of those entities in a mountain biome or stronghold instead of loading blocks. If this is the case, then we'll have to wait a few years for gaming devices to get better. However, since monster eggs wouldn't have any locomotive AI, the only data that would be stored by the monster egg entities is that they spawn a silverfish, and maybe block-breaking as a trigger condition.

I notice that lately many vegans have been starting to say, "farmed animal" instead of "farm animal", and I realize why. This rightful shift in semantics subtly implies that humans have arbitrarily chosen to farm them, as opposed to the carnist implication that the animals are meant to be farmed.

Farming an animal is wrong no matter whether our culture designates it as a "farm animal".

When referring to the species that happen to be farmed, say "conventionally farmed animal species".

[supprimé]

​

We live in an era that champions equality. The law, on paper, is beautifully neutral. It speaks of "any person," "the accused," and "the victim"—words carefully stripped of gender. Yet beneath this veneer of fairness, a stark reality persists: the system does not treat men and women equally. Not in domestic violence cases. Not in family courts. Not in sentencing. Not in the workplace.

This is not an attack on feminism. This is not a war between the sexes. This is a documented, data-driven examination of how the very institutions designed to deliver justice have instead created a two-tiered system—one where gender determines outcomes more than evidence ever should.

---

Case Study 1: The Male Victim No One Believed

The Story of Alex Skeel

In 2012, 16-year-old Alex Skeel from Bedfordshire, UK, met Jordan Worth at college. What began as a teenage romance descended into something unimaginable.

For nearly five years, Worth subjected Alex to a campaign of torture that Bedfordshire Police later described as one of the most extreme cases of domestic violence they had ever dealt with. She starved him, denied him food, and isolated him from his family. She threw boiling water over him, causing second- and third-degree burns. She broke all his mobile phones so he could not contact anyone. She beat him on the head with a beer bottle and chased him, hitting his hands and face with a hammer.

In one particularly cruel episode, Worth told Alex that his grandfather had died. She watched him sob for two hours before revealing it was a lie—then berated him for caring about his family.

When a neighbour finally called police after hearing shouts from the couple's home, ambulance staff found Alex with injuries to his hand and burns to his arms and legs that had been self-treated with cling film. Doctors at the hospital told him he was just ten days away from death.

The System's Response

In April 2018, Jordan Worth was sentenced to seven-and-a-half years in prison after pleading guilty to grievous bodily harm and coercive controlling behaviour. She became the first female in the UK to be convicted of coercive control.

But here is the uncomfortable truth: when Alex finally escaped and called for help, he was initially treated with suspicion. A male victim? The assumption, even among professionals, was that he must have been the aggressor.

Worth's sentence was later reviewed by the High Court after the Solicitor General argued it was unduly lenient given the severity of the abuse and Alex's vulnerability. Lord Justice Holroyde acknowledged the sentence was undoubtedly "very lenient" but ruled it was not unduly so.

The Aftermath

Worth was released from prison in January 2022, having served only part of her seven-and-a-half-year sentence. She has since become engaged to a new partner.

Alex Skeel, meanwhile, has undergone several operations on his brain, head, and hands. He has spoken publicly to challenge assumptions about violence and masculinity in relationships, and to empower other victims to come forward.

His case is not an outlier. It is a glaring example of how male victims are invisible to a system that assumes men are always the perpetrators.

---

The Numbers: Male Victims of Domestic Violence

The idea that domestic violence is a "women's issue" is not just outdated—it is statistically false.

In England and Wales, the latest figures estimate that 1.5 million men experienced domestic abuse in the year ending March 2025, compared with 2.2 million women. According to the Office for National Statistics, 1 in 5 men in the United Kingdom reported experiencing domestic abuse at some point in their lives, making up 42% of all victims.

One in three victims of domestic abuse are male. One in seven men will be a victim of domestic abuse in their lifetime.

Yet when male victims reach out to police, there is often "little interest." Charities report that police frequently make no formal record of male victims' injuries. The system, designed to protect, often fails the very people it is meant to serve—simply because of their gender.

