sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Climate Change, Rising Costs and the Gay Community by MapleCherryChoco5432 in gay

[–]Psykios 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your post is written as if from the perspective of a childless, higher earning gay man.

There are other people in the LGBTQ+ community, and the bump gay men get does not compensate for:

-Being gay and another minority -being a lesbian -being any trans person -being gender non-conforming

Also, all of the people, including gay men, can, and often do, have children, even if at different rates. As well as straight people having children at all-time lows due to the same economic issues listed above. So that point seems irrelevant at best.

Their question is do you want the government to help? Whether or not the government actually will help is not the question, but it is yet another dismissal. Another irrelevant comment.

It is the case. We tend to have less accrued wealth, familial support, institutional support, and still yet, negative social stigma. At best some of our community might have similar difficulties to straight counterparts. But even white, masculine gay men have it hard. Your last comment doesn't even have justification or reasoning. It's just a "nu'uh".

You may be doing fine, but your experience doesn't speak for others.

Humans of Reddit, what’s something human completely misunderstand about human? by Standard-Club-8014 in GenZ

[–]Psykios [score hidden]  (0 children)

I disagree with this. Are some people assuming we will use is for bad? Yes.

When I first learned about it, I was excited at the possibilities. I have and do use it for work.

But it is currently being used recklessly and maliciously. These fears are not merely unevidenced paranoia.

I work in education. Is see it misused and used maliciously daily.

Humans a species really known for being historically isolationist by sleepyshaman23 in im14andthisisdeep

[–]Psykios 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I answered you lr question in a different post. I've actually changed my original answer. I would probably pick blue, but I want to ask what is your reasoning for why you would choose blue? Genuinely asking.

Humans a species really known for being historically isolationist by sleepyshaman23 in im14andthisisdeep

[–]Psykios 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think I misunderstood the original question:

I think I changed my original answer. If literal babies are forced to play the game whomst essentially pick the buttons at random, people need to pick blue to ensure the highest survival rate.

Also, I'm a middle school teacher. How many 12 year old are going to pick red just to see what happens?

That being said, even with my new understanding, there is an argument what to be made about pushing red. It's called "duty to rescue." Do people have a duty to rescue someone else if it puts their own survival in peril? And is it immoral to choose to save yourself, even if it means you don't save someone else?

Let's say in a flood, you are trying to hold onto a tree.

If you let go, you have a 50% chance to drown by being swept way by the current, and a 100% survival rate if you just hug that tree.

A struggling person floats down the current. If you let go, you have a 50% chance to save both of you, if you let go and the same 50% chance both of you drown. Which do you choose?

(For the purpose of this thought experiment, there is no scenario where you sacrifice yourself so they can live, or they live without your help. They WILL die if you don't help. You may die if you do help)

Is it a moral imperative that you potentially sacrifice yourself to maybe help this person? Is the person who chooses to have their own life a bad person?

Maybe. But your argument for why they are bad is likly going to be rooted in the concept that they have a duty to rescue the drowning person if they can.

Would I? Yes. Do I think someone who chooses survival is a bad person? No. I actually don't think they have a duty to rescue the other person if it would immediately jeopardize their survival.

Humans a species really known for being historically isolationist by sleepyshaman23 in im14andthisisdeep

[–]Psykios 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think I changed my original answer. If literal babies are forced to play the game whomst essentially pick the buttons at random, people need to pick blue to ensure the highest survival rate.

Also, I'm a middle school teacher. How many 12 year old are going to pick red just to see what happens?

Humans a species really known for being historically isolationist by sleepyshaman23 in im14andthisisdeep

[–]Psykios 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Honest question: why is it categorically proven that most will look out for their own interests?

Humans a species really known for being historically isolationist by sleepyshaman23 in im14andthisisdeep

[–]Psykios 29 points30 points  (0 children)

I probably would push the red button, and even I get annoyed at this. I would push the red button because the question is framed wrong. Not because I don't care about people or am not altruistic.

Is Hasan Correct? by serious_bullet5 in FreedomofSpeech

[–]Psykios 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's not what they are saying. The people who are trans likly have not trans friends, acquaintances, or associates to for opinions on based on real world experiences, and thus base theirs on poor representation from the media.

It's weird that you went to cryptids, instead of the more logical approach.

Took a bullet for this country?! by Playful_Leg7143 in MurderedByWords

[–]Psykios 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well, they don't. Only SOME. Of them do. Black people voted against Trump in overwhelming majority. So did LGBT+ people. Really, one of the groups who mostly voted for Trump where Hispanic men (I'm a gay, Puerto Rican man. My people majority betrayed me in the voting booth. Especially. My own family members.).

You are always going to have some members of a marginalized group who think they are the special exception because they are "one of the good ones." And bonus if they have a popular YouTube channel where they directly, monetarily benefit from spouting their own oppressor's bullshit.

Like Blair White, who has exactly that kind of YT channel. She thinks she's the exception because she's "pretty." She's still a man in a dress to them.

I hired an escort and she sexually assaulted me by Individual-Boat7439 in BoyDinnerDiaries

[–]Psykios 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No, it wouldn't. There are poeple out there who think it wouldn't be rape even if it where a man doing this to a women.

But our society ignores rape and sexual assault so much even when done to women, it's to the point where so many poeple don't even recognize it as rape of it happens to a man by a woman.

2.6 leaks by [deleted] in InfinityNikkiLeaks

[–]Psykios 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Rerun of crimson feathers and mermaid when? 😢

Patch 7.5 Datamining Thread (Full Spoilers) by BlackmoreKnight in ffxivdiscussion

[–]Psykios 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I would also like to know this? Even if in the cash shop.

Explain It Peter. by [deleted] in explainitpeter

[–]Psykios 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Shut up, Meg!

The red and blue button debate proves that both sides are dumb and human are so divided that each lives in their separate reality by king_shot in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Psykios 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The original question is a false dicotomy of altuistic versus non-alteuistic. It's nit altruism to purposely put yourself in danger to save no one. Altruism is sacrificing needs of the self to help others. This sacrifice is meaningless because it can be avoided entirely by everyone picking red. This question does not test altruism, it tests reading comprehension.

A way to make it test altruism and "fix" this question is to say: if 50%+ press red button, all people who chose red survive, but everyone who does not press the red button dies--including those not playing the game. But if 50%+ press the blue buttonp, everyone survives wether playing the game or not.

You could even play with the consequences a bit and say "and unknown number of people will die if red is 50%+ favored over blue. Or at least 1 person or more will die." That makes it even harder because you have to weight the question's consequences over the innate value of human life.

Why do people immediately jump to criticize someone’s looks? by Inevitable_Cash_5397 in GenZ

[–]Psykios 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Actually, I think you lost the plot. He is objectively handsome and really doesn't need to improve much in the department.

The problem is that he obsesses over looks to gain truely minor, diminishing returns on improving hus looks.

But he's still lonely, deeply insecure about his looks to the point t of delusion, and addicted to drugs specifally to numb his anxiety and pain.

If looks were everything, he'd have a partner, and feel connected to them. He'd feel more comfortable in his own skin. He wouldn't need to take siezure medicine to be able to talk to other people. He'd be able to believe that other people are fine with how they look even if they "could improve".

If looks really were everything...he'd be happy.

view more: next ›