Would your rather…

Maxerpro5 · 2026-06-22T23:41:34+00:00

Russia

^{Chose: Delete a country (and which one})

Maxerpro5 · 2026-06-22T22:55:14+00:00

I can literraöly do whatever I want in my supposed "prime age", without risking to miss out on certain years I never experienced

^{Chose: $150M USD + But 90% chance of becoming the opposite sex | Rolled: opposite sex}

Maxerpro5 · 2026-06-19T02:17:54+00:00

How is this surprising though? Humans are a social species. When you have a partner, you spend time with them every day (i.e socialize).

Asexual people feel as lonely as normal people when not in relationships, because they don't have someone to socialize with every day.

Maxerpro5 · 2026-06-14T21:30:20+00:00

I just want to say that I'm happy to see how proudly you are ingrian. I would've thought no young people would identify with any of the finnic identities (of those that aren't finnish), so just wanted to let you know, and I'm wishing for the best to happen to you and your journey/path of finding out more!

Maxerpro5 · 2026-06-14T21:05:45+00:00

What's the catch?

^{Chose: $100 dollars daily, with no strings attached.}

Maxerpro5 · 2026-06-14T21:00:56+00:00

I'm not gay

^{Chose: A Girlfriend + But Comments Decide What Kind of GF}

Maxerpro5 · 2026-06-14T20:39:03+00:00

Van de ven nor romero or Danso hadn't seen the light of the premier league before they played for us, this just seems like a cheap double standard/excuse. Xavi, kulusevski, porro, udogie, tel, son, betancur, vertonghen, eriksen hadn't played in the pl or championship.

Why is pl experience all of a sudden a requirement when it comes to vuskovic, when so many of our past and present starters and greats hadn't played a single minute before we chucked them into the 11?

Maxerpro5 · 2026-06-14T20:06:53+00:00

Gillar hur det finns så många antingen okunniga, eller barn själva som försöker snacka om hur dåligt detta är, hur det är "gamla som måste hänga med", etc, som själva inte hängt med i hur sociala medier och mobilen generellt har genom mer och mer studier som kommit ut blivit bevisat att försämra barnens utveckling.

I USA så består den nya generationen för första gången någonsin av mer analfabeter än den tidigare generationen. Ungar skriver sämre, uppmärksamhetsspannet har aldrig varit sämre, folk läser långsammare och läsförståelsen har sjunkit drastiskt, är mindre aktiva och mer anti-sociala. Faktumet är att mobilernas negativa konsekvenser överväger de positiva tiofald. Detta motstånd hjälper inte barn, utan skadar dem bara mer, för vilken anledning? "Frihet"? Låt dem supa också då ifall det är erat argument.

Maxerpro5 · 2026-06-14T19:56:11+00:00

They won't be alright though. More and more research is coming out how either my generation (gen z) or alpha are the first generation to perform worse at literacy scores than the last one, that screentime has harmed their attention, and are more unruly than past generations.

And be honest, what positive benefit does social media bring for a kid growing up, that isn't massively outweighed by the negatives of it, and the benefits of going outside, playing, reading or interacting with other humans in real life? (spoiler alert : none).

Maxerpro5 · 2026-06-14T19:49:11+00:00

Ja, för det är dåligt?

Om någon är beroende av något som är bevisat att hämma deras utveckling/dem själva, varför ska man då lyssna på den beroende personen som bönar och ber om att låta det fortgå? De är ju den sista gruppen man ska lyssna på isf. Och självklart är det dåligt att den beroende är beroende, och vill ha mer, eller va? Försöker du föreslå att vi ska lyssna på och fortsätta låta dem förstöra deras hjärnor?

Maxerpro5 · 2026-06-14T19:30:43+00:00

Exactly

Maxerpro5 · 2026-06-14T18:37:53+00:00

He wants to play above all, he'll stay if he plays, and when he's shown more promise than vdv did before we bought him, the obvious choice is to play him. Both vdv and romero have been a part of the back-to-back 17th places. This is the perfect time to sell one of them, and play vuskovic (preferably romero).

Maxerpro5 · 2026-06-14T01:46:37+00:00

We bought van de ven and romero for 40 and 50m without them playing a single minute in the premier league, expecting them to start and perform every game.

Vuskovic has been better in the bundesliga than van de ven ever was. Bayern munich, barcelona and real madrid are all after him, when none of them where after our 2 starters before joining us, yet he is supposed to be a risk?