---

Case Study 2: The False Accusation That Destroyed Everything

The Reality of False Allegations

False accusations of domestic abuse can be devastating for those accused, affecting their personal life, reputation, and having legal or custodial consequences.

Consider the thousands of anonymous cases documented by family law practitioners. A father accused by his ex-wife during a bitter custody battle. Arrested. Removed from his home. Prevented from seeing his children. His reputation destroyed. His job lost.

Then the evidence emerges: CCTV footage proves he was miles away at the time of the alleged assault. Text messages show she orchestrated the accusation to gain leverage in the divorce.

The Cruelest Twist

The accuser faces zero consequences for perjury.

Falsely accused males face persecution, social humiliation, and financial devastation due to insufficient legal protections. Even unproven allegations can significantly impact family court decisions and an individual's reputation. The consequences include loss of contact with children, damage to reputation and employment, and permanent criminal records that can never be fully expunged.

Where is the equality in that? A woman can lie under oath, destroy a man's life, and walk away without penalty. A man can be innocent, proven innocent, and still lose everything.

---

The Family Court: Where Fathers Are Systematically Disadvantaged

The bias against men extends deep into family courts.

A recent study published in Discover Psychology exposed how race, gender, and religion intersect to create inequities in custody cases, with biases—including sexism—often shaping outcomes to the detriment of fathers and their children.

In Sweden, a quantitative vignette study found that professional social workers show selective gender discrimination against fathers in terms of living recommendations. The mother was considerably more likely to receive shared custody than the father, regardless of the evidence.

In the United States, about 79% of all parents with sole custody are mothers. Judges subjectively report far less favoritism towards mothers (15%) compared to attorneys (49.9%)—suggesting that even legal professionals acknowledge the bias, even if they won't admit it openly.

The message is clear: fathers are not equal parents in the eyes of the system. They must prove themselves worthy of their own children, while mothers are presumed to be the default caregivers.

---

Case Study 3: The 92%—Men as Disposable Labour

The Workplace Death Toll

In the UK, in 2024/25, 118 (95%) of all worker fatalities were male workers—a proportion that has remained consistent for years. Of the 13,000 total estimated annual deaths linked to past exposures at work, around 75% are male and 25% female.

In the United States, the Bureau of Labor Statistics recorded 4,657 fatal occupational injuries among men in 2024, compared to just 413 among women.

Men are dying on the job at rates that dwarf female fatalities. They are the ones working in construction, fishing, mining, and the military—the most dangerous occupations on earth.

The Response?

"Man up."

When men ask for better mental health support or safer working conditions, they are told to be strong. When they suffer from work-related stress, depression, or suicide, their struggles are dismissed as weakness.

The system that claims to value equality treats male lives as expendable. Men are the shock absorbers of the economy—sacrificed on the altar of productivity, with their deaths recorded as statistics rather than tragedies.

---

The Sentencing Gap: Justice Is Not Blind

Perhaps the most damning evidence of systemic bias comes from the criminal justice system itself.

A comprehensive analysis by the U.S. Sentencing Commission found that men receive 58–63% longer sentences than women for the same federal crimes. Women are far less likely to be incarcerated at all.

A landmark study analyzing 300,000 federal cases found that men receive 63% longer sentences than women after controlling for every measurable factor from arrest through sentencing. Prosecutors are significantly more likely to charge men with offenses carrying mandatory minimums.

The disparity exists at every stage:

· Accused female offenders are more likely to have charges against them reduced or dropped.

· Male sex offenders receive longer prison sentences than female sex offenders, especially in cases involving minors.

· Research participants selected significantly harsher sanctions for male offenders for three of four crimes, with a significant leniency effect towards women.

Even in Norway, a country often held up as a paragon of equality, women receive an average of 24 days shorter prison sentences than men for equivalent offences. Women had 1.7 times greater chance of receiving a suspended sentence than men, even when the severity of the crime and prior offences were taken into account.

The message is unmistakable: If you are a man accused of a crime, you are guilty until proven innocent—and even then, you will be punished more harshly.

---

The Victim Gender Effect

The bias does not stop with the defendant. The gender of the victim also plays a measurable role.

