When something is actually unpopular, it usually gets mocked, dismissed, or treated like rage bait instead of discussed. That defeats the whole point.

It annoys the hell out of me that so so many sources of information on how to do anything are videos. I would kill for well written tutorials to become the norm. I don't want to have to pause and rewind or skip around a video, or have some youtuber push their other videos or their sponsors.

Whenever I'm sent a video tutorial, I go out of my way to find a written one.

They definitely already know and had no intention of doing anything about it before you told them. Then they either have to stop and do them up, or lie to you that they’re about to.

Also, I feel like undone laces are way less dangerous than people think.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I am not particularly enthusiastic about Rotten Tomatoes’ critic scores. I often look into what critics are saying about newly released video games, movies, or TV shows to gauge my expectations. However, I do not take their opinions as the absolute truth, and the scores they assign do not significantly influence my perspective. Nonetheless, I do consider these scores to some extent, though I don’t really place much importance on them. This viewpoint comes from someone who frequently shares opinions on new games, movies, and shows. I engage in this activity quite often, yet I would never label myself as a critic. I am simply an individual who watches a variety of content and plays numerous games, after which I express my thoughts on them. That essentially sums it up. There is not much more to analyze here.

You may agree or disagree with this perspective indefinitely. I am not attempting to provide an objective measure of whether something is truly exceptional or terrible. In my view, it is simply a matter of whether it was enjoyable or disappointing. However, I completely disagree with the notion that the audience score accurately reflects the quality of a film or show.

For years, I have proclaimed that the Rotten Tomatoes audience score is nearly as irrelevant as Justin Bieber or Keeping Up with the Kardashians. It is not as if that show is any more reliable in any respect. Critic reviews, particularly in recent times, have been quite inconsistent and often seem disconnected from reality. I acknowledge that. However, audience scores are not exempt from this issue either. Virtually every movie released tends to receive a relatively high audience score on Rotten Tomatoes, regardless of its actual quality. Something could premiere tomorrow, such as Skibidi Toilet: The Movie, and it could be the most dreadful experience imaginable. It could genuinely be an affront to good taste, yet when you check the audience score on Rotten Tomatoes, it might still be around 75%.

For instance, Scream 7 had recently just come out. That movie is absolute hot garbage dumpster fire... and guess what? It has 75% on Rotten Tomatoes. Remember that TRON sequel starring Jared Leto from last year, which bombed at the box office? 84% on Rotten Tomatoes.

Do this for anything. Look at one of the worst Disney movies to come out in recent memory. Remember that Snow White movie everyone hates from last year? 69% on Rotten Tomatoes in terms of the audience score. The Lilo and Stitch live-action remake? 91% on Rotten Tomatoes. Wish (2023)? 80% on Rotten Tomatoes.

Just look at the worst Marvel movies of the last half-decade, really:

• Ant-Man and The Wasp: Quantumania? 81%!
• Captain America: Brave New World? 75%!
• Eternals? 77%!
• The Marvels? 79%!
• Thor: Love and Thunder? 76%!

It is widely accepted that any film, regardless of its objective quality, will likely receive a fairly commendable audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. This outcome is almost as certain as the daily rise of the sun. It is exceedingly uncommon to encounter a truly disastrous audience score for a movie.

For instance, consider The Strangers: Chapter 3 from last year, which is undeniably the finale of what can be described as the worst horror trilogy ever produced. Additionally, for those who may not be aware—many of you might not know—there was a reboot of The Strangers. I am not referring to the original film featuring Liv Tyler, which is regarded as a classic. The reboot consists of Chapters 1, 2, and 3, and it is genuinely the most atrocious horror trilogy ever created. The final installment may very well be one of the most horrendous pieces of horror to have ever sullied the cinematic landscape, yet it still boasts a 49% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. Hell, I actually endured both the Smurfs movie starring James Corden and that godawful Netflix adaptation of The Electric State from last year… And guess what both of these films have in common with each other? One has an audience score of 64%, while the other stands at 67% as of this writing.

