r/changemyview

Afaik Biden kinda disliked Obama privately a bit since he was sidelined in 2016 . I think he privately told his aides that "obama never completely believed in me " and very strongly believed that he would have beaten trump if he was the dem nominee instead of Clinton.

Obama and Biden don't have that good of a relationship since then. As his term progressed it was clear that biden largely relied on his wife and son for advice instead of his cabinet whd and didn't even meet them all that much .

Since his strategy to avoid criticism was just not talk much about it to anyone, he was very offended when he was persuaded to drop out . The party wanted a mini primary since they (or atleast pelosi ) didn't believe that she could win it and welp that's what happened .

But they had no option other than nominating her since biden endorsed her after dropping out . Now imagine if biden agreed to not run again as soon as he started out , maybe he would get insecure about the party and they inturn would be much more firmly behind him. In a healthy primary the dems have a much better chance to nominate some one better and I think Trump wouldn't win then . Harris ran a bad campaign and still managed to nearly win Wisconsin . A slightly stronger candidate would probably win the rust belt and Georgia as well. ( Maybe not Arizona and NC but this is the worst case )

Biden would then leave office with a much better legacy and legislative accomplishments.

I think most people, regardless of how hard they "worked" to get their physique, don't realize, or downplay, how much genetics played into it. I'm saying this as a lanky 6' tall guy who could eat all day and only gain weight in my middle section. I received my body genetics from my father's side of the family. The women are all skinny with no butts, and the guys are skinny with guts. Now, sure, I could hit the gym hard 5 or 6 days a week, instead of 3, and I would see better results, but for me to achieve a normal looking, filled out body, I would need different genetics. I assure you that my skinny ass legs, even with a nice layer of muscle on them, would still look skinny.

It's frustrating when someone, who looked relatively healthy and normal before they started working out, tells someone like me, "you just need to eat more protein and hit the gym harder".

If someone has a picture of a lanky, tall, skinny dude looking filled out (including their legs) after changing their diet and fitness habits, please feel free to share it.

I'm not referring to total gym rats who literally make working out their full-time job. I do believe these people can make pretty significant gains, but it's not a realistic life change for 98% of people. At 48 years old, there is no chance I'm becoming a gym rat lol.

I see this take all over Reddit. To me, it’s one of the dumbest, most narrowminded viewpoints anyone can come up with. First off, it discounts the reality of so many people across the globe, that aren’t born in a rich country. Why should a subsistence farmer in Uganda not have kids? He is gonna need help on his farm, and someone to take care of him when he gets old.

You might then say, oh, I only mean rich countries, where people have a choice (which to me, is a really parochial perspective). But even then, in the country I live in, in Scandinavia, there are massive financial incentives for poor people to have kids. A lot of social benefits are contingent on you having them. And even in Scandinavia, your public pension is not gonna help you much on its own when you age.

Lastly, what’s common for poor people all over, is that poverty can be extremely isolating, and take away almost all agency and control over your life. Of course poor people are gonna wanna have kids. Saying they shouldn’t completely disregards their financial incentives and denies them basic human agency. To me, it’s a classist, ignorant and all around shameful view to espouse.

I’m a dog owner and have had my pup for 6 years now. He’s a rescue from Puerto Rico and I adore him, he’s a good boy. But he’s my dog, not a human being and he’s gross. He rolls in and eats feces, dead animals or whatever he finds. He licks his own ass and does other disgusting things because…. He’s a dog.

I’ve always had a slight aversion to people that put there dogs on a pedestal above other humans. To me it’s just bizarre. My best friend is a dog lover and she treats them as children. Professional photo shoots, outfits constantly, always proclaiming her love for dogs. We hike together and she lets her dogs off the leash the whole time to the point where her dogs are bombarding other hikers or dogs, and when they get frustrated she says I’m not leashing my dog in the woods.

Now my partner whom I also adore, has a miniature husky looking dog, that he treats as his child. Everything is about Minnie, (that’s her name). He gives her more affection than me at times, when we go on vacation he is always worrying about her and checking on her. He has photos of her everywhere, in his car, ornaments etc. he makes her scrambled eggs and pork chops every night for dinner, so after I’m done cooking a whole meal I have to cook the dogs fresh food…I don’t say anything I just observe the weirdness. Having her sleep in bed and constantly all over us grosses me out.

