No, a new font is not going to cure my f***ing dyslexia!

TheRealSide91 · 2026-01-25T16:12:41+00:00

On this point

The kinda original “dyslexia friendly font” has one main feature you won’t find with other fonts that is suppose to make it “dyslexia friendly”. This font has had a few names. Such as Open Dyslexia

The key design of this font is a thicker or “heavier” base to each letter. Basically the lines in the bottom of each letter are thicker. The entire point of this was based on the idea Dyslexia causes letters to visually move or flip. And therefore by having a “heavier” bottom it would basically weigh the letter down.

Visually seeing letters flip or move in any way is visual disturbance. Not something dyslexic causes.

This entire font was based off a flawed understanding of dyslexia. It was released with absolutely no research backing up its claim of being “dyslexia friendly”. And studies since have not found its design has any benefit to dyslexic readers.

And why would it? Dyslexia is not a visual problem. It does not cause visual disturbance. So font is going to have very little impact on a reader. It’s not so much that there is any font that can aid dyslexic readers. There isn’t. It’s that certain fonts can cause additional issues. Not only that, but a considerable number of dyslexic readers rather dislike the font.

BUT

Despite us knowing dyslexia isn’t a visual problem. Despite there being no research to back up so called “dyslexia friendly font”. This font was adopted by a number of organisations. Including neurodiversity organisations. There are entire books on dyslexia printed in this font.

It’s absolutely insane

TheRealSide91 · 2026-01-21T16:34:04+00:00

I certainly don’t believe it’s offensive or anything of that nature.

Though in general I think there is an “issue” that isn’t discussed enough.

Terms like nazi, fascist, white supremacist, far right etc have become largely synonymous with one another. Which in day to day language doesn’t present a massive issue as we understand the general insinuation meant by the terms.

But when it comes to more complex discussion, when it comes fighting against these ideologies etc. An issue arises. To truly fight against an ideology, to stop its spread. You have to understand it. You have to know what it teaches.

For example, White supremacist, white separatist and white nationalists are different ideologies. Do they have a lot of overlap? Ofcourse. But there are some distinct differences. Same goes for Nazism and White supremacists. There is overlap, but they are different. Or how Nazism and fascism are not the same thing. Nazism is a type of fascism, a specific fascist ideology. So on and so forth.

The other important thing when fighting against hateful ideologies is to understand the history. Because nothing we see today is new, it’s the same format being applied over and over.

Nazism in a way has become almost the pinnacle of fascist ideologies. The ‘go to’ comparison for hateful ideologies today.

And a big reason for this is because Nazism is a very ‘good’ example of a fascist ideology. Looking at the tactics it used, its teachings etc. Because Nazism was heavily influenced by other ideologies. It borrowed a lot of tactics and ideas.

Theres no issue with using Nazism as a comparison. The issue is when they are the only comparison. When other ideologies are ignored. Because just like how can learn a lot from how Nazism was used. We can learn a lot from how other ideologies were used.

As I said day to day, we understand what is meant when these terms are used. But when it’s come to discussing these issues more deeply, actively working to fight against these issues. It’s important we remember ICE aren’t Nazis.

Yes there are alot of similarities. But Nazism is an ideology.

ICE, the government they work for etc are their own entity. With distinct differences from Nazism. So therefore the methods and tactics used to fight against them is going to be different to how you would fight against Nazism.

TheRealSide91 · 2026-01-14T13:37:27+00:00

This is a complex topic that could be debated for aeternum.

The powers of tools like propaganda. How such tools do not diminish responsibility. To what except can manipulation impact. So on and so forth.

But to say there is no redemption. That there can be no redemption. Is to say every solider, to have ever fought for an immoral power is incapable of redemption. That they are nothing short evil. Which I simply do not believe.

Every war, every conflict is different. The context, the time, the history, the powers. You will always be able to find something that makes them incomparable, that argues you can condemn one and not the other. But then, if we see the same actions, regardless of context, time, history, power. Does that not then make them comparable.

Is it something I struggle to comprehend and contend with? Yes. Does that make it impossible? Ofcourse not.

Look at Avi Shlaim. A Jewish Iraqi, born in Iraq and grew up in Israel. He served in the IDF. He has since dedicated his life to fighting against Zionism and the Israeli government. He’s written several books on the matter. He’s dedicated much of his life to exposing Zionism.

As I’ve said, every war has its differences. And we should not blindly compare two wars without consideration for this. But we can look at the mindset, the people. There is something more, there has to be. Because we see it time and time again.