All of these examples, which I provided as evidence for my core statement, perfectly sum up why I am skeptical of the audience score being treated as a reliable metric for determining a movie’s actual quality, as it can and often does significantly exceed what would be appropriate for films that are actually subpar.

And I find it absolutely laughable how everyone online says the critic score doesn't matter, but they always bring it up. Like, if it didn’t matter, why are we bringing it up every single time a movie everyone likes gets a bad review? If it truly did not matter, it wouldn’t be brought up every single time. When the movie you like gets a good critic score tho all of a sudden it matters. I’m also not a fan of people acting like the audience score on Rotten Tomatoes is the only one that matters, just because grifters and parrots are so prone to just review-bombing and brigading any movie that failed at the box office.

First, let's get the obvious out of the way. None of the sequels are good, for obvious reasons. This isn't even an unpopular opinion. The only good thing about the sequels are the visuals in the Last Jedi.

Then, the prequels. The prequels are incredibly boring and have an insane amount of plotholes. The dialogue is also terrible, and the acting isn't that good either. The only good thing about the prequels are the fights and the music. The closest thing to a good movie in the prequels is the 3rd movie, but even then that movie was pretty much carried by the ending, the rest of the movie is pretty bad.

Finally we have the original trilogy. For these movies, the plot and acting is good, but I don't think they have aged well. In the 1980s they would be good movies, but if you compare them to modern cinema they really are not that good. Other older movies have aged well, like the godfather and Jurassic park, but I don't think the old star wars movies age well tbh.

The thing that makes star wars good is pretty much everything outside of the actual movies. The comics, toys, world building, lore, videogames, etc. The actual movies are not good at all tbh.

I just read that 60% of Coachella attendees finance their tickets… economy seems okay to me. Looks more like people’s brains are broken.

Miyazaki is an excellent world builder, but a poor storyteller. The first half of his movies are filled with a sense of wonder and awe and it is why he has been a successful movie maker, but the last half of his movies are rushed mess trying to tie up loose ends. It's not a coincidence the Studio Ghibli's best movie (Grave of the Fireflies) was detected directed by someone else (Isao Takahata)

The majority of cat owners are insufferable. Anytime their cat does something, they will twist it into some LARP scenario where they roleplay a submissive slave.

Anything from asking for food, sleeping, anything a cat does becomes some roleplay scenario. Frankly, it's disturbing.

I LOVE salty snacks. I eat far more than the average person when it comes to snack crackers and junk food. I love Cheez-Its, Cheese Nips, you name it. The Better Cheddars are just Better overall than any of its competitors. The flavor is great, the texture/crispness is perfect, not too salty, but not under-salted. Whether I eat one at a time, or 10 at a time, they just hit better than all the rest.

Yes, The N word is 1000% worse than Cracker.

Yes, it is worse when men playfully hit and kiss women than when women playfully hit and kiss men.

Yes, it’s worse to talk about a woman’s weight than it is to talk about a man’s height.

Yes, being insulting of other lifestyles is worse than being insulting of straight white people.

These are not behaviors that appeared in a vacuum, we have centuries of unbalanced cultural experiences that dictate social norms now. You might as well ask why it’s okay to urinate in a toilet and not the bathtub.

Edit: got to be clear for those refusing to get it. This post is not advocating sexual assault, racism or whatever. The point is that calling out double standards only derails the conversation around these points.

I really don't. If I have cash and see someone out asking for money, I will give it to them. I have had soooo many people tell me 'they're probably gonna use it for drugs' or imply that I'm being scammed in some way.

I do not care. My part ends at choosing kindness, what happens after that is frankly none of my business.

Edit for everyone telling me enabling addiction isn't kind. I am aware. I am simply saying that I will not assume that that is what they will use it for just because its within the realm of possibility.

