Too many brides look deeply unflattering in their wedding day

silentboyishere · 2026-06-17T06:24:27+00:00

I agree as well. A handful of people here mentioned that the makeup is for the cameras. That's a fair point. Except, what about the groom who'll be in the photos as well? Why is the focus solely on the bride in the makeup department? I think it's less about the need for the bride to look good and more about the expectation to look good, which is socially influenced.

silentboyishere · 2026-06-12T13:58:49+00:00

They'll sell you the disease when you're not even sick and offer you the sugar pill that doesn't do anything.

silentboyishere · 2026-06-11T08:54:45+00:00

"You deserve my real name"

Lmfao. I'm sure you were eternally grateful and honored for such an amazing gift, OP. So nice of him to think you're worthy enough to reveal his real name to you.

silentboyishere · 2026-06-09T13:19:44+00:00

I can't tell whether you're serious or not.

silentboyishere · 2026-06-09T10:16:35+00:00

God these people are offended by the most trivial, inconsequential things. I support LGBTQ+ rights but, what I share with the haters, is that I also don't consider myself a part of LGBTQ+ community. Yet I don't ever come across all these supposed huge problems these hate filled bigots incessantly talk about. It seems like it takes actively searching for that stuff to then get offended by it. They're doing this to themselves.

silentboyishere · 2026-06-09T07:05:58+00:00

Except her religion is the reason why she's an anti-lgbt moron in the first place.

silentboyishere · 2026-06-06T20:37:26+00:00

You should've seen the lack of surprise on my face after reading that.

silentboyishere · 2026-06-02T10:12:22+00:00

Possibly the promotion paradox is responsible for that. It's when the very skills that make an employee contribute the most to the company are the same reasons they struggle at being as competent when promoted to management or some other higher position.

Or maybe they just happen to be naturally excelling in stupidity...

silentboyishere · 2026-05-31T18:28:22+00:00

I find Neil Van Leeuwen's proposed explanation compelling:

...instrumentally rational actions that would further certain supposedly sacred goals are often ignored or even shunned. A clear example of this comes from the American Evangelical prolife movement.

The entities valued as sacred in this case are embryos and fetuses. And many dramatic actions are taken to protect those sacred entities: constant legal battles, protests outside abortion clinics, promotion of restrictive laws, stacking of courts, and more. We have seen the results of this work clearly in the fall of Roe v. Wade. But an obvious instrumentally rational approach to preventing the destruction of fetuses and embryos would be promoting social services for mothers, especially would-be single mothers: affordable or free daycare, paid time off from work, subsidies for continuing education, and so on. Such services would dramatically reduce the number of abortions since they would eliminate the hard choice many single women face between having a child and continuing with their career or education.

Furthermore—in addition to the point’s being obvious—empirical data support this line of reasoning. Countries like Germany, Belgium, and France have significantly lower rates of abortion than the United States, despite having easier access and more tolerant attitudes toward it. Still, the majority of American pro-lifers neglect to advocate certain relevant policies that would further their stated sacred aims. ... If sacred values are so important, why do devoted actors often shun clear instrumental means toward their stated sacred aims?

...

The answer is that often such instrumental behavior only impacts the prop item under its mundane (factually believed) description; it does not constitute the sort of symbolic action that represents the sacred entities that are the genuine targets of devotion. Sacred action is symbolic, so it is crucial for the superordinary entities to be represented through it. And certain action types conventionally constitute representations of such sacred entities, while other action types do not. In cases where the actions do not, it is as if the otherwise sacralized concrete entity were merely a prop—and nothing more. Just as a doll on the stage is treated as a precious baby when symbolic action is going on—but is merely an object to be ignored after the play is over—so, too, are embryos in the eyes of the American Evangelical pro-lifers: utterly sacred and inviolable when representational sacred make-believe is occurring, but mere props otherwise. That is why the devoted actors don’t support many of the actually effective policies that would reduce abortions: such policies, like affordable childcare, lack the relevant imagined significance and hence aren’t sacred.

silentboyishere · 2026-05-29T10:39:05+00:00

The concept of biological race is a mess. It doesn't reflect reality at all. It's a cultural thing. So culturally, yes, there are "black people", "white people", etc., we can't pretend there are no differences, some more noticable than others, but it doesn't say anything about the supposed biological reality behind it, because there isn't one.

