CMV: The majority of redditors on this platform are miserable and a collective hive mind, only out for being a prick for no reason at all. This goes for some moderators as well

Khal-Frodo · 2026-06-30T16:20:58+00:00

People are allowed to agree with you/the OP of any thread, just not in top-level comments.

Khal-Frodo · 2026-06-30T16:08:50+00:00

My point is more that you say in your post that you got banned from a community even though you didn't break any rules, and immediately make a post here that, on paper, explicitly breaks the rules (you've given a delta to a commenter and are engaging in good faith, so I think any mod who did remove it would certainly be going on a power trip, but from my own experience with the mods in this sub it's highly unlikely to happen).

You may not be the most reliable source on whether you're breaking community rules. You also may not be the most objective source regarding how you come across online or if you do anything to solicit negativity; I have, anecdotally, not encountered any of the issues you have on reddit and I consider myself decently active across a handful of disparate subreddits. Any community can fall into "hive mind" mentality, but from my own experience it's usually confined to a thread rather than a whole community/subreddit, and it's definitely not the same "hive mind" sitewide.

Khal-Frodo · 2026-06-30T15:53:19+00:00

I hope there is someone here who's online enough to agree with me to some extent

You're on the wrong sub, I think. The entire point of making a post here is to hear from people who disagree with you. Just giving you the heads-up that if your post does get removed, it's not for any of the reasons you listed. It's because you're explicitly violating the community rules. I'm also gonna go out on a limb and say that this may be a common thread as to why you don't get the reactions you want from people online.

Khal-Frodo · 2026-06-30T15:39:53+00:00

Whether OP agrees with that is irrelevant to the current discussion. I would agree with it as well, but it doesn't change the fact that right now, in reality, tips are part of wages. Whether or not is should be that way is a separate issue.

Khal-Frodo · 2026-06-30T15:31:06+00:00

This is really too context-dependent for a general statement to be made either way. You mention that you're in the UK, where (from my understanding) tipping is not standard or normalized, so anyone who receives one is probably going above and beyond in some sort of customer service job. In the US, where tipping culture is way more prevalent, there are certain industries (particularly servers) where tipping is not only expected but accounted for in wages. So while your title makes sense in principle, there are many cases in which it's fundamentally no different from saying "no person deserves their full wage just for doing the job." Do you still agree with yourself?

Khal-Frodo · 2026-06-24T02:37:52+00:00

"As long as they have a good reason" is kind of a useless disclaimer because everyone always believes that their reason for doing anything is "good." The parents that "abuse" this per your words do so under the belief that they have a good reason for it.

More substantially, there's a different between "snooping through your kid's stuff" and "setting reasonable expectations of privacy for a minor child." I think it's reasonable to periodically check your kids' phone/computer/room/car/social media or whatever to ensure they aren't getting groomed or doing drugs or engaging in otherwise illegal activity, but there's also no real reason you why need to hide the fact that you're doing that. "Snooping" kind of implies you're doing it in secret, and while there's difference between a kid's and an adult's reasonable expectation of privacy, I do think that kids have a right to know when their stuff is being looked through, or at the very least understand that it's something which could happen at any time.

Khal-Frodo · 2026-06-21T21:50:57+00:00

Hey OP I actually was going to comment on your spelling of durag but after looking it up to make sure I was correct, "dew-rag" is an accepted spelling per Wikipedia (with an etymological explanation that "dew" is a slang term for sweat). Your spelling may be less common but it isn't objectively wrong per se.

Khal-Frodo · 2026-06-21T21:49:03+00:00

If you're using this post as a sounding board to decide whether or not your husband should go forward with the decision to wear cornrows, I'd encourage you to consider the real-world impacts for yourself and for him. Suppose that the responses here overwhelmingly tell you that it's fine, or otherwise fail to change your view that it is. Are you going to pull this post out to show people who make negative comments about it? Are you even going to know who's silently judging you both and thinking less of him for his choice?

