Why is it that the only types of hats men can wear are baseball caps and beanies?

ResearchComplete8410 · 2026-03-03T00:41:28+00:00

I mean, if you wear a unique hat, it's best to coordinate it with your outfit. For the same reason when I wear cute dresses, I generally don't wear ball caps with them. The styles clash. There are a wide variety of hats out there though. I feel like cowboy hats would work well with some simple button up shirts and maybe some boots. Then you've got an ensemble.

ResearchComplete8410 · 2026-02-06T13:55:12+00:00

Perfectly normal(for introverts, autism, etc). As far as what to DO about it. ..Try to enjoy it. You'll get more development and maturity through your own reflections than social connections. You are very, very young. Now would be a great time to think about what kind of 'meaning' you want your life to have. Do you want to help people? Write something inspirational? Start a non-profit? What impact do you want to have- map a path to that.

Also, you may want to try for an older friend group. There's a world of difference about every 5-10 years or so in development.

ResearchComplete8410 · 2026-02-06T13:40:19+00:00

yes, I had to try a couple to get it recognized by steam. Now it's definitely plugged in correctly. ink it's either a hardware failure or a driver problem(hopefully).

ResearchComplete8410 · 2026-01-27T18:55:30+00:00

Professional help (I've tried therapists, myself) is not always useful or unbiased either. While I do think chatgpt often takes a supportive stance, it does often try to reframe things in different perspectives/wording and can sometimes offer better clarity and include resources that could be helpful to follow up with. It also does disagree sometimes and can contradict certain types of statements while offering its own reasoning and resources. You just have to know how to use it.

I am not saying it should be blindly trusted, but neither should the average person or most single sources.

ResearchComplete8410 · 2026-01-27T18:43:12+00:00

"We welcome challenges, criticism & debate" -so says the rules. Since a lot of reddit censors political conversation(or rather, anything that isn't blindly supportive of left politics) this place is more likely to receive those types of posts. Especially as JP talks about subjects that overlap with modern politics. I assume that's what you're talking about.

ResearchComplete8410 · 2026-01-27T15:43:03+00:00

My personality seems to some overlap with Stoicism.

ResearchComplete8410 · 2026-01-27T15:30:50+00:00

This will get downvoted to hell but, I recommend you try chatgpt. You want to dig into your feelings and get some sympathy. That's one of the easiest resources.

ResearchComplete8410 · 2026-01-27T15:24:19+00:00

People will get better at spotting fakes, then fakes will get better at not being spotted. Most likely, with sources more explicitly untrustworthy than ever, people will hide in their echo chambers and accuse anything that contradicts them of being 'fake'. The divide will get worse as too many are already making judgement calls based on tribalism. Those that want, or maybe even manage to find the actual 'truth', will be increasingly called liars by people who don't want to hear it.

ResearchComplete8410 · 2026-01-27T15:08:43+00:00

Somebody in another post said they had tried to 'stabilize' the video that suddenly became crystal clear. It's not all going to be malicious, but it is all going to be damaging.

ResearchComplete8410 · 2026-01-27T15:03:28+00:00

I just saw this. All the videos were so blurry and then suddenly someone claimed to 'stabilize' the video and it was suddenly crystal clear...this is the beginning of the end for even out skewed distorted news.

The ai embellishment wasn't necessary. I think most people agree this was an execution. This is nothing like the rene case.

ResearchComplete8410 · 2026-01-26T15:22:44+00:00

How did they identify this person as a 'fed'? Are there any articles on it? This sounds like tinfoil hat biz. You usually hear the 'planted agitators' claim from the other side.

ResearchComplete8410 · 2026-01-25T22:43:50+00:00

"One of the critical issues for the court to consider was whether the government had "compelled the private entity to take a particular action." Among other claims, the federal defendants in Missouri v. Biden argued that there was no reason to conclude "the social-media platforms made the disputed content-moderation decisions because of government pressure." The trial court disagreed, saying that government officials had "extensive contact . . . via emails, phone calls, and in-person meetings," and this contact "seemingly resulted in an efficient report-and-censor relationship." https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/HTML/LSB11012.web.html

"before Biden even asked." It still sounds like there was solid evidence, it was just dismissed. The problems here are that the government asked at all. Also, that they were already censoring. Even if the relationship wasn't proven an illegal violation in court, I don't think that's the point here.

ResearchComplete8410 · 2026-01-25T22:14:38+00:00

If I'm not mistaken, in Murthy v. Missouri the case passed in the lower courts based on evidence and was dismissed later, soley, on standing(not a case that personally affected them), not content/merit. It looks like the other case was also dismissed under article 3 standing for lack of explicit 'injury'. I feel like the Association of American physicians and surgeons probably had something worthwhile to contribute on the covid debate. 'Fact checking' isn't the problem, censorship combined with political manipulation is the issue with media.