This is all bizarre to me, even on social media the praise people give there dogs and the worshipping as though their dogs saved them. I just don’t get it and I’m wondering if it’s a reflection of our society as a whole, and the disconnect we feel from eachother. The inability to bond? I don’t know I just really don’t get it and at the risk of sounding like an asshole it’s cringey to me.

In other countries dogs are dogs. Just like cats and other pets. I give my dog plenty of love and exercise and treats but I don’t feel like dogs have the same level of consciousness or emotions we do and it’s almost like people just project themselves onto an animal that’s incapable of understanding things the way we do. Am I alone in my thinking? Am I an asshole? Is the world just getting more bizarre by the day 🤣? Help me understand.

CMV: Reddit is one of the worst places to ask for relationship advice.

Not because people on Reddit are evil, unintelligent, or incapable of empathy. But because the structure of Reddit itself makes objective, balanced relationship advice almost impossible.

Most relationship posts are:
- written in moments of emotional intensity,
- heavily one-sided,
- missing years of context,
- and filtered through the poster’s own biases.

Then thousands of strangers project their own experiences, traumas, insecurities, values, and unresolved resentment onto the situation.

As a result, the advice often becomes:
- “break up,”
- “they’re manipulating you,”
- “this is abuse,”
- “they’re cheating,”
- “you deserve better,”
- or armchair diagnoses from people who know neither person involved.

And the scary part is: sometimes those comments are technically understandable from the information provided. But the information provided is almost never enough to make life-altering decisions with confidence.

I also think Reddit fundamentally misunderstands what long-term relationships actually look like.

If you read enough threads, you start to believe that:
- occasional boredom means the relationship is dead,
- attraction fluctuating means you’ve “fallen out of love,”
- conflict means incompatibility,
- doubts mean you should leave,
- routine means you’re settling,
- and emotional distance during stressful periods means the relationship is doomed.

But almost every long-term couple experiences some version of these things at some point.

Relationships are not static emotional highs. People change. Desire fluctuates. Stress affects intimacy. Resentment builds and can sometimes be repaired. Communication gets worse and then improves again. That’s normal.

Reddit often treats normal relational struggles and truly irreparable relationships as if they’re the same thing.

I think people are far better off:
- speaking to a therapist,
- talking to emotionally mature friends who have no stake in the outcome,
- or having difficult direct conversations with their partner.

And honestly, I’m even cautious about relying too heavily on parents or family for relationship advice, because they usually cannot be fully objective either. They love you first. If your partner hurts you, even temporarily, your family may carry that resentment long after you’ve moved on from it.

A therapist is not automatically “right,” either. But at least therapy is structured around nuance, patterns, accountability, communication, and context — not farming engagement through outrage and certainty.

To be clear: Reddit can absolutely help people recognize genuinely abusive situations, manipulation, coercion, chronic disrespect, or toxic dynamics they’ve normalized. It can also make people feel less alone.

But I think Reddit is much better at validating feelings than evaluating relationships.

CMV.

By putting so much effort into making sure Massie lost; he has validated all the conspiracies possible. Israel controls him, the Epstein files are being redacted, etc… Now actually make sense. Instead of keeping him around as a useful heal he made sure all of his ideas spread far and wide.

This is much bigger than a single seat in Kentucky; it will have repercussions all across the country. Taking out someone so popular (with the largest $ in history) will hurt him down the road. His ideas aren’t going away. He just killed the messenger and made sure the message spread as far as possible.

Donald Trump firmly believes that he is above any law. He engineered the violent Jan 6 coup attempt after we the people ousted him in 2020. Now that he is back in power, he does precisely what he wants to do. He ignores or sneers at any restraints from the courts or the lawmakers in Congress. He has given the middle finger to the US Constitution time and time again.

There is no actual law prohibiting the POTUS or the VP from buying and selling individual stocks - it is only legally required that they report their financial dealings. It has been the practice of modern presidents to put everything in a blind trust to avoid even the appearance of insider trading and conflict of interest. Trump doesn't give a rat's furry behind about laws. There is no way that he would feel bound by precedence when there's real money to be made. He is certainly getting word to his people about which stocks to buy or sell.

Edit: my original point was that it’s not an effective rhetorical strategy or wording for trying to persuade someone who doesn’t already agree. I guess I wasn’t clear enough in my original post. I’m not a fascist guys I just want to hear better strategies for how to talk to the stupid and/or cruel people. Don’t be so mad at me :(

Basic shelter, food, water, stuff like that.

Obviously everyone needs it and deserves it but they don’t exist for free. Producing the stuff, maintaining or processing, transport, etc., all take labor that needs to be paid for.

