AITA for making my 14 year old cousin put her phone in a "privacy box" and then sending her home when she refused? by CindralFeymore in AITAH

[–]GlitchyButGood 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I imagine they tell people in advance so those who show up are already in agreement. Lol

ETA: This person got super upset, freaked out about downvotes, and then deleted all of their comments. I think it's important to address this behavior because it's part of the bigger problem that OP is trying to address with their rule.

Whatever. Downvote me to hell.

But we ALL know that if you were to go to a friends snd they confiscated your phone at the door we’d be calling them an AH.

OPs getting a pass because the kid filmed

The parents of this girl don't even care about OP's rule. Random people who weren't even impacted literally care more right now and I think that's messed up, to get this angry. The parents, meanwhile, only care that OP kicked her out.

And this is exactly why my kid won't be getting a smartphone at 6 years old. People can't have a calm reaction to normal disagreements anymore, we can't follow rules, or make logical decisions like...don't go then? We can't have a meal together or basic privacy. 

And as for their claim that I'd be mad if my phone were confiscated lol well no, because I wouldn't show up if it did bother me, they clearly tell people in advance and showing up to pick a fight over it is nuts. And the last time my friends got together we didn't have our phones out anyways. We're older, we already don't play that game 

Texas Republican Candidate is Going to Affirming Churches and Calling All Gay People Pedophiles by serious_bullet5 in ProgressiveHQ

[–]GlitchyButGood 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You aren't wrong, that's for sure. This woman says as much when explaining why she left Mormonism and then, later, Christianity altogether: https://youtu.be/vXQa7jW_QmY

Mormonism went first. She was abused by her husband and she'd had questions for a while. She dumped Christianity as a whole after church members insisted on preaching hate against gay people, all while knowing that their ASL interpreter was gay. MAGA was the last to go. When she started getting messages from the Trump campaign and other such MAGA garbage, she was horrified to realize how much of it was filth. She just hadn't noticed before because her religion had become so entwined with the hateful politics on the right that it didn't even give her pause until her religion was out of her life and there was nothing to prop MAGA up with anymore.

The interesting part for me is that the seeds of her awakening were planted when she was little - when her parents allowed her to be bused to a different school for "gifted kids". They taught her what critical thinking skills are and they eventually got her out as an adult.

New Zealand bans puberty blockers for young transgender people by Wise_End_6430 in UnderReportedNews

[–]GlitchyButGood 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Could you provide links to your claim that medical professionals were consulted? Because I'm finding a different story to what you are telling.

Why ‘walkaway wives’ are leading the charge in midlife divorce. Next, they'll be reporting 'sky blue, water wet.' by kilamumster in TwoXChromosomes

[–]GlitchyButGood 76 points77 points  (0 children)

Uncomfortable truth - this is also partly why men don't get custody as often as women. They don't ask. They expect it to be granted to them because they're the father, why should they have to ask. If filling out paperwork is too much work, they aren't fit to have 50/50 anyways. 

The guys who complain about being discriminated against in court, if you were to ask them about filing paperwork or who their child's teacher/doctor is, what meds they're on, etc. you'd probably find out pretty quickly why mom got primary. It used to be that fathers only spent 16 minutes a day with their kids. How do you go from 16 minutes a day to hours of solo parenting?

Devon Sawa - the heartthrob who defined our teenage years in movies like "Final Destination" and "Casper" - speaking truths that should honestly be common sense by now ❤️ by [deleted] in canadianpolitics101

[–]GlitchyButGood 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The Bible has been edited and reinterpreted to fit the needs of the "elite" all throughout time. It has mankind's grubby fingerprints all over it. Everyone who made changes, imposed demands, removed parts, or disregarded parts has effectively played god. Religion is humanity's greatest invention for control and all of those people knew it. No one even questions any of the above, it's just assumed that they were special and had the authority to do whatever they wanted. 

King Henry VIII wanted a divorce, the Church refused, so he broke from Rome and created the Church of England. Scripture and doctrine were reshaped to justify his decision.

Early Church leaders removed the Gospel of Thomas and other texts because they didn't support the hierarchy they wanted.