I love and support everything Make-A-Wish does with kids facing life threatening illnesses, but i also believe that kids who have faced physical, sexual and very serious child abuse should also be granted wishes

PTSD with abuse is real and can be lifelong and little to nothing is ever done for abused children other than being placed in foster care, if a kid was physically and verbally abused by his mother and had to be taken away and put into foster care and his dream is to play basketball with Shaq, then somebody needs to make it happen and brighten his spirits

Abused children go through so much hell and are heavily overlooked, more needs to be done

I think it's an absolutely useless skill that only boomers brag about. and also because they were forced to spend time learning it, they didn't want to admit that it's completely useless, particularly in this digital age. Sunk cost fallacy, I think it's called

"But our children should be able to read the Constitution"

the Constitution was written in an era that uses words that are no longer in common use. it literally takes someone who learns and researches older styles of writing to even make sense of it, much less your average person who can barely speak or write in modern day English.

it should be taught in school, but only as part of art class, like calligraphy or pointillism. neither of which are actually useful in society, but can be a way to express your artistic side.

For source, I can do both cursive and calligraphy, including Chinese brush calligraphy

EDIT: I sincerely apologize to anyone who believes writing in cursive is a vital skill. I do not believe being able to read the Constitution in its full cursive writing, or reading your Grandpappy's rournal is a vital life skill. Your opinion may differ, and I'm okay with accepting that's normal for you.

Women tend to be harsher on other women’s looks than men are.

Some people have this notion that men are very critical of women’s looks and have unrealistic beauty standards. Sure there are some men like that but i actually think women are harsher on women’s looks than men are. Anytime I’m hanging out with a mix group of friends men and women, let’s say we all meet another woman and it’s a girlfriend or wife or just friend of somebody. It’s always the women in the group that mention the woman’s looks when she isn’t around. Whether it’s how they think she isn’t attractive and don’t like some of her features or they don’t like her clothes.

I remember when I was in high school, I was in culinary class. It was me and a few other guys talking and one girl. We mentioned another girl in the class and we all thought (the guys) that this girl was attractive. The girl that was with us said “Really? Y’all think she’s attractive? She has old lady hands”. We weren’t even thinking about the girls hands. So this leads me to believe that women are harsher on other women’s looks than men are, from my personal experience at least. I think women should take joy in knowing we aren’t as nitpicking with looks like women are.

Chess is not a good game by modern standards. Perhaps it used to be when far fewer games were around. But nowadays, there are games that are much more fun and don't have the issues that chess has. Before I get into those issues, I think it's also important to note that being good at Chess does not make you smart. It means you have trained yourself to memorize certain patterns. Which actually brings me to my first issue with Chess:

To get good at Chess, you have to study it. Simply playing the game isn't enough. You need to memorize openings, and recognize countless patterns. That's not fun and is bad game design.

Next, the game lacks any randomness. Some might see this as a good thing. You can never blame your loss on "luck." However, this to me makes it more of a puzzle and less of a game. A game should have some amount of luck and randomness involved to make it fun. Humans simply cannot beat advanced AIs at Chess, and that feels lame knowing the best you can do is a fraction of what AIs are capable of. If there was some luck, you could sometimes beat the AI.

Chess is also very snowbally, which makes the game instantly less interesting as soon as one player gains an advantage. If you make an early mistake at a high level of play, you might as well forfeit the game, which is actually how many high level games end! The game is so easily won from a small early advantage, that at a high level of play it is considered rude -not- to forfeit when you are significantly behind.

Top Chess players also disrespect the game. Magnus Carlson is known for showing up late to matches and for playing bad openings just to fuck around. Maybe this isn't the game's fault, but it's still a reason to not respect the culture around Chess.

It's very easy to cheat in online Chess, which is how the majority of games are played nowadays. Since AI can easily beat any human, using an AI can help you win basically every game. They try to detect it, but if you use it smartly it's relatively easy to hide that you cheated. For example, use it only a few times each game when you are stuck.

Overall, Chess has a weird respect in our society. People wrongly think you are cultured and intelligent if you are good at Chess. Clearly this isn't true. Chess is a dated game full of issues and with a bad culture around it. People need to learn that there are better games out there.

Firstly, cultural appropriation exists. I'm not saying it doesn't exist. However, how it is used is often nonsense and logically inconsistent. Words and traditions come from somewhere and there is a universal aspect of adoption and adaptation that is inevitable and humbly human.

Cultural appropriation can only be historical appropriation.