The issue isn’t that these stuff should be (somehow, magically) free because everyone needs them, it’s that the costs should be shared by everyone because everyone needs them. And no one should be allowed to hoard that stuff because everyone needs them.

Just because we just collectively agree that something is a “basic inviolable human right” doesn’t mean that some sort of divine intervention will just make it so that we all get it, I don’t see why that sort of framing is necessary, or how it could be effective in persuading anyone who doesn’t already agree.

It was revealed that Thomas Massie, the Kentucky Rep who pushed for the release of the Epstein files and became an opponent to Trump, lost his primary to a Trump loyalist.

This is concrete proof that Americans genuinely don't care about the Epstein Files, nor the implications that the Epstein Files carry. People talk about their opponents being in the Epstein files, but when it comes to the Epstein Files themselves, there's absolutely no action.

The Epstein Files don't matter to the actual voting populace, and never will. American morality is exclusively limited to the side someone disagrees with.

Would love for my view to be changed.

Lately I’ve been thinking that timing and positioning matter way more than people like to admit.

You can grind like crazy, do everything “right,” and still get nowhere if you’re just off on timing or in the wrong space. Meanwhile someone else can put in half the effort but hit the right moment and blow past you.

I get why people emphasize hard work because it’s something you can control, but it feels like it gets way too much credit compared to everything else.

Open to being wrong on this. Curious what people think.

I'm noticing a trend where a lot of posts and news segments are disproving that data centers are using too much water, but I never saw the people being affected by data center projects bringing that up as their main issue.

Whenever a protest against a data center project erupts, the corporate media and politicians can just single out the water usage issue, disprove that easily and then automatically dismiss all the other environmental and health concerns that are being brought up.

And it's also an easy message to astroturf. Every time I open this app I see multiple posts with professional diagrams showing that data center project x is only using 1% of the water that the rest of the town uses. You'll never see diagrams showing you how air pollution from data centers isn't as bad as pollution from coal plants or whatever, because people naturally understand that all kinds of pollution will affect them.

I finally watched the Barbie movie after all these years (I haven't seen Oppenheimer in its entirety yet), and I think both the defenders and critics of it completely misunderstand what the movie actually says.

I do NOT think the movie is anti-man. At all. In fact, I think the movie creates a ton of sympathy for Ken ... and completely undermines its own feminist messaging in the process.

The movie starts by establishing Barbieland as a gender-swapped patriarchy. The Barbies hold all the power, all the institutional roles, all the social respect, while the Kens are treated as accessories with no real identity or agency outside of women.

Awesome. Great setup. I actually think that’s a smart way to get the audience, particularly the male audience, to understand patriarchy by reversing it.

But then the movie completely falls apart once they enter the real world.

From Ken’s perspective, he has literally been a second-class citizen his entire life. Then he enters a world where men appear respected, powerful, taken seriously, and socially important. Of course he becomes fascinated with a world where he's ... not a second-class citizen. The movie's established groundwork makes his reaction psychologically understandable. And on the other side of it, you have Barbie feeling like what an oppressed class/group in the real world feel like, after being the privileged class her whole life. Am I supposed to feel sympathy for Barbie here?

And then it really breaks down even more after this.

If the Kens are supposed to represent women under patriarchy, why are we supposed to root against them taking power in Barbieland? If you buy the movie’s own allegory, the Kens overthrowing Barbieland is equivalent to an oppressed class revolting against an unequal system.

And then the “happy ending” is that the Barbies regain power and give the Kens a few tiny reforms and symbolic positions?

That is NOT a feminist ending. Feminism would not say women should be satisfied with a few lower court seats and symbolic representation while remaining structurally unequal. So why is that suddenly framed as satisfying when the genders are flipped?

Now, yes, this part still had a very good point to make. The Kens are given some small seats and power, but not close to equal. That's great at showing the audience how far we actually are from defeating the patriarchy. But, again, I am absolutely not rooting for the Barbies/Barbieland by this point and do not see this as a happy ending.

That’s why I don’t think the movie is anti-man, if anything, it's more pro-man because it wants me to root for the group that represents a gender-swapped patriarchy. I think it’s anti-its own feminist allegory.

The movie only works if you stop applying the allegory consistently halfway through. It wants Barbieland to be a serious patriarchy inversion when it’s making a point, but then suddenly wants you to stop taking the politics literally once the implications become uncomfortable.