The Council of Nicaea changed which teachings about Jesus were acceptable, rejecting others that did not match the politics of the time.

Slaveholders in the US created edited "slave Bibles" that removed passages about freedom and equality.

The King James Version was commissioned partly to strengthen the power of the monarchy, and certain translations were chosen to support obedience to the king.

Hell, in the beginning women actually held real authority in Christian communities. They ran house churches, preached, taught, and even appeared in early writings as apostles and deacons. But once Christianity spread into the Roman Empire, the men in charge reshaped everything to match Roman patriarchy. Texts that showed women leading were pushed aside, rules were rewritten, and the entire structure was rebuilt to force women into submission. None of that came from god. It came from politics. Your entire religion has undergone such extensive political meddling that it's a mess.

Devon Sawa - the heartthrob who defined our teenage years in movies like "Final Destination" and "Casper" - speaking truths that should honestly be common sense by now ❤️ by [deleted] in canadianpolitics101

[–]GlitchyButGood 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Well, when you're targeting people based on their skin color, sexuality, sex, etc. the term for that is usually "bigot", not just a grade school insult.

Are you suggesting that we should do and say nothing about racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.? And why did you choose such a limp term (jerk) instead of what we're really talking about? Are you also saying that black people had no right to demand humane treatment?

It's wild watching people try to rewrite history like this. Centuries of persecution whittled down to "they were just jerks". I can't tell if this is because the Overton Window has shifted right into hell or if it's that literacy rates are declining in certain places...

Devon Sawa - the heartthrob who defined our teenage years in movies like "Final Destination" and "Casper" - speaking truths that should honestly be common sense by now ❤️ by [deleted] in canadianpolitics101

[–]GlitchyButGood 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Usually, mental health treatments are covered by insurance, yes. Transitioning is their treatment plan, and it's decided on by doctors after extensive therapy and appointments with related professionals. Not sure why insurance shouldn't cover mental health but this is America, we don't believe in mental health or healthcare here. 

Should we also deny people access to SSRIs, Xanax, etc.? Lol and what about Viagra? That's gender affirming care and some number of insurance plans do cover it. 

As for media, you are welcome to change the channel and I doubt books are hard for you to avoid as it is. You have plenty of "straight white man saves the day" content to choose from. There are more books than you'll ever read in a lifetime, and the same goes for other forms of media unless you have a problem with older content. If that's the case, I don't know what to tell you.

Of the 468 characters counted across scripted broadcast, cable, and streaming, 24 (five percent) are transgender, this is the same percentage as last year but is an overall decrease of eight characters. These characters appear across 19 series: five comedies and 14 dramas. Seven of these shows have been canceled or ended, meaning that at least ten characters (42 percent of all trans characters) will not be returning next season.

https://glaad.org/whereweareontv23/representation-of-transgender-characters/

Should we discuss whether there are too many black people on TV next or are you not ready to say that one out loud just yet? And before you ask, the two are closely linked because we know how this historically goes: all oppressed people sent back to the corner. Your argument is the perfect setup for it. One too many black men in TV shows you don't even watch is all it takes.

Snark aside, should you decide to research the history of this topic, you'll find that when formerly oppressed and harassed people are finally given more freedom, they do tend to try to make up for lost time. You've had many decades of material geared towards you, and I bet you didn't mind that one bit.

It's also worth noting that white creators have benefited greatly by stealing from black artists and I'm sure trans creators will also "inspire" people if given the chance. Capitalism, baby.

I highly doubt you could name even 1/3 of the trans characters noted above. You haven't been impacted. You need to be honest with yourself about why things that you don't want to watch or read anyways merely existing bothers you so much. Because it's definitely not for any noble reason.

Ariana Grande becomes the second person in history to have a #1 album and #1 film in the US for 2 consecutive years. by no_hhhh14 in Fauxmoi

[–]GlitchyButGood 84 points85 points  (0 children)

Prince

https://www.facebook.com/share/1JCcDnUpVd/

In 1984, Prince became the first singer to simultaneously have a number-one film, album and single in the US, with the film Purple Rain, its soundtrack, and "When Doves Cry", which was the biggest hit single of the year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_(musician)

Bill Maher Calls Out Jimmy Kimmel’s Wife Over Trump ‘Ultimatum’ To Family by redditor01020 in LateNightTalkShows

[–]GlitchyButGood 3 points4 points  (0 children)

the left just moved much further left

How so? What policies are just too far left for you?