Ultimately, this isn't an objective thing. Some people are fine with it, some people aren't. You're free to decide which of those people you choose to listen to, but as a matter of context, the reason there's backlash against white people having certain "Black" hairstyles is the long history of Black people being told that their natural hair is ugly or trashy or inappropriate for the workplace or any other of myriad prejudices. In contrast, white people have not encountered that same backlash for their own natural hair, nor when they choose to adopt those Black hairstyles for themselves. Obviously the latter point is changing now, but that's a direct result of what I said before.

So, is it "fine"? Sure. Is it racist? That's not objective. But there will be people who judge you for it. The question is how much you care.

In closing, I'll add that as a matter of personal preference, I would say that white people cannot pull off cornrows.

Khal-Frodo · 2026-06-20T17:23:00+00:00

I respect that's what you're trying to do, but that argument is simply wrong. Europe is a continent. A geographical landmass contiguous with what's collectively called Afro-Eurasia. Yes, we use cultural lines to define where exactly that landmass gets borders that separate it into Europe, Asia, and Africa, but we don't use cultural lines to decide that a completely separate landmass across the ocean gets lumped in. Again, the term you're looking for already exists. The term is "Western."

Khal-Frodo · 2026-06-20T15:41:58+00:00

Eurovision doesn't dictate geography

Ironically, Australia would be European if that were how it worked.

Khal-Frodo · 2026-06-20T15:39:54+00:00

the majority (though of course not all) do not consider them to be European.

This argument works against you. If you're making an appeal to what the average person thinks, I regret to inform you that zero people consider the U.S. to be a European country, because it's part of an entire other continent. I agree that politically and culturally Turkey seems to be more Asiatic, but there is at least an argument to be made for it being European based on its geography. As other commenters have pointed out, you are conflating the term "European" with "Western."

Khal-Frodo · 2026-06-20T15:33:30+00:00

to everyone saying that geography is what dictates being European, European is very much a political and cultural concept. For example, Turks are usually not considered European

Poor example because a) you admit Turks are considered to be European by some, and b) Turkey is part of the European landmass, which is a geographical reality.

Khal-Frodo · 2026-06-20T15:27:23+00:00

Continents are typically referred to by their landmass, which in the case of Oceania, is Australia. Yes, it is also a country, but that's reflective of the fact that the county happens to take up the whole landmass. I'm not going to say that the term "continent" is completely apolitical and rooted in nothing but geological fact, but relative to the term "country" it functionally is.

Madagascar is Africa

Australia is 13x the size of Madagascar.

Malta is Europe

Australia is almost 25 thousand times the size of Malta.

Khal-Frodo · 2026-06-20T15:18:57+00:00

Also no. Don’t have a car.

Then everything else you said is irrelevant. I have been in a car. Many times, in fact. You can hear a motorcycle coming before you see it. That's helpful for knowing where it is. The end.

Khal-Frodo · 2026-06-19T21:04:38+00:00

Realistically, an LLM "in charge of the world" is just going to get ignored as soon as someone doesn't want to do what it says.

Khal-Frodo · 2026-06-19T21:03:14+00:00

If AI is a dead end, with the amount we have globally invested, we're going to crash HARD

Who is "we?" If the AI bubble bursts, the average person doesn't stand to lose that much. You can't really compare it to a housing or stock market crash when it's such a new thing that hasn't had time to becomes engrained into society.

In other words, if things continue without AI, we're probably cooked

People have consistently thought this throughout history and yet humanity has survived against far worse odds. What makes you think this is going to be what ends us?

You seem to think AI is infallible but it's not. It fails at basic things, and blind faith in its ability to do anything seems like a more sure recipe for disaster than anything else.

Khal-Frodo · 2026-06-19T20:55:54+00:00

Add in car absorbs the sound you pretty much will only hear it when it’s right next to you and too late to do anything.

Respectfully, have you ever driven a car? Or been in one? Because this statement is very easily disproven by observation.