Then the Mattel stuff added to the confusion and just made it feel like a big advertisement.

Change my view. What am I not seeing in this movie that a lot of other feminists loved? Is there a big thing I'm missing, or is the movie itself kinda just a somewhat shallow girl power flick for people who played with Barbies (I did like Kate McKinnon's character and a lot of those other gimmicks) that doesn't really hold up to the "Smash the Patriarchy" marketing?

EDIT: u/Fit-Order-9468 wins this thread. I could not be convinced that, in the aforementioned framework I laid out, that my takeaways were wrong or that the movie didn't just fall on its face. What this user did is explain to me that my framework of viewing the movie was actually wrong; it's both a critique of feminism in its current state and a call for better feminism (with of course some elements of a gender-swapped patriarchy, but it's not as central as I initially thought). View successfully changed!

I agree with the concept of what therapy is. I agree that therapy in temporary iterations can be overwhelmingly beneficial. I think there are very few people who actually need to be going to therapy forever.

Aside from the obvious conflict of interest that therapists have to keep making money, continuing therapy for your entire life seems like always being on painkillers. Not being able to process basic and common issues without the help of a therapist is a sign that the “muscle” in your brain to deal with difficult situations has atrophied.

In certain scenarios, such as loss of a loved one, traumatic experience, etc., I think it makes sense to go for a while while you work through it, but if your end goal is not to be able to deal with issues on your own, you are doing yourself more harm than good.

Edit: Please at least meet me where I am at here. There are only a couple of comments that actually had much benefit, and I appreciate those. The rest are upset because this is Reddit and what I am saying is more or less against the grain of the hivemind. I am not trying to upset you, I wanted to voice how I saw it, and evolve my point of view by either seeing supporting evidence, or conflicting evidence that I could then go learn from. But I do think that there is more at play in our politics than we have the capability to see, and some conspiracies do happen. Honestly, I am just a little resentful of our system, so emotions have a part in my thinking process with stuff like this, no doubt. I've realized from this thread that I need to understand how the democratic process works fundamentally, as well as the federal currency system, so I will try do that before having so much conviction. I am definitely not interested in believing in a bunch of nonsense, so all I can do is do my best to consider my own biases and look at it all objectively. I got carried away here a couple of times and apologize, I got upset at the way people scoff at this kind of discussion when it really is a matter of curiosity for me

Seriously. This idea is driving me crazy. If you claim you are a centrist, people get angry at you as if you must choose a side or are detracting/funneling votes from their side. If I choose the side of pro-choice, then suddenly I also have to support nonsensical immigration policies as well. If I am pro socialized medicine, then I also have to be supportive of the war in Ukraine. Even today, there is far less room for political nuance than there was when I was a kid in the early 2000s

I am 31 years old, which is a baby to some people and I totally understand that. But through my life I have watched as our liberties and positive life circumstances are stripped away, year after year, no matter who is in office. George W Bush was the president during 9/11 and by the end of his second term, the general consensus was 'no more unnecessary wars'. Obama came in, deported more immigrants than any other president combined, chemical weapons in Syria etc. We even had general Wesley Clark give a list of 7 countries we were going to invade circa 2007. The list has become 100% accurate, and Iran was the last on the list. My theory now, that I have held since a couple of years ago, was that Cuba was next after Iran. Why? Because they are not 'backed' by the federal reserve/not participating in IMF/international monetary created by the global elites, Iran was the other country that didn't participate. And look what is happening in front of our eyes. The only other notable country not participating in IMF is North Korea, and I am unsure if that will ever be occupied the same way we are attempting with Cuba and Iran.

My point is America is an Empire. America has goals, and will attempt to protect itself. Even the Greenland thing is not new, as we were attempting to buy Greenland since we purchased Alaska, and a few presidents have tried due to its geography for military and resource dominance. Do you all really think we have a choice? How many things have to happen for what has happened is obvious to every voter? The president only takes office for 4 years, and is has no 'need to know' for several important things. So who's controlling the country? It is the federal reserve, the bankers, the tech billionaires, pharma and insurance billionaires, gas giants, war hawks etc. Our political theater is just that, a show with its purpose being to communicate to us what they've already decided to do. And it has become abundantly clear in my opinion. Even things like Reddit serve as a political propaganda machine, despite it not starting out for that explicit purpose.