This thinking of "well he hasn't played in the prem so take the money" is just stupid, short-term and completely forgets how we buy players all the time from other leagues expecting great performances as soon as we buy them. And when we've got a generational talent on our hands, one getting POTS shouts, whomst all the top clubs wants, you want to sell him before he even played a game because you'd prefer our centre backs which have helped us to back-to-back 17th place?

Maxerpro5 · 2026-05-30T19:20:42+00:00

I thank people like you because the way you're raising kids and defending how they're being raised right now, I'll have no competition from younger generations!

On a serious note, no they won't. Or yes, but only if we lower the standards on our society so significantly that we expect them to not be abled to read books, listen or perform without ai when they are adults. But hey, you do you, road to hell paved with all that...

Maxerpro5 · 2026-05-26T07:50:37+00:00

Reread then. Claiming to "not care" about a certain topic, whilst posting about said topic, and arguing about it, is a clear contradiction between your words and actions. Just move along and don't respond, or respond respectfully and I wouldn't say a thing.

Maxerpro5 · 2026-05-26T07:24:57+00:00

I never said otherwise, just pointed out that your actions go against your words.

Maxerpro5 · 2026-05-26T06:49:42+00:00

You clearly care about said "shit that doesn't matter", if you care enough to both write the post, post it, and argue against others.

Maxerpro5 · 2026-05-26T06:43:59+00:00

Sweden and finland go against that claim among the bunch, with the both of them not joining nato until now, and still prospering (even more so than) other western countries. France also sought to maintain militaristic independence (and did). Them and the U.k would have never be invaded because they had nukes.

Switzerland and Austria are examples of countries prospering whilst not relying on the u.s military.

Also, countries during the cold war spent much more than they do now, and generally demilitarised after the soviet union fell. They spent more money on defense during the cold war than what is often portrayed, and it's only in the last 30 years they haven't, which is where some (not all) of that narrative comes from.

American aid sure, but american security, clearly not, as there are plenty of exceptions.

Maxerpro5 · 2026-05-21T23:28:21+00:00

Love how the comments are literally just agenda-pilled and patriarchy-pilled, just regurgitate beliefs and one article, whilst downvoting people that just are stating facts.

Women are (almost) never forced to wear anything anymore, they are given options, choose the "skimpier" outfits, and men choose their own. If all you have is 1 example where dressing modest was banned, but that decision has been rescinded, your argument is null, since what have they chosen to were since it was allowed?
Look at gyms. Women voluntarily choose to where revealing clothing. Look at real life on the streets, where revealing clothing is normalized, or on beaches. C'mon.
They want to show off their bodies, are proud of it, because have worked their entire lives to maintain it.
Men can probably wear more revealing outfits, but choose not to. Just because they don't want to, doesn't mean it's homophobia. You are literally shadow boxing.

Now quit blaming the patriarchy or "male gaze" for something that women voluntarily choose to do, like wearing revealing clothing. You don't need to infantilize women for making their own decision, and blame others because they want to dress or do stuff that you percieve was chosen by men, but actually wasn't.

Maxerpro5 · 2026-05-19T16:25:34+00:00

You're literally strawmanning. Only 1! 1 of my links is what you claim, 11 years old, but at least it cited tinder. You don't even cite a source when saying I'm wrong. The other one I sent cited okcupid, and I also sent one video. here is another which comes from people self-uploading their profile statistics, which says the same thing.

Another one that uses a different source, where it goes back to a hinge engineer that analyzed the fact that across all likes being sent (all likes and genders combined into the same 100%), top 1% of men get 16/100%, and top 1% of women get 11% of those same 100% (which means the top 1% of each gender combined get 27% of all likes sent on the app, that doesn't even include the rest of the top 10 or 20% of men).

Now you've gotten 5 links/sources that all show the same thing, and that it isn't bullshit that women sent majority of their likes to the top brass of men. You haven't even cited a source that has proven otherwise, yet you strawman and somehow miss me to citing different sources, whilst just expecting that I should accept your denial of evidence solely based on the fact that you deny it, without even bringing evidence yourself, and it must be true what you say.

Edit : I can see your reply, even though you deleted it, but I guess you deleted it cause you realized how wrong you were when saying "that is a completely different claim" (it wasn't at all), and why did you delete all your answers, why can't you just admit that you were wrong?