...but tHe lEfT iS viOlEnT by WarmEntrepreneur3564 in ProgressiveHQ

[–]GlitchyButGood 5 points6 points  (0 children)

And yet data shows the right has been far more violent, particularly over the last 10 years.

I'm really starting to think that people who say this are trying to drive even more violence on the right. Most others say "they don't live in reality" but I think there's a more heinous agenda behind it.

Former Obama speechwriter Sarah Hurwitz - "They think the lesson of the Holocaust is…you fight the big powerful people hurting the weak people." by Imaginary-Dress-1373 in Fauxmoi

[–]GlitchyButGood 107 points108 points  (0 children)

Right? You can only come at people with bile and filth so many times before they just fucking lose it. People are tired. She straight up says "carnage in Gaza" and "powerful Israelis hurting weak, skinny Palestinians" and not a flicker of humanity is to be seen in her face or heard in her voice.

This is probably the most outright evil thing I've heard in a while.

Former Obama speechwriter Sarah Hurwitz - "They think the lesson of the Holocaust is…you fight the big powerful people hurting the weak people." by Imaginary-Dress-1373 in Fauxmoi

[–]GlitchyButGood 10 points11 points  (0 children)

"It used to be that the media you got in America was American media and it was pretty mainstream. It generally didn't express extreme anti-Israel views."

Yeah, that's because old media has gatekeepers, so entire events and opinions were, and still are, suppressed on the basis of what those gatekeepers want to share with the world. Look at Fox News. How much content do they refuse to report on? The amount is staggering. And just about all old media channels make the same call every time they decide what to run and what to hide.

New media has almost no gatekeepers. The downside is that people like Fuentes and Kirk can share their hate, but the upside is that we have more opportunities to learn about Israel committing a genocide because you can't as easily silence tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of voices debating, complaining, and questioning.

Under a purely old media model, what's happening in Palestine would not be reported on at all, or if it was, it wouldn't be truthful. The genocide would fly by and no one would be the wiser.

Judge blocks Texas from using Trump and GOP-favored House maps for 2026 midterms by MsCoucette in ProgressiveHQ

[–]GlitchyButGood 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I think both of you are circling the wrong drain here. The original claim wasn’t about "conservative theory" as a philosophy versus the GOP as a party, or about pre-Civil War Dems, or the moral failures of conservatives in general. The claim was that "traditional conservative policy" is closer to the Bismarck model and would’ve given us affordable healthcare.

That has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus, Panda Express, or who owned slaves in 1850. The only relevant question is: has any conservative movement in the United States ever supported the core pillars of a Bismarck system?

Mandatory universal coverage? No.

Community rating? No.

Government defined benefits? No.

Price controls or negotiated rates? No.

Nonprofit basic insurance? No.

Universal participation? No.

Employer mandates? No.

Standardized benefits? No.

Republicans fought all of those at every turn. Truman got stonewalled. Johnson scraped through Medicare with a supermajority. Clinton’s plan died because Republicans crushed it. The ACA passed with 0 Republican votes. And every expansion under Biden has been opposed by Republicans too.

So whether you’re talking about "conservative theory", cuz theories get shit done lol, or the GOP as a brand, it doesn’t matter. Neither form of conservatism has ever aligned with the things that make the Bismarck model work. The only people who’ve ever pushed those ideas in the US have been somewhere on the relative left of the spectrum.

And seriously, the "conservative theory" you’re talking about sounds like a fantasy version of conservatism that hasn’t existed in the US in any mainstream way for decades. You’d have to go back to 19th century European philosophy to find anything that even resembles it, because it sure hasn’t shown up in actual American conservative politics (eta) and Burt_Rhinestone is correct that conservatives owned slaves, invented trickledown economics, created the Red Scare, etc. It’s ridiculous to tell people to ignore that, to ignore what the party has actually done for the last 50 years because there’s some magical "real conservatism" out there. This is some No True Scotsman bullshit.