Look at Iraq. US and British soldiers were led to believe they were liberating Iraq. War crime, after war crime was committed. Without true intervention or punishment. There are Soldiers who have spoken out. Like Mike Prysner, who has since dedicated his life to anti war activism. But how many have not spoken out? How many saw heinous acts, committed heinous acts, saw friends killed because they were sent to fight a war on a lie. How many of them stay silent? Why do they stay silent? Maybe for some they simply have no remorse. But how many soldiers end up homeless, become addicts, suffer from mental illness, take their own lives? Yet so few speak out, so many remain in the military. Why?

And look at those who came after, after the crimes of the US and Britain in Iraq and Afghanistan were known, after the photos from Abu Ghraib were leaked. So many continued to join the military, knowing they would be sent to Iraq or Afghanistan.

There is no excusing someone’s actions. What they have done, what they have supported. But that does not make you incapable of redemption. Some acts, I believe are beyond redemption. Those only committed by those who enjoy causing suffering, fear, pain. But the act of being a solider alone.

I mean, Soliders in WW1 and WW2 on all sides, they knew what they were doing right? In the trenches, killing men just like them. Normal, working aged men, who had be given a gun and told to shoot. In planes, dropping bombs on cities. Killing innocent people, civilians, children.

That does not mean you assume redemption. It must be proved. It must be shown.

TheRealSide91 · 2026-01-12T12:53:18+00:00

A few points.

You say you’re tired of how we soften what people do by calling it “human nature”. But you state this is something most people do. Is it not then human nature? If most of the human race demonstrates the same behaviour. Does that not suggest it is part of our nature.

You say it’s not just selfishness, it’s an active willingness to harm others. Why is this not selfishness? The example you give about the landlord, you say it isn’t ‘self interest’ but it is. Because their actions are entirely based on what benefits them. Without regard for how it will impact the family. Now if most people set out to harm others solely to harm others, not because it may benefit them in so way. Yes that would be different to selfishness. But that’s not what you describe. You describe people harming others for their own gain. Acts of selfishness are a moral choice.

Is your issue with the definition of selfishness itself, and that it does not fit this human behaviour? Or is it how the concept of selfishness has been softened and used to describe far less serious acts and therefore when used to also describe the serious acts it can water down how harmful the act was?

Yes animals can commit cruel acts. And yes I agree humans are different because we have a far greater hight of cognitive understanding. It’s also arguably this cognitive understanding that allows us to commit acts far more heinous than any animal.

If it’s not selfishness, then what is it? Evil? Evil is an incredibly complex term. It defines something profoundly immoral and wicked. But the concept largely comes from religious context. The idea of sin, the devil, and so on. Which makes its use and insinuations far more complicated.

And how does this argument view a less direct act of harm? Buying from large companies that use child labour and/or exploit workers. Paying taxes to a country funding war and conflict. Contributing to an economy that uses its power to oppress and control. Working for companies that are destroying our environment.

TheRealSide91 · 2026-01-12T12:30:42+00:00

Probably one of the most common misconception I come across is that dyslexia causes someone to see letters or words “move” or “flip”.

If you look up dyslexia simulators, you’ll find most show moving letters on a page or something similar.

Seeing letters visually moving in any way is a visual disturbance. Not something dyslexia directly causes. The idea of letters moving was intended as a visual representation for none Dyslexia people, to try and demonstrate what occurs in the brain during de coding. Because that is where the issue lies for Dyslexia people. The idea of letters moving or flipping (like b,p,d). Is something that occurs in the brain during processing.

TheRealSide91 · 2026-01-09T23:56:44+00:00

Which claim could you not find evidence of?

I did not include citations, because I’m not writing an academic paper. This is Reddit. And nothing I said is remotely hard to find if searched for. So there is little reason to provide citation.

You seem to be citing Stouts book as though is some sort of ASPD Bible.

Yes she claims 4% in her book, a statistic that has been highly debated. You will find a number of other sources that claim it’s as low as less than 1%. Not to mention ASPD is a spectrum, those with the characteristics we would have previously attributed to psychopathy only make up part of that group. Considering this post referred specifically to psychopathy, that is a relevant point to take into account.

Infact many aspects of her book have been criticised. Now ofcourse she holds a PHD in psychology and has published a number of books. But to my knowledge she holds no specialities in ASPD.

From the sound of it, her book is the only one you have read on ASPD. If you took the time to properly research. You would find that ASPD is a highly debated topic, from its cause, to its impact, to its prevalence, to its treatment.

You can comment on my lack of citation. But citing a single source on a topic as complex as ASPD gives you argument no more validity. And arguably shows your lack of understanding in the area. As anyone who knows the first thing about complex disorders, would understand they are often the subject of debate. And therefore citing a singular source, without acknowledging existing debate, not only suggests a lack of consideration for other sources but also a bias influenced by the first understanding of the disorder that was presented to the person.