Research examining 2,800 homicide cases from 33 urban counties found that killing a female victim increased sentences by 40.6%—compared to 26.8% for killing a white victim instead of a Black victim.

A drunk driver who kills a female victim receives, on average, a sentence three years longer than one who kills a male victim.

The system values female lives more than male lives. This is not an opinion—it is a statistical fact.

---

The Root Cause: A System Built on Stereotypes

How did we arrive at this point? The answer lies not in conspiracy but in institutionalized stereotypes that have been baked into the system for generations.

The "Benevolent Sexism" Trap

For centuries, society has treated women as fragile, in need of protection. This is not equality—it is a gilded cage. The same stereotype that portrays women as vulnerable also portrays men as strong, capable of enduring hardship, and therefore less deserving of protection.

When a woman hits a man, the instinctive reaction is: "She can't really hurt him." When a man hits a woman, the reaction is: "Monster." Both reactions stem from the same toxic assumption—that men are strong and women are weak.

The Duluth Model

In the United States and much of Europe, police training is based on models that assume the aggressor in domestic violence is always the man. Even when a woman throws a plate at a man's head, if he blocks it and she falls and gets a scratch, he is the one arrested. The law does not look at who started it—it looks at who has the visible injury and who is bigger.

The Fear of Being "Soft on Women"

Judges and prosecutors operate under intense political pressure. If a judge acquits a man accused by a woman and he later harms her, the judge's career is over. If a judge convicts an innocent man on flimsy evidence, no one remembers the next day.

The system rewards political safety over actual justice.

---

Conclusion: The Path Forward

The facts are undeniable. The system is broken. And it is broken for everyone.

Men die at work at rates that would be a national scandal if they were women. Men serve longer sentences for the same crimes. Men lose their children in family courts. Men are laughed at when they report abuse. Men are presumed guilty until proven innocent.

This is not about "men versus women." This is about a system that has swapped one form of discrimination for another.

What must change:

1. Gender-neutral domestic violence laws. The law must punish the act, not the gender of the perpetrator.

2. Equal penalties for false accusers. Lying under oath destroys lives. It must carry real consequences.

3. Equal access to mental health support. Men are dying of suicide at alarming rates. They need help, not mockery.

4. Equal parental rights in family courts. Shared custody must be the default, not an exception that fathers must fight for.

5. Sentencing reform. If the crime is the same, the sentence must be the same—regardless of the defendant's gender.

The path forward is not about tearing down one gender to elevate another. It is about building a system that judges individuals—not stereotypes.

Equality is not a weapon. It is a mirror. And right now, the mirror is cracked.

---

Sources: BBC News, Office for National Statistics, Health and Safety Executive (UK), U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Sentencing Commission, University of Ottawa, Lund University, National Coalition For Men, and multiple peer-reviewed studies cited throughout.

Has anyone here heard of Carnism Debunked (George Martin)? He's a vegan IG influencer who's been saying some really divisive stuff lately, bragging on his highlights about blocking fellow vegans who disagree with his own narrow interpretations of vegan ethics. This is hypocritical considering that his description says, "freedom of speech; freedom of thought".

Today, he posted about the Vegan Camp Out, complaining about all of the anti-Zionist vegans who have been boycotting it over its display of the Israeli flag on its wall of flags. Not only does he make whatabouteries comparing Israel to alleged genocides in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, but he claims that this is not in fact whataboutery and threatens to block anyone who denies the alleged genocides in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. He also thinks that anyone who "selectively" hates Israel is woke, even tho conservatives, too, are abandoning Zionism. Later in the comments he goes as far as to say that "Islamophobia" is not real, conflating it with simply criticizing the Islamic religion.

I remember Ali Tabrizi being similarly toxic after he produced Seaspiracy. He came out as a staunch Zionist and then last year stopped being vegan because he didn't wanna drive far away to buy plant-based marshmallows for his summer smores. Then on that same month, Sprouts started to promote Dandy's marshmallows, likely in response to this.