Anyone who was following the ball knows why Trump was elected, and I don't think we had a choice. It is an arc that started around 2016(the Trump arc definitely started way before that, but for simplicities sake, let's start with 2016 when doomscrolling became the norm and advertising revenue absorbed our streaming services and social media, because this is a clear tipping point politically as well). Bernie was on track to win, I was a Bernie supporter and excited that someone genuine was racing after I was pretty disappointed with Obama doing nothing that he said he would, and actually just strengthening the surveillance state/ neo-con agenda. We thought power changed hands then, from the evil war hawk neocons to the benevolent democrats who were going to make it all better. But nope, just more of the same. Unfortunately, our oligarchs couldn't allow Bernie to be president, it would mean they would have to stifle some of their corruption. So since the DNC and RNC are clearly both infiltrated, they kicked Bernie out, replaced him with Hillary, which led to Trump's presidency. It was even obvious back then that he would get elected because Hillary was so clearly the worst choice they could have made. I had thoughts of 'are they doing this on purpose? If they wanted Trump to lose they would have made different decisions but it seems like they wanted him to win".

Cue Trump presidency into 2020. Then Biden. It is so obvious why Biden was not liked. And then we had those terrible debates which secured Trumps presidency right then and there. They choose Kamala via non-democratic means. Again, any democrat who is paying attention and not being emotional against Trump, didn't think that was right, including me. I would have LOVED for the democrats to push a good candidate who I could get behind, that simply did not happen. No, despite all the theater and the entertaining show, Trump had already been chosen to win, it was the obvious choice. But it seemed like he was against this war profiteering nonsense, and would at least get one over on the elites that are clearly running the country. Well, PSYCHE! He is acting in lock-step with these assholes and clearly is there for that purpose. So everyone was bamboozled and we are right back where we were before, just more confused.

It gets me when people are emotional about what side they are on, because we have all been tricked and taken over by either an inner oligarchy of war hawks/billionaires, or foreign adversaries from within. And I don't think it is new. I think this has been the case since well before any of us were born. There are arguments as to when this started, but the people aligning with one wing of our government.. I know it is hard to accept being wrong, but all of us are wrong. Neither party is real, they are a means to divide us while the oligarchs laugh all the way to the bank. I think now we are so interconnected and have so much visibility that we are all waking up to it. This is bigger than right vs left, and if you are still stuck on right vs left well, I think that is pretty ignorant considering the evidence in front of us. We are tightly controlled, and headed towards a more blatant neo-feudalistic mode of society. It was always there, but now they can't hide it as well so it will become overt.

Change my view. If someone has some good arguments, and is educated on all of these things I am talking about, I truly value your opinion and please express it here. When I learn new information, I change my mind. But nobody has been able to convince me this isn't true, they only get offended and the actual point gets lost in the sauce. Our emotions and primal human instincts/behaviors are regularly being manipulated since before we were born, so I cannot blame people for having their emotional reactions. Just know that this is right where they want us. At the end of the day we have FAR more in common than we have differences. We all need to realize together that the old adage is correct, "If voting mattered, they wouldn't let us do it"

There is a growing trend across internet forums and relationship discussions that downplays, and sometimes outright dismisses, the genuine physical and aesthetic attraction that women feel toward men. It seems that exclusive female heterosexuality is increasingly invisible, replaced by discourses that either romanticize the female body as the "only truly beautiful form" or center exclusively on discontent with the male gender.

When reading modern discussions about dating dynamics, it has become incredibly common to see posts by self-identified heterosexual women claiming they feel zero aesthetic attraction to the male body, or that they prefer looking at women. While everyone’s sexuality is valid, this has created a broader cultural narrative where a woman's total, exclusive, and enthusiastic attraction to men is treated as a rarity, a sign of being conditioned by the patriarchy, or dismissed with derogatory terms like being a "pick-me."

This normalization reinforces a toxic idea: that the male body is inherently unappealing and that "no one actually desires men for their looks." Not only does this harm men’s perception of being wanted and validated in modern relationships, but it also creates social pressure on heterosexual women. It implies we should all find women aesthetically superior, invalidating those of us who have absolutely no interest in the female form and are genuinely, fully attracted to men.

Being a woman who is exclusively and enthusiastically attracted to men shouldn’t be viewed as a submissive, outdated, or rare stance; it is a completely valid orientation. I want to understand why the discourse that "women don't actually like men physically" has become so mainstream and normalized.

CMV: Change my view on whether this trend is genuinely widespread and toxic, or if I am misinterpreting a vocal minority online. What are the underlying sociological or psychological reasons for this shift?

Less than 10% of US House Districts are true "toss up" districts. Eighty five percent are not competitive.