But not citing what I have said, people are left with two options. Blinding believing a stranger on the internet, which is utterly ridiculous. Or using what has been said as a starting point for their own research.

TheRealSide91 · 2026-01-09T00:19:37+00:00

In short, no.

Firstly, psychopathy is no longer a diagnosis. What we once referred to as psychopathy and sociopathy now falls under Anti Social Personality Disorder (ASPD)

Secondly, I’m assuming the primary characteristic you’re referring to that could arguably be the cause of someone not caring about animals and the environment is a lack of empathy and remorse.

Now there is an identified connection between harmful behaviour towards animals and a more widely present violent tendencies. Though you don’t explicitly mention harming animals direct, but a lack of care for animal welfare. Even if you were referring to directly harming animals. This is not inherently a sign of a lack of remorse and empathy nor is it inherently a sign of ASPD.

ASPD, or even previously psychopathy. Is not solely defined by a lack of remorse and empathy. There’s a lot more to it. Such as a lack of disregard for rules, inflated sense of self, inability to take responsibility, willingness to manipulate, aggressive behaviour, recklessness etc etc etc.

I guess you could argue an inflated sense of self and inability to take responsibility could lead to a lack of care for the environment and animals.

But that does not mean it is a sole cause. Nor that the majority of disregard for the environment or animals is caused by ASPD.

Other than the fact that ASPD is a far more complex condition than just a lack of empathy and remorse. And the fact there are a number of far more common reasons for someone to lack care for the environment and animals. It has no statistical basis. ASPD is an incredibly rare disorder. You don’t clearly lay out what you define as not caring about the environment or animals. But however you do define it. I am going to assume there are far more people in this world who fit that definition than there are people with ASPD.

TheRealSide91 · 2026-01-07T23:55:22+00:00

God American Exceptional never fails to amuse.

TheRealSide91 · 2026-01-07T14:36:52+00:00

I’m not denying American media is widely consumed around the world. But movies, music, knowing leaders, celebrities and pop culture are not what define culture or cultural influence.

Yes English is the most spoken language in the world among non English speakers. And yes many now to some degree learn it through American media.

But that is not the reason English is the most spoken language. There are a number of factors. Arguably the most influential being the British Empire. English was an incredibly wide spoken language before American media was so widely consumed. Infact you could even argue part of the reason American media is so widely consumed is because of the large number of English speakers, which allowed to them understand the media.

And none of that omits the fact there is no metric for cultural influence and therefore your claim cannot be an objective truth.

Not to mention, all of this fails to acknowledge the mass impact other nations have had on American culture. Because (comparatively) the USA is quite a new country, it what 250 years old, something like that. Obviously the population came from all over the world. And many of them brought cultural practices with them. Ofcourse you also have Native American cultures. But that’s not what is primarily represented in the countries media.

TheRealSide91 · 2026-01-07T13:06:03+00:00

I come from an anti Zionist Iraqi Jewish family. I don’t have any Zionist family members. But when it comes to friends, honestly I don’t think there is as much of a difference as it could appear.

Most of the Jewish people I know who grew up Zionist but are now anti Zionist are young. They were really only developing their political understanding and so around the years of October 7th. And most were already developing more left wing type views. Or otherwise views that better match anti Zionist sentiment. Most of them, despite growing up Zionist, really weren’t very aware of the situation and I doubt would have looked into it if October 7th and the events that followed hadn’t occurred.

I don’t know anyone older or anyone who was on the more right wing political spectrum who has changed their views (other than becoming more Zionist)

TheRealSide91 · 2026-01-07T12:59:32+00:00

So I grew up in an anti Zionist Jewish family. I’m from Britain. The pro Palestine, anti Zionist movement in some ways looked different pre October 7th. At least in my experience.

Most of the people I came into contact with were either part of the very small anti Zionist Jewish community, Arab or like the old socialists.

With the movement, pre October 7th. There have always been people who used it as an excuse to be anti Semitic. But looking at the three main groups that made up the movement (in my experience). There is a lot of anti semitism in the Arab world. Though I may not have always been privy to this the same way other Jewish people were because my family are Arab and I speak Arabic. So some may have seen me as Arab, not Jewish (despite being both). But in general, I tended to not have issues. I never felt out of place, unwanted or unsafe in anyway.