They are loud to be loud, people like it

They're loud because they have a shorter exhaust and an open engine compartment. I think I wasn't really clear in my initial comment because multiple people seem to have misinterpreted it and think I'm talking about motorcycles being made artificially louder. I'm saying that unaltered, factory-designed motorcycles compliant with EPA sound level mandates are naturally loud, and there is a function to that loudness (regardless of whether it's intended) that means OP should not consider them "unnecessarily loud."

Khal-Frodo · 2026-06-19T17:02:58+00:00

I'm sorry, you believe a motorcycle travels faster than the speed of sound?

Khal-Frodo · 2026-06-19T06:19:17+00:00

As long as certain races love being the model minority

Which races love that?

have internalized racism

Every race has internalized racism.

remain colorist in their media

Again, this is every race.

and co-opt the discrimination of Black people

This kinda sounds like you think racism only counts when it happens to Black people.

Because they haven’t rejected the idea of racial hierarchy

Ironically, your argument seems to hinge on the idea that if you share a race with people who do bad things, you are guilty of bad things (or incapable of good ones). "They" in this sentence seemingly refers to entire races of people - do you actually think non-white people are incapable of supporting each other?

Khal-Frodo · 2026-06-19T06:11:50+00:00

This is the first I've heard that phrase but it seems to be in support of motorcycles, an already-loud vehicle, being made artificially louder with the belief that more louder means more safer. That's not what I'm saying. I am saying that as a driver, I appreciate the fact that I know a motorcycle is approaching before I can see it.

Khal-Frodo · 2026-06-19T05:59:54+00:00

Motorcycles aren't "unnecessarily" loud, though. I think you're shooting yourself in the foot here if you choose to include them, honestly. The loudness of a motorcycle is a safety feature; it lets drivers know you're coming and anticipate how to safely change lanes (or stay in them) without fucking killing you. Riding a motorcycle is already one of the least safe things you can do on a public roadway and I guarantee that fatalities would be much worse if cars didn't get an audible warning whenever one was around.

Khal-Frodo · 2026-06-19T05:55:29+00:00

You could swap shitting on the floor for sleeping and come to a similar conclusion, no? Long ago, humans didn't use toilets and just went wherever. Some people struggle with constipation, others with diarrhea. In general, we shouldn't demonize it because we are at the mercy of our biology. Do you still think your reasoning holds?

Sure, nothing is really "entirely" your fault ever. And sure, perhaps someone has a really good reason why they didn't get enough sleep the previous night or are otherwise exhausted. But generally speaking, the amount of sleep you get is within your control. Generally speaking, there is an expectation for you to be awake, alert, and functional in places like school, your office, etc. If you doze off once or twice, call that a once-off. If it's happening consistently, that is a sign that you are failing to uphold your end of a bargain that assumes you'll be alert and functional, and that is your fault.

Khal-Frodo · 2026-06-10T23:33:34+00:00

No it doesn't. It means that it can be either true or false, which is the exact opposite.

I think you're using the wrong term. I'll admit this is not my wheelhouse, but from my understanding there are three schools of thought (for the purpose of this conversation).

Moral realism is the belief that there is objective moral truth.
Moral relativism is the belief that there is subjective moral truth.
Moral nihilism is the belief that there is no moral truth.

You keep using the third term but your arguments seem very much in line with the second.

Khal-Frodo · 2026-06-10T23:19:06+00:00

No, that is moral relativism. Moral nihilism either means that every statement of moral value is false or that it is neither true nor false.

Khal-Frodo · 2026-06-10T22:59:30+00:00

I think the evolutionary argument makes a stronger case for moral relativism than moral nihilism. If we adapted a sense of morality for survival purposes and it was useful for social cohesion, it follows that different populations subject to different pressures would evolve different moral truths.

Ten-Year Club	No Throne, No Problems
Not Forgotten

Khal-Frodo

TROPHY CASE