That means that for most voters, the outcome of the election is decided in the primary, not the general election. For many primaries, you have to be registered with a party to vote in their primary. In fact, if you have to choose one, you're better off just voting in the primary election and not in the general.

Registering with a party, even if you detest everything they stand for, has no downsides. Besides participating in their primaries, you're giving them no additional money or power. You can still vote for the candidate you prefer, regardless of party (or lack of party) in the general election.

By registering for the majority party, voting for the candidate closest to your position in the primary, and voting for the other party in the general election (especially if the candidate you voted for lost), you're forcing the primaries, which are currently controlled by partisan extremists, to shift more towards your view and moderate their extremism and partisan loyalty.

This only applies to the states with closed primaries. In semi-closed states, you should just be unaffiliated.

This is gonna sound funny but I'm actually begging for someone to help me change my view on this lol. I loooove horror and I used to be SO into paranormal stuff, ghosts/poltergeists, unexplained phenomena, and just anything that "challenged" what we know about reality/earth, you get it.

Over time, I realized I didn't believe in any of it anymore and I strongly believe that there's an explanation for those types of things. Even if the explanation is rooted in some type of science we haven't even discovered yet, I believe there's an explanation somewhere out there for every strange occurrence. But it PISSES me off that I believe that lol. Like I wanna to be scared, I wanna believe in ghosts, I wanna believe in strange mysteries. I'm telling you up until probably 5 years ago I was all about that shit and just loved the idea of the unknown, but now I just feel like its 'unknown' because its not real.

Every paranormal documentary, video, investigation, it's all just noises, shit moving around, and shadows. Anyone or anything could create that, purposely or accidentally. And then they're like "oh dude it's a poltergeist, look at these scratch marks" and it's just red marks from human finger nails 😭

And trust me I get that 99% of paranormal investigations that have that type of content are simply for entertainment, but I guess that just proves deeper that there's no video proof of that type of stuff. Then the 'genuine' investigations where people aren't playing shit up are just like, "yeah guys the spirit box just said "Kill Ham"..." like ok. cool. Kill Ham. Lets go home now.

Idk someone convince me unexplained whimsy exists in this world please

First of all, it’s our money anyway. Secondly, how exactly do they even plan on verifying whether someone was “wronged” by Biden or Obama? And regardless of however they decide to do so, worst case scenario is that this strategy gives them a shit ton of paperwork and processing to do. Anyone who slips through the cracks is taking money away from insurrectionists and traitors. So I say that when the time comes, we all find an application, make some shit up, and put those fuckers to work.

This last paragraph exists for the sole purpose of meeting the sub’s required character count. So la-di-da and fuck off.

Edit: amused by all the neolib responses of “we should just vote blue every 2 to 4 years and do LITERALLY nothing else!”- youre gonna have to do better than that my dudes

I think a lot of people who say this are not saying it in bad faith, but it can discourage use for those who can benefit from its use.

Now obviously, everyone who does use them (and people in general) should develop a healthy diet and exercise with GLP-1s simply being a tool to have a healthier life, but not treated like a magic pill.

Most weight loss patients do struggle to maintain the weight they lost and typically gain it back within a couple of years. The success stories are inspirations and more impressive than using GLP-1s, but I don’t think improving your quality of life should be something you did more impressive than someone else.

But you also have people who just happen to have larger appetites or unhealthy relationships with food (like binge eating). GLP-1s have been shown to positively impact individuals who have these issues which lead to their obesity.

Not to mention there are biological struggles with losing weight like the body being used to the size and hormonally the body fighting back.

I just really don’t get why if there are all these quality of life improvements like people’s overeating being solved and not having the burden of obesity, why people would discourage use simply because it’s “cheating”. Weight loss isn’t a drug tested sport and it feels like a lot of people act like it is that make this claim.

ONLY TALKING ABOUT IN CAGE SKILL. NOT talking about impact, popularity, or anything outside of the cage.

Sure the Jose Aldo knock out was a SEMINAL moment in the sport. But what Toporia is doing dismantling the decisions is extraordinary.

His only potential challenger in my opinion would be to go after Islam. And that is only because Islam is WAAAY bigger and stronger. If they were the same size, I still give it to Toporia. Besides the point.

I also appreciate Ilia’s decorum in the cage. No fouls, eye pokes or dirty stuff. Just low heart rate collected focus and performance.

I just hope he is recognised by us old guard fans as being as special as he is.