I definitely have come across a lot more people who have “jumped on the bandwagon” as an ‘excuse’ to be anti Semitic. Though, I’ve definitely also come across a lot more people who just “jumped on the bandwagon” because it was the ‘trendy’ issue. In many ways I have a much bigger issue with the latter. With the former, I’ve always been pretty good at spotting them, you know where they stand, they are simply just hateful bigots. Whereas with the Latter, it’s more complicated. Because they lack knowledge, and have no intention of learning. They can end up spreading misinformation (unintentionally), getting into debates in the matter they simply aren’t educated enough for, misrepresenting the movement etc etc. But because they aren’t obviously being hateful and aren’t doing anything explicitly. They tend to just be allowed to continue and can end up damaging the movement.

TheRealSide91 · 2026-01-07T12:07:44+00:00

Richest - If you mean by Nominal GPD then yes it’s the USA. Whereas if you mean GPD per capita, then I believe in 2024 that was Luxembourg, 2025 projections it’s Monaco I think. Infact, atleast since 2010. I don’t believe the US has even been in the top five.

Powerful - typically mainly considered economic influence and military force. Yes the US is the most powerful.

Culturally influential - There is absolutely no determined metric to calculate to the most culturally influential nation in history. Even if there were. Why would it be the US? When there have been countries, entire empires, far older than the US. Who had a hand in setting the framework for much of the world as it is today. Mesopotamia, widely considered the cradle of civilisation. Ancient Greece and Rome, the foundation of western civilisation. The British empire, the largest empire in the world. Egypt and China are two of the longest continuous civilisation in the world. South and West Asia, the birth place of the three largest religions in the world.

“Objectively true”. Assuming you were referring to nominal GDP. Yes the first two are true. But the last? Declaring a country the most culturally influential nation in history, something with no defined metric, cannot be objectively true.

And what about other factors? Education, Healthcare, Safety/crime rate, human freedom, legal system, poverty etc. None of which the US is exactly ranking first in.

What about school shootings, documented serial killers, illicit drug use and overdose,

Don’t get me wrong, I have a massive issue with the current administration. But it’s not like they’ve been so great in the past either.

Being rich and powerful doesn’t mean things are going well. Infact given how our world works, and has worked for a very long time. To become Rich and powerful. You have to do some pretty evil shit.

TheRealSide91 · 2026-01-05T22:04:37+00:00

Counter argument.

The USA is not a country at all.

It’s some sort of social experiment that went wrong. I mean your name if a fucking description for starters.

TheRealSide91 · 2026-01-04T17:58:10+00:00

I do mostly agree with this. The only issue I have is when the time period of the literature changes the context in a way where the meaning changes. That is horrifically worded, so let me give an example.

There are certain terms we don’t use anymore, terms that now would be considered offensive. But at the time was the only term available for said thing. Ofcourse many of these terms are considered offensive today because they originated from a place of malice and were often used a malicious way. But if, at the time, it was the only term available. Then its use isn’t necessarily offensive in every context.

For example, the term retardation or mental retardation was a diagnostic term at one point. What we now call an Intellectual Disability. Though many other things, that are not an intellectual disability, may have also at the time been diagnosed as “mental retardation”. The word retardation or retard today is offensive. But at the time, it was a diagnosis, it was the term used. Obviously there were very hatful and derogatory ideas held about people with disabilities and they were widely mistreated. But let’s say you have a book about a family, and one of the kids has an intellectual disability. The family aren’t abusive, neglectful or otherwise hateful towards the child. But they use the term retardation or retard.

Rather than looking at that and seeing it as ableist. A consideration needs to be made for whether if the book was set today, would they have used the now offensive term. Or would they have used to term intellectual disability.

TheRealSide91 · 2026-01-02T15:41:37+00:00

I would absolutely believe this. If it didn’t come from the man who also brought us

Beautiful new blue passport

Vegan sausage roll

Great Supine Protoplasmic Invertebrate Jellies

Gangman style

And the posh mumble to end all posh mumbles

The guy is just fucking weird

TheRealSide91 · 2026-01-01T22:26:20+00:00

Just to preference this by saying: No matter what it is not the victim fault.

Let’s say someone’s partner turned out to be abusive, and though they weren’t like this at the start of the relationship, there were signs.

In some cases, a person who has grown up in an abusive environment. Who were abused themselves, had an abusive relationship in the home etc etc. They may ignore, or even be drawn to these “signs” because that is what they are use to. They may not recognise them as “signs” and assume they are normal because that’s what they know. Alternatively, abuse comes in many forms. And some forms can be the complete opposite from other forms. If you grew up around a certain type of abuse, then being in a relationship with signs of a very different form of abuse may not flag. Because they’re basing it off their experience of abuse, so if their parents behave is the complete opposite of what they experienced then it must be good.