Vegan Zionists like George Martin and formerly Ali Tabrizi are a disgrace to our movement. They're not helping to convert people as much as they're keeping us on the wrong side of history by supporting the apartheid settler colony of Israel. Our movement is stronger when it stands with indigenous peoples around the world, their plant-heavy cuisines, and their greater cultural ties to the ecological well-being of their respective homelands. No matter how Israel tries to greenwash itself, its settlers never live as sustainably as the Levantine Arabs who've been living off the land for millennia without modern consumerism and infrastructure.

IDC much what other opinions vegans have within the movement, even if they're extreme since most extremists are too silly to pose a threat. Vegan Zionists (and maybe certain radfems) are the only types I'd gladly exclude, because Zionism is so obviously racist yet still so impactful today unlike Naziism or Black nationalism.

​I need to vent about what is happening right now in West Bengal, India, because it perfectly captures how the global conversation around "equality" has turned into institutional discrimination against men.

​The state government just dropped its 2026 budget, and it reads like a dystopian joke if you happen to be a young man trying to survive. Here is exactly what the government is handing out based purely on gender:

​Free Public Transit: As of this month, women travel 100% free on all state-run buses. Men pay full price for the exact same seat, the exact same fuel, and the exact same infrastructure.

​The $600 (₹50,000) College Cash Drop: A brand-new scheme gives a massive one-time cash grant of ₹50,000 directly to any unmarried woman who enrolls in an undergraduate college. Young men entering the exact same colleges get absolutely zero.

​Monthly Cash Handouts: The government is rolling out the Annapurna scheme, giving ₹3,000 ($36) every single month directly to women aged 25–60. Again, nothing for men in the same economic bracket.

​33% Forced Reservations: A strict legal quota system ensuring 33% of all new government department hiring and massive chunks of corporate roles are locked exclusively for women.

​The Math: Same Taxes, Zero Benefits

​Let’s look at how the system treats two citizens from the exact same lower-income family:

​College Entry Fund: A female student gets a ₹50,000 cash grant to start her degree. A male student gets ₹0 and has to figure it out himself.

​Daily Commute Cost: A female student travels completely free ($0) across state buses. A male student pays full price out of his own pocket just to get to classes.

​Monthly Welfare Cash: Women aged 25-60 get a predictable ₹3,000/month direct cash transfer. Men in the exact same low-income brackets get ₹0.

​Legal & Job Quotas: Women get a 33% reserved pool in jobs alongside heavy diversity hiring initiatives. Men are left to fight each other in a rapidly shrinking, brutal unreserved open pool.

​Why Do We Pretend This Is "Equality"?

​When you challenge this online, people give you the standard textbook answers: "It’s for women’s empowerment" or "It protects them." But let's look at the actual reality:

​Men are the primary taxpayers: The vast majority of income tax and economic revenue is generated by men, who are then forced to subsidize systems they are legally excluded from using for free. Why am I paying full price for a bus ticket to fund a free ride for someone else based entirely on what's between their legs?

​Why the hell do women still need reservations? If the government is already paying for their transit, giving them massive lump-sum cash drops to go to college, and funding them monthly, why do they also need a 33% legal safety net to bypass open competition? Either the welfare schemes work and level the playing field, or they don't. You shouldn't get to stack both.

​The invisible struggle of young men: If a young guy cannot afford bus fare to get to his college classes or his entry-level job, he drops out. He slips through the cracks. Society expects men to be the financial providers, the rocks of their families, and to handle 100% of the cut-throat competition without complaining—while actively removing the ladder from underneath them.

​The Men's Rights Movement is constantly villainized by international media as a bunch of angry guys on the internet. But this isn't a theoretical debate; it's basic arithmetic. We are building a society that treats young men as utility mules—good for tax revenue and heavy labor, but entirely unworthy of institutional support.

​If a government scheme explicitly excluded women from free transit or education grants, it would be an international human rights scandal. When it happens to men, it's called progress.

Shoutout to u/1SandyBay1 and their post for inspiring me to make this. In particular, this conclusion quote:

>Men have no party that genuinely serves their interests.

>Republicans celebrate male disposability — "man up" is their cultural brand. They have controlled the government multiple times and never touched Selective Service, never reformed child support debtor's prison, never addressed the male suicide gap as a policy priority.