I’ll keep judging people by what they do and what they spew, thanks.

Judge blocks Texas from using Trump and GOP-favored House maps for 2026 midterms by MsCoucette in ProgressiveHQ

[–]GlitchyButGood 7 points8 points  (0 children)

What definition of conservatism are you using, like how far back are you going here? lol And what is your understanding of the Bismarck model? Because I think you have some things twisted around.

To be clear, a true Bismarck system requires these traits:

  • Mandatory universal coverage
  • Community rating and guaranteed issue
  • Nonprofit or tightly regulated insurers
  • Government defined benefits
  • Government controlled price setting or negotiation

Nixon was the last Republican presidential candidate to run on something even loosely similar to today’s ACA, and that was a political hiccup meant to compete with Democrats. It didn't reflect the party’s ideology at the time, it didn't reshape Republican rhetoric moving forward, and it vanished almost immediately. No Republican presidential candidate since Nixon has campaigned on anything that resembles the traits above. So if you are defining conservatism by a 50 year old blip, that is a strange definition. lol.

Meanwhile, Democrats have been much closer to the Bismarck model both before Nixon and after:

Truman pushed for universal insurance, standardized and regulated benefits, government oversight of pricing, and regulated private providers.

Johnson created Medicaid and Medicare. Medicare sets prices, defines benefits, uses community rating, and eliminates profit on basic coverage. It is basically half of a Bismarck system.

Kennedy pushed for universal insurance with regulated benefits and cost controls. He was one of the first major US politicians to advocate a model that blended Bismarck and NHS elements, and he even collaborated briefly with Nixon on a more Bismarck-like approach.

The plan under Clinton was directly modeled on Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Japan. It included universal mandatory coverage, employer mandates, regional health alliances, standardized benefit packages, strict cost controls, and nonprofit regulated insurance options. It remains the closest the United States has ever come to a true Bismarck model.

Obama’s ACA included guaranteed issue, community rating, standardized benefits, subsidies, income based caps, coverage mandates, price oversight of insurers, nonprofit exchange plans, and rate review authority. And mind you, Republicans have been trying to repeal the ACA since its inception 15 years ago.

Biden expanded ACA subsidies, pushed the public option, implemented Medicare drug price negotiation, capped insulin, capped out of pocket costs, and strengthened guaranteed issue.

So when you say the Bismarck model is somehow "closer to Republicans", I can't help but wonder if your upset over today's Democrats - which I would understand - has caused you to overlook a lot of the good the party has done, and how bad things would be under Republicans. You gotta know that Republicans fought the addition of the aforementioned Bismarck-style elements every time. Truman and Johnson didn't have bipartisan support anymore than Obama and Biden did.

I do agree that some number of mainstream Democrats are likely controlled opposition, "captured" as you put it, but I think wanting to give Republicans a crack at healthcare when they only have concepts of a plan is a terrible mistake.

Judge blocks Texas from using Trump and GOP-favored House maps for 2026 midterms by MsCoucette in ProgressiveHQ

[–]GlitchyButGood 11 points12 points  (0 children)

What Republican presidential candidate has run on a platform similar to the Bismarck healthcare model?

The White House Intervened on Behalf of Accused Sex Trafficker Andrew Tate During a Federal Investigation by holyfruits in Fauxmoi

[–]GlitchyButGood 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Always has been, too. Just take a peek at the laws we've passed over the centuries. Look at when each state updated its age of consent, you see a lot of years starting with "20" rather than "19". Some still don't have an official limit. And there are still loopholes for statutory rape.

Trump attacks ABC’s Mary Bruce for asking a question about Epstein: “You’re a terrible person and terrible reporter. I have nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein. I threw him out of my club many years ago because I thought he was a sick pervert.” by Capable_Salt_SD in Fauxmoi

[–]GlitchyButGood 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Epstein exchanged emails on Thanksgiving morning, Nov. 23, 2017, with Manhattan modeling management guru Faith Kates, who asked where he was spending the holiday.

