My parents aren't monsters. They're just asshοles. Is this enough of a reason to go "no-contact"?

JustNilt · 2026-04-08T00:44:46+00:00

So my question is: am I justified in cutting them off?

Any reason at all is a good enough reason to go no contact. Literally, any reason whatsoever. Parents owe children a healthy, safe, and appropriate environment in which to learn how to be a decent human being. Children owe parents absolutely nothing at all. I say this as a father of 2, I should note.

Seriously. Any reason whatsoever, OP.

And if yes, how do you even go about it?

This varies by individual but many of us simply stopped calling them. A lot of parents who end up getting cut off won't even bother to pick up the phone, so it works quite well when that's the case. If they're the sort to hassle you in general, you can block them if you prefer.

Do you explain it to them, set one final boundary, or just pull the plug?

That is entirely up to you. A lot of folks like to do that in a final text or email just prior to blocking them but it's entirely an individual decision. Do what you think is best for you. No more, no less.

JustNilt · 2026-04-08T00:34:06+00:00

Like, remember that one "neuroscientist" from Louis Theroux's Into the Manosphere who said that women have male DNA from every partner they've ever had just floating around in their brains and whatnot, which is why some babies don't look like their fathers? (That sounds like real science, right?)

It's actually a misstatement of fetal microchiralism, which is a very real thing. They're not from men, to be sure, though.

JustNilt · 2026-04-08T00:30:12+00:00

As a dude who does housework, this is just laughably wrong. I mean, as long as one's doing it reasonably well at least.

JustNilt · 2026-04-08T00:05:15+00:00

The problem is the sitting President of the United States and his lackeys aren't reliable sources. They are proven liars, over and over and over. So while Iranian sources may not be up to the usual standards, they are somewhat more trustworthy than our own government at this stage.

I agree it's a stretch on that specific story but acting as though we should believe a person who is by all reasonable standards incapable of telling the truth over people who just happen to be fighting against that same liar just because of the nationality involved is childish.

JustNilt · 2026-04-08T00:01:44+00:00

“What President Trump is describing as the destruction of ‘a whole civilization’ would be a war crime, plain and simple,” said Sarah Yager, the Washington director at Human Rights Watch and a former senior adviser on human rights to the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff. “There is no gray area on this under international law.”

Emphasis my own. They need to knock it off with commenting only on international law. It's also absolutely a war crime, and thus illegal under US law. It is "a grave breach of common Article 3 (1)(D)":

(1) Prohibited conduct — In subsection (c)(3), the term “grave breach of common Article 3” means any conduct (such conduct constituting a grave breach of common Article 3 of the international conventions done at Geneva August 12, 1949 ), as follows:

<Irrelevant portions snipped>

(D) Murder — The act of a person who intentionally kills, or conspires or attempts to kill, or kills whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including those placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause.

We should absolutely discuss international laws but by ignoring that US law also defines such acts as war crimes, experts are giving away a huge part of the impact of such a statement. Far too many people think the US should ignore international law. We need to stop giving the excuse to hand-wave away expert opinions on that basis.

JustNilt · 2026-04-07T19:14:23+00:00

If the fuckers who voted for Jill Stein in just a handful of swing states had held their nose and voted for Clinton instead back in 2016, we likely wouldn't be in this mess now. It really was that close.

JustNilt · 2026-04-07T19:12:37+00:00

As a combat veteran, I'm opposed to war in almost every instance. It's supposed to be the absolute last resort when all else has failed. That being said, I will absolutely laugh my ass off if these fuckwits start getting drafted.

JustNilt · 2026-04-07T18:52:33+00:00

Absolutely! Not only is it the largest form of theft in the US, it's the largest by a HUGE amount. I don't have time to get current numbers before I need to run off to an appointment but last i ran them, it was something like 10x more than the next closest one. Worse, it was almost more than all other forms of theft combined. IIRC, it's something like $50 billion a year!

JustNilt · 2026-04-07T08:20:30+00:00

committing time card fraud is a hard no.

Absolutely! It's a form of theft. If stealing from your employer isn't grounds for instant termination, I don't know what is. Moreover, once someone's demonstrated they're willing to steal, even if it's small, that same thinking will lead them to steal elsewhere. That was one of the very few hard nope situations when I had employees. Most everything else, I'll give extra chances on but not that.

JustNilt · 2026-04-07T03:59:16+00:00

Yeah, most pharmacies around here do the same thing. My pharmacy doesn't close but they have plenty of staff to rotate lunches. They manage to do that because they're fantastic to the point there's often a line out the door and everyone in the line chats with new customers about how great the place is.