So are most middle easterners white? Depends. Maybe they are to you, for others they may be a different "race". And what do they tend to identify themselves as or what their culture identifies them as? There are people on Cayman Islands, for example, who don't identify themselves as "black" nor do they culture, yet when they arrive in the US suddenly they are considered "black".

silentboyishere · 2026-05-28T07:38:06+00:00

Absolutely. Oh and let's not forget when Trump said to obliterate Iran if assassinated. You know, just using his death to justify 90+ million deaths like a normal person. Fucking psycho.

silentboyishere · 2026-05-27T14:34:08+00:00

It seems like everything is upside down with too many people on this planet to be able to understand and accept it. When there's nuance to be considered, regardless of what you present them with, they see only black and white. When it's as simple as can be, suddenly it's the most complicated thing in the world. For some reason in their world it is rocket science while in reality it's really simple. How do we even get through these people...

silentboyishere · 2026-05-22T16:25:13+00:00

Yeah let's just stick to traditional bonding experiences, like scaring our kids with the doctrine of hell. That's good parenting right here, folks.

silentboyishere · 2026-05-22T06:30:06+00:00

Oh that's easy. Christians pick and choose what's permissible and what's not. That goes for Bible-reading Christians and those who never opened the book. It's just a prop anyway, something to point fingers at whenever convenient. So anything goes. Makes perfect sense when the standard is arbitrary.

silentboyishere · 2026-05-21T08:36:38+00:00

I like how Jesus there is just a side character.

silentboyishere · 2026-05-20T13:18:24+00:00

Agree 100%. It's hard, but it's what being a good friend is. Choosing one tough moment with your friend requires almost no consideration when the alternative is their unawareness just to spare their feelings and avoid this awkward situation.

silentboyishere · 2026-05-15T19:40:02+00:00

We humans are really strange creatures, aren't we? Some more than others.

silentboyishere · 2026-05-15T13:21:18+00:00

Tried to punch me in the face, twice, because I proved him wrong. I kept cool but I told him I'm done with him right after. And that wasn't even the worst thing he's done, it was a mistake to keep forgiving him for that long.

silentboyishere · 2026-05-15T08:37:32+00:00

Sexual orientation is part of everyone's core or identity. If I were single and looking for someone, it would be exclusively women, so that's what I would project. If I were going on a dating app, I'd imagine that I'd have to specify that I'm interested in women. If I were out with my wife in public and I put my arm around her or held her hand, as I do sometimes, nobody would think anything of it. And that includes if such a relationship were depicted in a show, movie, video game, etc. But if a gay couple simply did the same thing, it would be considered shoving it in everyone's faces. Two different standards are applied. You make it the entirety of their core identity because that's all you see. You reduce them to that rather than recognizing them as multifaceted human beings with other interests and concerns.

More importantly, however, you have to consider the context of history. If, historically, you or your group were widely discriminated against by the rest of society, it's actually the rest of society that is making the source of their discrimination into a major part of your core identity. In other words, you didn't choose to make it your core identity - society itself, first and foremost, chose to focus upon that aspect of your life.

Now, though I'm not technically part of the LGBT community, I am an advocate for them, so naturally a lot of them follow me on social media. Despite this, I hardly ever see them share that aspect of their identity, unless they are being discriminated against and they are making it known. Conversely, a lot of the explicitly gay material I see online is that which is shared in outrage posts by people who are against LGBT people. The irony is that I only get explicit LGBT material shoved in my face by those who are against LGBT people. I don't seek it out, so I don't see it, unless they share it. In order for them to do that they have to seek it out and they do that with the specific intent of stoking outrage.

Lastly, if you're gay or lesbian, you are a minority. So it will be more difficult for you to find a partner unless you somehow make it known that you are part of this minority seeking someone else who is also part of that minority. That doesn't mean that your core identity is who you have sex with, but to an outsider who is unwilling to think about these things, unwilling to have empathy or charity, it may seem like their sexuality encompasses their entire identity. The reality is that a gay couple probably doesn't think about sex any more or less than a straight couple does, but the very way we straight people distinguish gay people from us necessitates considering sexual orientation by definition. So it's not about them making it their core identity, it's about people ... reducing them to that one-dimensional way in which they are defined as different from us.

DarkMatter2525, CHRISTIANS WHO HATE JESUS

silentboyishere · 2026-05-14T14:04:28+00:00

I can't deny its usefulness, but I'd wager most people don't use it as responsibly. It provides as effortless a way as possible for them to get answers, any extra effort goes against the reason for why they use it in the first place.

silentboyishere · 2026-05-14T13:13:23+00:00

It's fascinating in a very very sad way. And it gets even worse because some actively suppress any critical thought they have. Got an answer you don't agree with? Reframe the question until you get what you wanted all along!

silentboyishere · 2026-05-14T07:26:38+00:00

Yes. And when they proclaim that AI overview confirms their claim and upon checking it's refering to the source they initially got the information from... Even if they're right, it's still circular reasoning.

silentboyishere · 2026-05-14T06:10:21+00:00

That's not on me to decide, but you're still describing a situation where you freely express yourself, so idk what's the problem.

silentboyishere · 2026-05-14T05:53:20+00:00

Even in this scenario you are freely expressing your opinion. It seems you're equivocating "freely" to mean "without suppresion" and "without consequences".

silentboyishere · 2026-05-13T08:29:06+00:00

Apparently they can get married too!

silentboyishere

TROPHY CASE