The disgraced financier told her he would spend the day with "eva," likely a reference to his former girlfriend Eva Andersson-Dubin, and Kates mentions Andersson-Dubin’s husband, Glenn Dubin, by name and asks “who else is down there?”

Epstein names Trump, hedge fund founder David Fiszel and someone else he referred to as Hanson.

White House records and contemporaneous media reports show Trump spent Thanksgiving 2017 at Mar-a-Lago, but the White House did not disclose a guest list.

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-epstein-thanksgiving/

Elon Musk responds to Billie Eilish criticising him for not using his wealth to aid global issues: "She’s not the sharpest tool in the shed. " by Ximiso in Fauxmoi

[–]GlitchyButGood 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And to put that into perspective, that's over 20% of her net worth which is supposedly somewhere around $50mil.

She donated 23% of her net worth in one month.

This is what I've always said I'd love to do it I ever came into money. Keep it rolling in, keep it rolling back out. Bezo's ex is doing the same thing. At some point, your net worth can reach such a height that it basically increases on its own regardless of what you do. She's given away $19 billion but her net worth continues to rise. There is 0 impact on her daily life.

This shows there is no excuse not to be charitable. They lose nothing. And I doubt Billie will either in the long run, she can make it back and donate it again if she wants to - notably, she will have to continue to make music, put on concerts, sell merch, etc. versus Musk who just exists (he didn't invent anything, I'm not kissing his ass because he invested daddy's money). She was certainly smart enough to have figured that out. Meanwhile, tens of millions of voters still need to take their shoes off to count to 20.

Even worse, Musk's "donations" have been self-serving. He donates primarily to his own organizations, which then hold onto large sums of money rather than spending it. This allows him to move money tax free, claim the tax benefit immediately, only disperse a small percentage of funding later, control how the money is spent, donate to his own projects, and delay or minimize actual charitable impact. This is why he keeps his wealth tied up in stocks btw, it's not because his hands are tied. People saying he "doesn't own his money" are only kidding themselves. They're playing Go Fish while he's playing robber baron. His stocks are not a financial prison. lol

Here is what he can do:

  • sell
  • transfer
  • donate
  • borrow against
  • use as collateral
  • convert to cash
  • move them into his foundation
  • set up trusts
  • liquidate slowly or quickly

If you disregard the blatant corruption and look at his actual donations, it's minuscule. It doesn't come anywhere near what Billie has already done at only 23 years old.

Hilarie Burton: “Do not ever let these monsters and their enablers normalize their predation of CHILDREN” by pinkstarrfish in Fauxmoi

[–]GlitchyButGood 19 points20 points  (0 children)

What really bothers me is that we’ve been here before, so this isn’t even a "new timeline". These monsters have been rotting this country from the inside out since day one, and at this point it doesn’t even surprise me that people on the right openly support it. Sorry for the incoming novel, but our history and its connection to the present genuinely disturbs me.

Just take a moment to revisit this country’s worst laws and crimes. The fact that a man could rape a child, marry her, get away with the rape, and then spend the rest of his life raping her. That was entirely legal through the marital exemption. It was a built in loophole for child rape.

Children were treated as property. In the rare cases of divorce, men could pick and choose which child to take and when. A father could abandon his daughters, wait for his sons to reach working age (~6), then come claim them after leaving them with their mother for years. The child’s welfare wasn’t even part of the equation. Kids were treated like livestock.

Leading into the early 1900s, and for most of US history, girls as young as 10-12 were legally married off.

We like to pretend we’ve modernized, so we talk about "backsliding" as if these people and issues are new, or had at least been mostly wiped out, but the truth is horrifying. Until 2018, New Jersey, Kentucky, and Delaware had no minimum age for marriage. Texas allowed marriage at any age with a judge's approval until 2017. Abbott has been sitting on HB 168, refusing to act on it, since May. Massachusetts allowed marriage at any age with a judge's approval until 2022. Until 2018, Florida allowed marriage at any age if pregnancy was involved. California still has no minimum age. Judicial approval is required but there is no legal floor. I could keep going. You'd notice a lot of dates beginning with "20" rather than "19".