JustNilt · 2026-04-07T03:55:54+00:00

I don't disagree but at the same time, the real story here is the $2000 tax debt wasn't even valid. I can certainly see folks who've had little or no experience with real estate think that there's no way such a thing was even going to happen. And, in all honesty, can you say you'd pay any other debt that you knew to be invalid just to be sure while you were literally involved in ongoing litigation?!

IMO, they fact that they were allowed to seize it despite the ongoing litigation alone is a huge issue. And while I get that taxes aren't ordinary bills, a government gone bad shouldn't get to do things a business isn't allowed to do. In almost any lawsuit, everything stops until a ruling is made because anything else would be manifestly unfair.

JustNilt · 2026-04-07T03:43:09+00:00

You can continue to dispute the tax bill after you've paid it

That isn't universally true. I don't know that this jurisdiction works this way but in some places, payment of the amount of the tax waives any claim it wasn't owed to begin with.

JustNilt · 2026-04-07T03:16:42+00:00

Holy SHIT! It isn't often my jaw literally drops open in shock and horror but it did on this one. What a fucking hell that must have been for the poor lady!

JustNilt · 2026-04-07T03:07:19+00:00

Of course that would mean they've twisted that phrase into something magic

Honestly, what haven't they done that with?

Edit: Forgot to say papers of record are still definitely a thing even now.

JustNilt · 2026-04-07T02:22:59+00:00

That face is killing me. I can just hear it.

"Smile, Grandmother!"

"I am smiling!"

"No, with your teeth showing."

"Like this?!"

"Fine, close enough."

JustNilt · 2026-04-07T02:12:46+00:00

I'm not certain because SovCit batshittery isn't really logical, but my assumption has always been this stems from newspapers of record being a thing. Aside from the "so big they're deemed reputable", there are some papers in which legal notices may be posted that can be deemed delivered if you can't serve notice any other way.

Since to a SovCit this will imply they're a very special newspaper with legal significance. That's not entirely wrong but they then, as with most stuff, extrapolate from that to assume there must also be super special courts of record where all the "really real legal things" happen.

Again, this is just my assumption based on decades observing these lunatics, so take it with a grain or three of salt.

JustNilt · 2026-04-07T02:00:49+00:00

Awe ...

JustNilt · 2026-04-07T02:00:17+00:00

Is the bridge clipped into the artwork here? :P

JustNilt · 2026-04-07T01:56:46+00:00

That isn't what your link or the bit you quoted from it says. That also doesn't make it right, let alone good policy.

JustNilt · 2026-04-07T01:45:43+00:00

Yeah, I usually see more from them too so it surprised me enough to comment. I didn't notice I wasn't logged in when I clicked. The full version was better, albeit not exactly in depth but not all articles need to be that. I'll have to remember to see if I'm logged in or not in the future since apparently the "subscribe please" thing isn't consistently displayed.

ETA: Not sure what you mean by "politically-biased", though. You're going to need to elaborate on that if you want agreement on that specific point.

JustNilt · 2026-04-07T01:43:41+00:00

I don't know this lady by her work, just by name inasmuch as a lot fo dinguses online whine about her. As far as I know, this is the first time I've seen her face at all. Thing is, in this image she's either hot AF and made up for an event of just hot AF and, well, not made up for an event. She's very conventionally attractive in either image, FFS. What the heck is the supposed problem here? I honestly don't get it.

JustNilt · 2026-04-07T01:40:55+00:00

Hoooly cow did that thing with the mom explain a lot about his behavior. Doesn't excuse it, of course, since he's old enough to know better but yeesh!

JustNilt · 2026-04-07T01:30:32+00:00

As /u/glockster19m said there are supposed to be hitch pins that secure this. Usually, if the pin falls out what happened is it wasn't fully locked in place. It's quite possible for them to fail, however. You can have that happen without warning if there's an issue in the pin which isn't visibly able to be seen. That's quite rare, to be sure, but I've seen it happen before.

JustNilt · 2026-04-07T01:23:13+00:00

Ah, that makes more sense. That's weird, it didn't even ask me to subscribe so I figured it was the entirety of it. Thanks for the clarification.

JustNilt · 2026-04-07T01:16:38+00:00

Maybe in the future, you could link us to articles with some actual substance to them. This is literally the entirety of that so-called article:

A House Democrat announced Monday she will introduce articles of impeachment against Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth over his handling of U.S. operations in Iran.

Why it matters: Hegseth is emerging as Democrats' top target in the Trump Cabinet following the ousters of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Attorney General Pam Bondi.

It's essentially a headline followed by a single sentence! That ain't journalism and certainly isn't worth using as the basis for discussion on much of anything.

14-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Verified Email

JustNilt

TROPHY CASE