>Democrats control mental health policy, education policy, and DV funding — all of which systematically exclude or deprioritize men. The left has had decades to fix the Duluth Model, VAWA's gendered exclusions, and the male homelessness crisis. It hasn't.

>Men's rights is not a conservative cause. But it isn't a Democratic cause either. The first step is refusing to pretend either party is an ally when the evidence says otherwise.

Both parties are "controlling" the institutions that control men into being oppressed in ways that don't affect women as much. Both systems of misandry are authoritarian in nature.

Republicans are supporting our prison system that mainly targets men and makes them suffer for years instead of rehabilitating them. This is not even just for violent crimes; the war on drugs also affects men disproportionally, since men are more likely to get high to cope with their woes in life.

Democrats are controlling all of the feministic institutions, designed to favor women over men, including DEI programs, VAWA funding, domestic violence shelters, social workers who manipulate women into falsely reporting sexual crimes, and the feministic academia that spreads misandric doctrines.

A Right-winger could argue that we should work on sentencing more women; but that doesn't address the overall inhumanity of the prison system, nor does that really make men's lives any better. It just makes more women's lives worse while increasing the chances of crime recidivism.

A Left-winger could argue that we should double our funding directed towards social services, so that the services can benefit men equally. However, this may sound a little Right-wing, but the Democrats are stealing men's taxes for all of this, sometimes even at the direct expense of men's freedoms.

I've never heard libertarians advocate for anything nearly as misandric. Sometimes they have an excessive bootstraps mentality like conservatives do, but they seem to apply that thinking more consistently, and often towards men and women equally. Libertarian individualism is truly about personal freedom, whereas the Right wants men's individualism to be channeled strictly towards nuclear family goals (the Left's individualism is identity politics which obviously exclude men).

The only likely way in which libertarianism would conflict with masculism is if men's programs, along with women's programs, receive less funding. Many on this sub might disagree with me on this due to the admittedly radical economic theories surrounding anarchism, but personally, I believe that these gender-based programs should run without the government, on either private funding (as in anarcho-capitalism) or some system of mutual volunteering (as in anarcho-communism). Nonetheless, I think that the actively anti-male authoritarianism being supported by the feminists and conservatives is much worse than simply neglecting to fund men's programs or using the government to fund them either way.

Granted, libertarians are not explicitly pro-male; but this can be said of many other ideologies, many of which are not strictly pro-female either. What matters is that libertarians make for a good ally, even if their alignment with men's rights is coincidental and unintentional.

We all want more blocks to come in stairs, slabs, pillars, and walls, since more shape options for builders for any given block is never really a bad thing (unless perhaps it seriously conflicts with the usual functions of a block). What should particularly come to mind is Quartz Bricks, Calcite, Packed Mud, End Stone, cracked variants, terracotta, and concrete. We're also missing wall variants for Polished stone variants, the whole quartz family, purpur, and prismarine variants. I digress.

Of course, it's already unusual that sulfur and cinnabar are being marketed as building blocks in Chaos Cubed. We also got resin as a building block not too long ago. Now with woolen stairs & slabs Mojang is really thinking outside the block more than ever for stairs & slabs.

My ideas

• Glass, including all colors of stained glass
  • Obviously for glass roofs and other diagonal glass features
  • Should also come in doors and trapdoors
  • Would be even more useful as a sideways slab
• Moss and Pale Moss
  • Perfect not only for terraforming but also for stairs & slabs in an old, overgrown building
• Skulk
  • Like Moss and Pale Moss, Skulk can be used to make a build look overgrown in it
• Dirt Paths
  • Sloped paths could look better this way
• Snow and all types of ice
  • Good for igloos and other ice-themed stuff
• Honeycomb blocks
  • This can be used for bee-themed fantasy builds
• Obsidian
  • For unbreakable staircases, and also because obsidian looks cool
  • Should be usable for nether portals
• Soul Sand
  • This will allow for slow staircases
  • This will have to come with Soul Soil just for consistency
• Crimson & Warped Nether Wart Blocks
  • Similar to wool, this will allow the wart blocks to be used as a fabric that can be made into upholstery