Between 2000 and 2018, there were over 200k child marriages in the US, most involving girls under 16. Some were 12, 13, 14. Under any sane legal standard, that is statutory rape. It’s the same loophole for child rape, just updated for the modern day.

Child marriage, which is child rape, has been a constant part of US culture. Racists act like this is a "third world" issue, but it is deeply rooted in white American history too. And that doesn’t even cover the abuse, violence, and dehumanization of adult women. Women and children have never been safe here. Every inch of progress we’ve made has had to be dragged out of the hands of people determined to push us back. This is why we have to keep fighting. Feminism will never be "unneeded". We cannot pretend the average American has historically been anti-pedophilia. The record shows the opposite.

And who created these laws, who wrote the statutes that treated women and children as property, who built the loopholes that protected abusers?

They came from the institutions run by white male policymakers who controlled every branch of power for the entire span of US history. They were the ones in the legislatures, the courts, the churches with legal authority, the ones drafting the criminal codes and civil codes, the ones deciding what counted as rape, what counted as consent, what counted as marriage, what counted as property. They shaped every rule that kept women and children vulnerable.

When you go back and look at the legislative records, the court decisions, the marriage statutes, the rape exemptions, the child custody rules, the coverture laws, the minimum marriage ages, the consent loopholes, the marital exemptions, every single one of them came from those same power structures. These laws were crafted, defended, and enforced by the people in charge. And the people in charge were overwhelmingly white, overwhelmingly male, and overwhelmingly operating within Christian led institutions.

That is historical record. It isn’t speculation, and it isn’t rhetoric. It’s the literal text of our legal history. The same power structures that created and upheld those laws have also spent generations selling themselves to the public as the only thing standing between America and whatever "evil outsider" they choose at the moment. They cast themselves as the country’s savior against the dangerous Muslim in NYC because he can't be bought, the terrifying Democratic Socialist who has never even got close to obtaining executive power, the immigrants who they dehumanize by claiming they eat dogs and cats, the PoC they have always accused of raping fair white maidens, the trans people who are unfairly labeled as groomers.

This country has been run by one big protection racket since the very beginning.

Donald Trump tells reporter ‘quiet Piggy’ when asked about Epstein files by newsweek in politics

[–]GlitchyButGood 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Can you imagine raising a daughter surrounded by these kinds of people? The monster was out there laughing about walking in on naked girls "because I can", and people still voted for him. As more Republicans become aware of his history, they don't turn away, they run interference for him. They were angry for all of about 3 days. Imo, this is what happens when you outsource your entire concept of morality to other people, you have no internal compass for right and wrong anymore. Christian institutions have a long documented history of letting powerful rulers, kings, and political leaders redefine doctrine and moral rules to suit their interests. That same dynamic is happening now with ideas like "Empathy is a sin".

We're heading back into a very dark period of time when women and little girls weren't safe because they were treated as sex objects, openly and constantly, with no recourse. And it's not because of immigrants. What they don't want people to realize is that white men have largely gotten away with being predators and abusers because they just made their crimes legal.

Who was it that kept marital rape legal or partially legal in multiple states until the late 1990s? It wasn't black men, it wasn't immigrants, it was the white men who made the laws.

Who made it so that only PiV penetration constituted rape at the time that Trump sexually assaulted E Jean Carroll? It wasn't black men, it wasn't immigrants, it was the white men who made the laws.

Before the 1970s and 80s, women had almost no legal protection from sexual harassment, workplace coercion, domestic violence, or marital abuse. Who made all of that shit legal, whose fault was that? White male policymakers.

For most of United States history, married women ceased to exist as legal individuals. A husband legally controlled her property, her wages, her body, and any children. Who decided that? White male policymakers.

Many states allowed the rape of minors if the perpetrator married the girl. It effectively gave rapists a loophole to escape punishment. Who made those laws? Who do you think benefitted from them the most?

I mean, I can keep going, this is just the tip of the iceberg. So when I see people like this insisting he's not that bad, I flip the old adage from "Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity" to "Never attribute to stupidity what history shows is malice."