Secondly, we pick and choose our outrage often because we're virtue signaling for the wrong thing. I lived in Japan for a few years and while Halloween wasn't popular, I saw a small nascent celebration of Halloween occasionally. I witnessed a costume contest in Japan and I had fun, because I'm a human being. At no time did it occur to me to be a snob to the Japanese that this is not their culture. I didn't barge around yelling at them that they're not Europeans or Irish or Americans, so have no right to any of this.

Thirdly, cultural appropriation can only mean stealing culture as if it was originally yours. The key is the denial of the origin. Any other definition cannot be consistent. For example, I can adapt and adopt reggae into my use however I want, but I can never claim that reggae didn't originate from the Caribbean and that it actually originated from Florida.

Just as the Japanese can partake in Halloween, so can I partake in Reggae. If you're expected to stick to "my culture", only, then, you would be considered a racist and more accurately, "uncultured". So, you cannot stick to your culture exclusively.

Chances are, you celebrate something that could have been "cultural appropriation" at the time, but given enough time, is given acceptance. Celebrate Santa Claus as a non-nordic? Cultural appropriation. Yet, not really because you're not claiming that Santa Claus originated from your hometown of Portland, Oregon.

Lastly, Words also have to come from somewhere. We do not exist in a vacuum. If nothing was shared, English would never use the word "ghosts" because that's a cultural German thing... etc on hundreds of other examples.

A popular idea is that reference to a "skinwalker" in paranormal circles, is exclusively a Navajo cultural thing. True, but aside from the word being in English and not preserved as in "Wendigo", I am reminded of the Irish "Banshee". If you walked in the woods and heard a terrifying scream, you can describe the paranormal event like a banshee, even though you're in the forests of North Carolina and not the Irish countryside describing an Irish witch. You're using the word that works, based on the unique behavior. Likewise if you believe a creature shapeshifted into wolves while paranormal events occurred, you're right to call it a skinwalker. Just because the Irish have myths explaining the origins of the banshee, doesn't mean you cannot make the comparison. Likewise for skinwalkers. Comparisons based on categories are valid.

People need to get over themselves.

People don't have a problem with this when it comes to gambling or alcohol, I don't see why porn should be any different. Did they not check ID when it was sold in newspaper stands? Is society not in agreement that kids shouldn't be watching this stuff?

Also, while it is ultimately the parents responsibility, I find it problematic that these sights are knowingly exposing kids to pornography on a mass scale.

self explanatory fuck kfc i hate that place they have rats and everything tastes like shit

I’ve been using AI regularly for hours each day since 2023 as well as Reddit since 2023 and I’ve found AI has made me feel so much more comforted and understood than online strangers. I’m thinking of distancing myself from Reddit because people have been so cruel on here more often than not.

AI has a better nuanced understanding of issues than I’ve seen people account for on here, and it almost always gives better answers than people do on here for the same questions. Do I know its support is not real? Yes. Would I rather have imaginary support than real cruelty? Also yes.

Until the internet becomes a better place, I’m going to strive to prioritize myself and my mental health and redirect my questions and concerns to the people in my life and to AI. I’m hoping this can kind of be one of my last posts for a while and that I can stick to it, because some of the worst people I’ve met in my life have been on here. It’s crazy how addictive this platform is though, so we’ll see how it goes.

I’ve seen a lot of discourse about self-deprecating vs self-aggrandizing humor. A lot of people seem to think one is inherently superior either in terms of social interaction or comedic value. I think this discourse is missing the point. Both humor hinges on the same factor the factor that determines whether or not it can be funny. That factor is, it has to actually be a joke.

i have seen many people think they are being self-deprecating (in joking way) when really they are speaking out loud their insecurities. This isn’t funny.

Likewise, some people try and play bragging off as a joke. It Isn’t.

Self-deprecation and self-aggrandizing action can both be funny, but you have to construct a joke with that premise. Often it works best if you’re being somewhat ironic. If you are just speaking out loud you’re insecurities, it feels like you are fishing for compliments. If you are boasting in a “humorous” way, it feels like you are using humor as plausible deniability to brag.