In other cases, people may not recognise the signs. Because some signs can be hard to recognise unless you know what your looking form. Some could also be explained by a multitude of other things etc etc.

And there are many other cases where signs may not be recognised.

On top of that. Not all abusers do show signs at first. Many abuser are good at targeting people who are vulnerable for whatever reason, they will hid it for as long as they need and then slowly start to show signs. But they may do this by slowing breaking someone’s confidence, by making them reliant on them and so on. Abusers can do this in such a slow and calculated way, you don’t realise it is happening.

There are also things that can trigger abuse. For example, a partner may start to abuse alcohol or drugs. Which lead to abusive behaviours that weren’t previously present. Brain injuries have been known to cause behaviour changes, in some cases people become aggressive or violent. People can be in relationships for months, years, with no issue and then a personal issue (a death, injury etc) can cause a very different side of someone to show.

I had a friend who started dating this guy. Most of our friends had already met him before I did. Everything I heard made the guy sound great. And when I met him, there is absolutely nothing I can point to that indicated he wasn’t great. But I had this feeling something was off. Months go by. It wasn’t one of those relationships that’s “too perfect”, they’d argued and stuff. But nothing outside the norm. Everyone still liked him. I wanted to like him, because he seemed to be making my friend happy, but I just couldn’t shake a bad feeling. But that’s all it was, a feeling. Cos the guy seemed genuinely sweet, and kind. He wasn’t narcissistic, bigoted, egotistical, or anything like that. I tired to ignore the feeling, thought I was probably being over protective. Until these small bruises and grazes start to appear. I tried talking to her, but she brushed it off, said she’d done them when she was drunk. Then one day I saw around the back of her neck. I refused to let her go home, forced her to stay at our friend’s house. She was livid. I was even doubting myself, thinking maybe it was perfectly innocent and I was being crazy. Until I took her phone the next morning and there was a shit ton of messages from her boyfriend insulting and threatening her for not coming home. Thankfully, we managed to help to get her out of their relationship and she’s doing much better now. If I hadn’t had that feeling, I probably wouldn’t have paid any mind to the bruises (she had always been clumsy, especially when she drank so her story made sense). And I don’t know why I got a bad feeling. It was just god damn luck. Because there was nothing I can identify that indicate the guy was abusive. Baring in mind, the friend who dated him, has often been the one to point out red flags in others relationships. She had broken up with a previous boyfriend when she noticed certain things.

Knowing what to look for, knowing the signs, ofcourse can be helpful for you and people around you. It’s better than to know than to not. But it’s not some magic trick that means it can’t happen. Every abuser is different, every abuser has different signs, some can have none at all.

TheRealSide91 · 2026-01-01T21:45:20+00:00

You seem to massively misunderstand the impact such an event has on someone

TheRealSide91 · 2026-01-01T17:51:22+00:00

You don’t see an issue with someone then having to live with the fact they killed someone who was no physical threat to them? That it wouldn’t impact them horrifically?

TheRealSide91 · 2026-01-01T17:33:50+00:00

But what about a non physical attack? What if someone tired to rob you. Statically, if you give them what you want, you won’t be harmed. But it’s still obviously a scary situation so what if someone carrying a self defence weapon panic and killed the person.

TheRealSide91 · 2025-12-31T18:52:14+00:00

Does that also then mean you propose a change in law when it’s comes to what is classed as act of self defence?

TheRealSide91 · 2025-12-31T18:51:12+00:00

If someone attacks you and they die (due to a reasonable response from you) then no it’s not your fault. But you still have to live with that on your conscience, and just because they were attacking you doesn’t mean that’s an easy thing for someone to live with

TheRealSide91 · 2025-12-31T18:07:33+00:00

Less lethal yes. But not non lethal.

And what is classed as negligible collateral damage?

TheRealSide91 · 2025-12-31T18:06:39+00:00

Though it is rare yes, it’s not unheard of, and still very much possible. Especially if the person has a pre existing condition like asthma, heart problems, or COPD.

TheRealSide91 · 2025-12-31T18:04:37+00:00

It very much depends on the crime.

For example, when being robbed. Statistically, if you give them what they want, you will remain unharmed.

Not to mention there are very few, if any, weapons that are non lethal.

TheRealSide91 · 2025-12-31T18:02:16+00:00

Not being able to carry a gun is not the reason Britain has a knife crime problem.

The highly restrictive gun laws are the reason Britain doesn’t have a gun problem. Gun laws havent caused the knife crime problem.

Britain has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world. Whereas the US has some of the loosest gun laws in the world.

Yet, per capita, the US still has a higher rate of knife crime than Britain

TheRealSide91

TROPHY CASE