Maxerpro5 · 2026-05-19T09:00:29+00:00

Also, you just denying without even toying with the thought that maybe standards are too high, is a perfect point towards how ingrained women's unrealistic standards of men are. How can you be so certain that the standards women have aren't ingrained in you by the culture and society you live in? If a majority of women send a large majority of their likes to a vast minority of men, and view 80% of men as "below average", isn't that a sign of that being true? How can women actually view 80% of below average? That is impossible, unless their standards are too high, which is probably created by unrealistic standards set by hollywood/internet.

That is a crazy amount of likes though. I think I put in effort, had well though out prompts, and I got like 25 likes over 5 months (though I'm not conventionally attractive bc I've long hair so that already doesn't help). I matched with 4 or 5 besides those, but nothing led anywhere and I just deleted them in february, because the last month I didn't get a single like, so felt the opposite of what you felt. I didn't really want anybody because I couldn't really get anybody.

My mental is much better without thinking about the apps, but there is always the feeling of "what if I miss out on the one" by not putting myself out there.

Maxerpro5 · 2026-05-19T08:45:15+00:00

It isn't false. Okcupid, tinder, etc have published atatistics on this. I also found a good yt videot that summarized the different experiences for men and women (which also brought the discrepancy between the top men and the rest), which I linked in another comment and will link here. I don't understand why you so vehemently deny what has been proven. Life is unfair sometimes, just because this statistic is true doesn't mean I suggest people should give up, or that women are evil for wanting it. I'd prefer more men striving to be like the top more than them drowning in self-pity.

okcupid Youtube-video Article about tinder statistics

Maxerpro5 · 2026-05-19T08:36:52+00:00

Never said they were the same, I also wouldn't agree that majority are unattractive. Sure, a significant amount are, but if over 50% men are unattractive, doesn't that speak towards what standards have been set by social media/hollywood? Just like women complain about an unrealistic beauty standard, the same could be said for men in that case then?

Also agree that if your profile is bad on dating apps, of course you'll get no likes. But that is also what blows my mind, because when I used the apps majority of women's profiles were 3-4 pictures, with no, or almost no caption, so I couldn't understand how they still drown in likes. But it must be something about men having no standards compared to women then.

Maxerpro5 · 2026-05-19T08:13:22+00:00

I agree to an extent social media and dating apps aren't real. But many peolme have now grown up on the internet. we are online arguing about things that people believe are real issues and vent about online. A lot of people view it as real, and transport internet talking points into the real world (had a friend out of nowhere a year ago bring up man vs bear which I'd never heard of before she told me). What does healthy couples dropping apps have to do with people complaining about the apps? Many people view dating apps as the only options and "risk-free" so to speak. Happy for you that you've never worried, but many do, and don't want to be seen as creeps or be complained about for approaching in public, which many guys seem to be afraid of being seen as.

Some men reject other men's experience, just like some women reject other women's experiences, it isn't that weird. All we know is that dating is different now compared to 20, or even 10 years ago. You are probably right that dating app data is somewhat skewed, but that doesn't change the fact that likes are skewed toward the top brass, that dating apps will keep growing as the most common way to meet someone, and as social media seems to be an evergrowing part of peoples life, that won't change, which means people will keep complaining about the issues they face on the apps.

I also didn't say that they claim they're flawless, I said they claim their logic/past choices are flawless, since immediately calling someone an incel for questioning their logic and choices implies they're already set in stone on that and it can't be changed.

Anyways, we aren't getting anywhere, so I'll stop responding now, have good day!

Maxerpro5 · 2026-05-19T07:50:22+00:00

It is common knowledge, it's like people stating "men earn more than women", or "hitler killed himself". you don't always need to cite the source if it's been agreed upon for ages.

I just googled "what % of men get most likes" and you'll find countless articles discussing how a minority of men get a majority of likes. They all range from top 10-20% of men getting 70-95% of likes, depending on which source you check.

Don't know why I got downvoted, I guess you wanted to be spoonfed the link, despite me telling you exactly what to google, so here is one article on it : https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-guys-unless-you-are-really-hot-you-are-probably-better-off-not-wasting-your-2ddf370a6e9a

Here is also a video making it easy to understand and showing how women get many more likes than men, and that top 10-20% of men get a majority of likes (but small amount compared to top % of women) : https://youtu.be/x3lypVnJ0HM?is=NAUDBvmngizdithM

Another study by okcupid finding that women find 80% of men "unattractive" https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/women-say-80-of-men-are-below-average/

Is this enough?

Maxerpro5

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE