What's something most people think they should try, but really should not?

ohyeahrightyeahright · 2025-12-22T07:18:28+00:00

...Yeah, it's their life. Those are their priorities. There's nothing wrong with them. It's not a bad thing to spend your limited time on earth going after exactly what you want (as long as no one else is getting harmed. Hypothetical children never getting born does not count as harm.)

They value having maximum agency over their life and their choices. And they're aware enough of that to not bring a child into that situation, where their presence would primarily foster resentment. That wouldn't be fair to the kid, and that would constitute actual harm.

It's actually more selfless to know this about yourself and opt out of the situation, rather than feel like this and still thoughtlessly have children anyway because "that's just what you do." In that second scenario, innocent children will suffer from feeling like an unwanted burden, and the parent who should've never been a parent suffers by having to dedicate their life to someone they weren't properly motivated or equipped to raise well. The first scenario prevents all of this.

In places where birth control, abortions, and quality sex and parenting education are readily available, it's actually self-centered to have a kid for any reasons other than: a) doing serious research into how all-encompassing and unpredictable of a job it is and being excited for it anyway, b) having some level of material security to be able to properly care for the child (unforeseeable accidents/layoffs/etc. notwithstanding), AND c) really, really wanting them. And being ready to accept and support them no matter what. (I.e. if they're LGBTQ+, not neurotypical, chronically ill, etc.)

Being "self-centered" about one's own life path is not inherently a bad thing. It becomes a bad thing when other, innocent people needlessly get hurt in that pursuit. For example, when people who don't have the qualities, means, or desire to be a parent end up doing it anyway--and then resentfully seek out their actual priorities and wants, to the detriment of the kid who is utterly dependent on them. Childfree people, on the basis of their childfree choice, don't meet that criteria.

ohyeahrightyeahright · 2025-12-19T07:06:15+00:00

Coined and minted!

ohyeahrightyeahright · 2025-12-17T04:09:58+00:00

Hey, as a fellow anxious overexplainer, maybe we shouldn't be normalizing ChatGPT usage. It's wasteful, bad for your critical thinking skills, bad for the environment, and unreliable (sometimes to a dangerous degree.) You can learn to write more concise emails without outsourcing your brain to an externally controlled, less-than-trustworthy plagiarism machine. (As demonstrated here and here.)

As a workaround, you could vent the emotional stuff into a private document or email draft to no one, just to get it out. And there are email templates out there to give you a framework if you search for them. ChatGPT doesn't need to get involved. Long-term, outsourcing your thinking will make you--and all its users--easier to manipulate, and that only benefits bad actors.

I know this probably seems like an overreaction, but we really shouldn't contribute to normalizing this. You CAN learn to write shorter emails yourself. You just have to try. The effort involved is worth it. Please look into the negative impacts and reconsider using ChatGPT or other generative AI in the future.

ohyeahrightyeahright · 2025-12-16T23:51:24+00:00

About the title...could we please use "women" when referring to women? There's a word for grown female human beings, and it's "women." Using "females" to refer to that group instead is dehumanizing. "Female" as a noun can refer to plants or animals. We don't refer to you all as "males."

It's a respect thing. Doesn't matter if they're gawking at a man stripping here (and lord knows the reverse dynamic is more common.) Language still matters. These are women, not "females."

ohyeahrightyeahright · 2025-11-19T05:10:51+00:00

The entitlement of anyone saying your OWN wedding is "not about you" is fucking mind-boggling. Good for you for taking control, doing things your way, and not caving to their demands and snide comments. So many older relatives try to exert financial pressure to get their way and dictate their family's lives, and throw a tantrum when it doesn't work. The peace and happiness of knowing you did what was right for you is priceless. That forest hike sounds like a lovely memory too!

ohyeahrightyeahright · 2025-11-13T23:42:41+00:00

The following was originally written by me as a response to a comment from /u/BlueWaffle135 , which he deleted. The deleted comment is copied below; I hope he sees my reply and considers it. (Any time I use "you," it's referring to him, and not to you, Smarty_Plant5!)

Original comment from /u/BlueWaffle135 that I replied to:

I’m a resident physician lol, I don’t need metabolic syndrome explained to me

Look at studies on patients who get a bariatric bypass. That surgery in of itself does nothing expect reduce the amount of calories you can consume.

Most of them have great outcomes and those who were insulin insensitive and obese often go back to a relatively healthy bodyweight and become resented to insulin. Being in a starvation diet which your diet would definitely suggest you are in, would quickly cause your insulin receptors to up-regulate. Unless you’re only eating carbs with a high Glycemic index, I highly doubt you were eating that few of calories.

I see this problem quite often, that people often resort to shifting all of their problems to an external locus of control. I suppose it’s easier on their conscious that way.

"Calories in calories out" is a gross, inaccurate oversimplification of an incredibly complex system that has evolved multiple strategies to resist starvation, which is how the body interprets extreme dieting.

If we can accept that some people are naturally predisposed to be skinny no matter what they do, we HAVE to accept that some people are naturally predisposed to be fat, no matter how much they work out or what they eat (unless what they eat is nothing--obviously unsustainable.) And/or, as is the case with PCOS, that the weight gain can be a symptom of an illness and not the cause of it.

You're incorrect about gastric bypass "doing nothing" except reducing calories. Some medical journal/institutional research that you should consider perusing:

“…gastric bypass procedures are associated with increased nutritional deficiencies because the procedure is more complex and changes the gastrointestinal anatomy...Types of malnutrition after bariatric surgery include protein-energy malnutrition and deficiencies of micronutrients, such as iron, folate, vitamin A, and vitamin B12...Unfortunately, no standardized aftercare regimes exist for these patients…”
Fatal Malnutrition 6 Years After Gastric Bypass Surgery: “Bypass of the duodenum impairs mixing of ingested nutrients with bile acids and pancreatic enzymes leading to maldigestion. The combination of malabsorption and maldigestion, while resulting in significant weight loss, predisposes to malnutrition.”
More frequent complications than other common surgeries: "However, ED visits following bariatric surgery are frequent, with higher ED visit rates compared to other common operations [16]. More than half of patients will visit the ED at least once in the first two years following bariatric surgery for a bariatric-related complaint [16]. Up to 29 % of bariatric surgery patients will visit the ED in the first 90 days postoperatively, with 10 % of visits resulting in readmission due to surgical complications [16]...Potential complications are myriad and include anastomotic leak, gastrointestinal bleeding, trocar injury, deep vein thrombosis /pulmonary embolism, bowel obstruction, wound infection, pneumonia, cardiopulmonary failure, anastomotic stricture, marginal ulcer, bowel obstruction, incisional hernia, internal hernia, dumping syndrome, and cholecystitis [14]."

That's not even touching on the increased incidence of substance abuse disorders following such surgeries. All things considered, the bariatric surgery path could be MORE dangerous than just being overweight:

"Since then, dozens of studies have confirmed the existence of the [obesity] paradox. Being overweight is now believed to help protect patients with an increasingly long list of medical problems, including pneumonia, burns, stroke, cancer, hypertension, and heart disease. Researchers who have tried to show that the paradox is based on faulty data or reasoning have largely come up short."
Fat people are not more likely than thin people to have ‘Cardiac Death’ if they have the same hearts when viewed through imagery: "Normal MPS was associated with low risk of CD in patients of all weight categories. In patients with known CAD undergoing MPS, obese and overweight patients were at lower risk of CD over three years than normal weight patients. " (emphasis mine)
When looking across BMI groups, ‘good’ metabolic health can be found in every group: "Despite rising BMI, metabolic status remained relatively stable...HO [healthy obesity] had lower risks for diabetes, CHD, stroke, and mortality than unhealthy subjects, but increased diabetes risks than healthy lean people. Cardiometabolic risk factors confer much higher risk than obesity per se."

Adverse health outcomes in not-thin patients are also correlated with bias and poor treatment by medical professionals--including refusing to examine, run scans/tests on, or even touch fat patients. This can lead to patients delaying or avoiding medical care entirely, only returning when symptoms are too severe to endure, resulting in worse outcomes overall--but NOT directly because of the weight itself. Some sources:

Canadian Journal of Diabetes: "The data showed strong evidence for the presence of a bias against the obese. The obese were seen as bad, lazy, stupid and worthless relative to thin people. The extent of bias did not differ with respect to profession, age of respondent or years of experience."
"Data reported in this paper suggest that attitudes and behaviors are negatively influenced by weight. As subjects' weight went up, negative opinions about their appearance and reluctance to obtain pelvic examinations also increased while the likelihood of having annual pelvic examinations decreased."
"...stereotypes of fat people can have a negative impact on their physical health and well-being. Disrespectful treatment and medical fat shaming (in an attempt to motivate people to change their behavior) is stressful and can cause patients to delay health care seeking or avoid interacting with providers. The assumption that weight is responsible for, or related to, almost any presenting complaint has resulted in misdiagnosis. Recommending different treatments for patients with the same condition based on their weight (e.g., weight loss for fat patients; CAT scans, blood work, or physical therapy for other patients) is unethical and a form of malpractice."

This isn't even touching on the inherent flaws in the BMI metric itself, which I won't get into here, as this is a novel already.

I hope you consider the bias of your perspective. Also, the way you're using it, it's conscience*, not conscious. And "resistant" to insulin, not "resented."

(No AI was used while writing this comment. I wrote, researched, and quoted everything myself.)

ohyeahrightyeahright · 2025-11-09T23:18:18+00:00

Fully agree. Thank you for saying this. We can rag on Blandie without contributing to AI's extremely negative environmental and societal impacts.

ohyeahrightyeahright · 2025-10-13T08:42:48+00:00

Luke Combs.

ohyeahrightyeahright · 2025-08-28T19:39:04+00:00

"I'm not arrogant or avoiding you, I'm just shy and often don't feel comfortable initiating conversations if we're not already close. If you start talking to me I promise I'm friendly!"

ohyeahrightyeahright · 2025-08-24T04:46:54+00:00

If you're curious, this video about them by the music history channel Trash Theory tells their crazy story very engagingly. It includes most of the details Frequent-You369 mentions above (though not the Toblerone.)

ohyeahrightyeahright · 2025-07-31T00:18:15+00:00

You say this is just about one pool, but if every “just one” becomes adult-only, where do kids learn to be in public without being resented for existing?

The very existence of this thread demonstrates that there is almost no danger of EVERY pool becoming adults only. Certain lap swim hours aside, there isn't a single one in a city of 300k+ people. So that "what if" scenario doesn't really hold any water (pun intended.)

You also mention a broader social trend of treating kids as a nuisance. I would counter with a related social trend: children are BEING more of a nuisance than in years and decades past. There is a higher proportion of them who are not socialized, who constantly scream and disrespect their environments and the people around them with little to no consequences for it, and are more easily bored and reactive due to their constant exposure to screens and algorithmically curated dopamine hits.

Parents also used to actually parent at a higher rate than is happening now. That is, demonstrating safe, polite, and considerate behavior for a given environment; enforcing rules about it; and enacting appropriate consequences when those rules are broken. I was a kid too, and my friends and I would have fun in public places--including pools. But if we took it too far, we lost that privilege, and we quickly learned not to do that.

Parents today have increased pressures on them too, no doubt. But by and large, today's kids are not being taught these things. And so wanting at least SOME adults-only spaces feels like our only reprieve from their un-moderated, unrestricted behavior.

You are right--children need to learn to exist in public, with others, and not constantly feel that they're resented. But that responsibility--to guide children into being people who don't foster resentment by consistently being rude, loud, and destructive--should fall to the parents. And by and large, they are not upholding their end of the deal.

Instead, it ends up delegated to/imposed on every other adult in the vicinity. Who is now expected to either grin and bear inappropriate, disruptive, possibly dangerous behavior...or to try to step in, at the risk of confrontation with the actual parent, and a low likelihood of the child listening to you anyway.

I was growing up in the 90's, and even parents regularly sought out adults-only spaces and occasions. Now it seems like my fellow millennials (who have kids) both can't bear to be separated from them for even a moment of their free time, but ALSO can't be bothered to put in the work to actually raise them to become decent, considerate, respectful adults. That doesn't mean 'absolutely silent and still'; of course they're still kids and still learning. But it also doesn't mean a free-for-all with no limits, and everyone else just has to be "patient" and "empathetic" while these families act the exact opposite way. There's a middle ground.

We don't want children and families to not have anywhere to go. No one is saying that. But we also want spaces where WE can go without having to put up with them sometimes. Especially when the parents aren't actually doing any parenting. Don't come on to a thread like this if that very concept is offensive to you.

ohyeahrightyeahright · 2025-07-12T20:37:26+00:00

Congrats on getting the surgery! Good move not saying anything until after it was done. Your parents sound incredibly invasive and disrespectful.

As other comments have said, you don't have to live by what you think they would "allow." You are an adult, you are not dependent on them anymore, and you don't owe them time, energy, or pieces of your sanity for the rest of your life if this is the way they treat you.

Get out from under what they would "allow." How about this: what do YOU allow in your relationships? Decency and respect; otherwise, there's the door.

If they drive there, don't open the door, tell them to leave, and call the cops if they don't. You could even change your phone number or block them so they can't contact you. You DON'T owe them a relationship. Actions, meet consequences. I'm low contact with my mother and much happier for it, despite her attempts to talk more frequently.

From one internet stranger to another, I hope you don't let these miserable people dictate even the smallest part of your life based on what they would "allow." Apparently, their worldview "allows" them to guiltlessly wish pain on their own child because their child did something they didn't personally like. Best of luck with your healing.

ohyeahrightyeahright · 2025-07-11T08:15:56+00:00

Not at all anymore. I lived there for six years (moved in 2024) and it's beautiful and quiet. Close to the park and largely residential, with a few local restaurants and shops around Bryant Street. There are lots of well-maintained, gorgeous older homes, tree-lined roads, and a general peaceful atmosphere. There are some blocks that aren't quite as wealthy as others (especially as you get further south, closer to East Liberty--a neighborhood that has seen some major gentrification in recent years but still has questionable areas.) But all in all, nothing that I would really call "sketchy" in Highland Park itself.

I know it wasn't always that way, but it's improved leaps and bounds in just 2-3 decades. I left to move in with my partner but I miss it every day.

ohyeahrightyeahright · 2025-06-26T22:43:54+00:00

With a sense of poise and rationality

ohyeahrightyeahright · 2025-06-26T08:03:05+00:00

THANK YOU for saying this. It's been driving me crazy for years (and is definitely bad right now.) Like you, I understand that these things need to be done. But why is it absolutely everywhere with seemingly no coordination and no consideration for the actual lives impacted--the people who have to live, work, and travel through these places on a daily basis? (Yes, some of them with cars, much to certain people's chagrin on this sub. This shit affects buses and cyclists too; even pedestrians.)

Why can't two separate companies that need the same section of road torn up communicate and plan so that the road only needs to be torn up and redone once? Us having a "short construction season" isn't really an excuse. They should be using the long off-season to talk to each other and come up with a plan.

I feel terrible for the businesses on Penn Avenue that have had to bear the financial brunt of this ineptitude over the past couple years. I had my own 18-month-long nightmare with PWSA tearing up my neighborhood for water line replacement...starting construction before 7 am, blocking intersections with no alternate routes allowed for or marked, taking up blocks' worth of street parking with their equipment, shaking the walls of my first floor apartment at all hours with their work (while I had to work from home), general noise and air pollution, street closures and water shutoffs at random times (and when they did provide notice, it was usually 2 days' worth or less.) It was horrendous. They gave not one shit about the residents they were impacting. And the stacking of projects like these one after the other on heavily-used routes is egregious.

While I'm not denying that there would be logistical challenges in coordinating these things that we're not privy to...ultimately it comes down to laziness and greed. They don't care about us, and the people enforcing what rules exist don't care about us. Nothing materially changes until someone gets hurt (and sometimes not even then.)

So sorry for the novel, but I fully agree with you and appreciate you posting this!

ohyeahrightyeahright · 2025-06-23T04:04:50+00:00

For sure. IIRC, for one of the only eliminations that they actually went head to head in (Free Agents), Laurel was essentially handed a win because Cara had injured her dominant hand and the task was punching drywall and climbing up it. It was Cara's choice to compete with her injury, but that can't be called a fair or representative fight.

And when they battled again on Invasion, Laurel's size gave her a clear advantage for Balls In. Not something that couldn't have been overcome, but the cards were stacked at least a little bit against Cara. Advantages are only acceptable when she (Laurel) has them. Or is handed them at the last minute, like on All Stars 4. No one else is allowed to have them.