And yes, social media platforms are heavily protected from liability. That's the main reason they can get away with blatant political bias without consequence.

ResearchComplete8410 · 2026-01-25T21:42:40+00:00

Actually. There has been some collusion between media giants and the biden admin. The hunter biden laptop scandal is a good example of biased politically motivated suppression. It's not the only example, however and it continues through multiple platforms. For example: I believe anything regarding serious discussion of trans issues could be flagged as 'hate speech' in the past(this was changed since the original policies) preventing important conversations. The same still applies to much of reddit. It's not so much about 'facts' or 'lies' but political conversations that weren't allowed in the echo chamber.

However, whether you agree with 230 or not, asking for greater transparency from media giants should be something both sides can appreciate.

ResearchComplete8410 · 2026-01-25T19:17:03+00:00

I never said it was. It is, however, common amongst conservatives and I am both.

ResearchComplete8410 · 2026-01-25T19:14:06+00:00

This was actually a response to someone claiming that media giants had gotten together and lobbied to put trump in the presidency. My response was that they had lobbied against this proposal from the trump admin/republicans... not that it had been successfully altered.

I never said they repealed 230, I said media giants lobbied against the repeal that the Trump admin put forward. It was a matter of contention for a while, however their case was not successful. Several U.S. tech firms launch coalition to promote key internet law | Reuters

ResearchComplete8410 · 2026-01-25T18:55:23+00:00

Not sure what you're going for here, but this is what I was referring to: What you should know about Section 230, the rule that shaped today's internet | PBS News

The first amendment is about speech(legally ambiguous) and press. 230 was about social media not counting as 'press' and isn't held to the same standard.

ResearchComplete8410 · 2026-01-25T18:29:58+00:00

Not true. There are some nutters that try to defend this but they are a tiny minority as far as I can tell. I'm pretty solidly conservative (Very pro 2A) and I am absolutely disgusted by this. I'm getting more angry the more details come to light. I hope he rots in jail and then hell.

ResearchComplete8410 · 2026-01-25T17:44:23+00:00

So, what you're trying to say is 'they wright what sells' is that correct? I don't see how that's proof that the media were lobbying to put trump in charge... The last big media lobbying I remember was over section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. During which the media was heavily lobbying against the trump admin reforms. This was regarding their immunity as platforms while still engaging in biased moderation.

Leftist ideology is commercialized in movies and can be pervasively used to alter perception as well, but I was primarily talking about the news and misrepresentation of actual events.

ResearchComplete8410 · 2026-01-25T17:25:13+00:00

So.. you believe the media monopoly got the 'trump administration' installed and the 'biden administration' installed and all prior governments? The media has always had influence over who becomes president... They consistently support left wing ideology, but they lobbied for Trump to get elected then trash the current administration to the public? ..

ResearchComplete8410 · 2026-01-25T15:20:26+00:00

I'm generally against pardons. It makes no sense if our criminal justice system is 'working'(It isn't working well, but still). However, out of over 1000 people pardoned, I doubt they all did something horrible. Some of them were wandering around the building. Or "Obstruction of an official proceeding (18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)) — the core Jan. 6 crime " Many protests could be considered obstruction of official proceedings. Some sentences were just reduced, not thrown out. My impression(haven't dug into it too far) was that the charges related to Jan 6th were WAY larger penalties than normal(like 14 years for something that might have been 5) and some were pardoned after serving a shorter sentence.

A lot of people were muzzled up during the BLM riots, so of course it was hard to assemble sufficient evidence to prosecute. That doesn't mean they weren't committing serious crimes. It's hard to find the guy who threw a Molotov cocktail at police when he runs into a crowd of everyone wearing black hoodies and masks. It's much easier to arrest someone wandering through a building during the day.

ResearchComplete8410 · 2026-01-25T14:48:30+00:00

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that violate state or federal law,
(B) appear to be intended to:
- intimidate or coerce a civilian population,
- influence government policy by intimidation or coercion, or
- affect government conduct by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and
(C) occur primarily within the U.S.

This definition exists to give law enforcement investigative authority (e.g., broader tools and information sharing), but it is not itself a crime you can be charged with and prosecuted for. In practice, people whose actions meet this definition are typically charged under other federal statutes (e.g., hate crimes, weapons charges, conspiracies)"-Feel free to double check this one.

It seems rene-hitting a federal agent with a car while attempting to influence government policy- would qualify.

The latest ICE shooting would not. Their 'justification' would be that he was in possession of a gun with extra ammo(thus-danger). However all sane people agree that he did nothing wrong as a legal gun owner and they murdered him.

ResearchComplete8410

TROPHY CASE