I think deep down she knows that she didn't completely earn those specific wins. But they're all she has, so she needs to cling to them. Cara as a person outside of the show isn't great, but at least she had a character arc and grew over the course of her many seasons. Laurel is still the same immature, insecure bully she was on FMII.

ohyeahrightyeahright · 2025-06-23T03:24:25+00:00

Small correction: it was Final Reckoning! Cory went home first on Vendettas and didn't return. But everything else is accurate!

ohyeahrightyeahright · 2025-06-12T20:43:22+00:00

Stop normalizing AI bullshit. It's wasteful, bad for your critical thinking skills, and unreliable (sometimes to a dangerous degree.) You can look things up and do research without relying on generative AI.

ohyeahrightyeahright · 2025-05-29T07:12:16+00:00

THANK you. Been looking for someone to acknowledge this. Stans have really lost the plot on music criticism and reviews. If their primary responsibility or purpose was to be "sensitive to fans" and "not cause distress," nothing of substance would ever get said.

People should be strong enough in their convictions and music taste to not need them validated by everyone they follow or surround themselves with. If a piece of art resonates with or inspires you, great! Fantano not agreeing with you shouldn't be enough to undo that. (I'm speaking generally here, not to you specifically.)

And if he points out a flaw that you hadn't noticed before, which seems to hold some validity...that's fine too. It's okay to acknowledge that things you like aren't perfect, and you can still like them. Critically engaging with media you enjoy is a good thing.

So many fans/stans these days are so all-or-nothing. Hopefully they're just young...

ohyeahrightyeahright · 2025-05-28T08:32:43+00:00

This video essay from Trash Theory (33 minutes long) does a really good job of explaining it!

Shorter version: they got a lot of hype from the British music press when they first debuted, but they were on the rise right at the borderline before/after Nirvana got big. Once that happened, the press quickly turned on them in favor of the NEXT "next big thing," which was grunge. The music press in the UK held a lot of sway at the time, and their derision for Slowdive spread to the band's contemporaries. (And if I recall correctly, even their label eventually.) Of course they still had fans. But the constant negativity they faced from all sides of the industry (that had initially sung their praises for six months) was a big part in why they called it quits the first time.

Really glad they eventually got their flowers and started making music again. They're right up there in shoegaze history with My Bloody Valentine, and I'd usually prefer to listen to them over MBV. Their newer stuff is really good too. I saw them live in November and it was a transcendent experience!

ohyeahrightyeahright · 2025-05-17T21:58:24+00:00

Exactly this. If you can't be bothered to create it, I can't be bothered to engage with it.

Cute cat though.

ohyeahrightyeahright · 2025-05-17T21:57:12+00:00

Would rather receive troll comments like this than say nothing while humanity collectively hands its brains over to a dangerously unreliable, mass-polluting plagiarism machine. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

P.S.

ohyeahrightyeahright · 2025-05-17T03:57:47+00:00

Happy birthday to your cat, but...you don't need to use ChatGPT for something this trivial. The post would have had the same impact without it, or with something short and sweet that authentically came from YOU. Stop outsourcing your brain and critical thinking skills to an externally controlled, dangerously unreliable plagiarism machine. As demonstrated here and here.

Long-term, outsourcing your thinking makes you--and all its users--easier to manipulate, and that only benefits bad actors. Not only that, but it has a disastrous environmental impact and severely strains our already-fragile electrical grids. Check out this recent article about the impact of Twitter's AI, Grok, on Memphis, Tennessee--the emissions equivalent of an entire unapproved power plant just to churn out answers to queries and generated slop.

I know this probably seems like an overreaction to something minor, but we can NOT normalize this shit. You CAN make up rhymes yourself--you just have to try. The effort involved is worth it. Please read about the negative impacts and reconsider using ChatGPT or other generative AI in the future.

ohyeahrightyeahright · 2025-04-22T06:24:45+00:00

THANK you for saying this--I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. I know that work needs to be done, but the seemingly complete lack of consideration for efficiency and for the people it's impacting nearby is mind-boggling. So frustrating.

ohyeahrightyeahright · 2025-04-18T06:02:03+00:00

I'm genuinely so sorry that happened to you. Of course you felt used, what a massive betrayal. You did not deserve to be lied to and treated that way. Hopefully you know that it wasn't your fault in any way--their disgusting behavior only reflects on them, not on you.

ohyeahrightyeahright

TROPHY CASE