What is a point you're willing to never back down on?

And after playing a bit and hearing a line which was something like "Look at me, I'm a badarse" I just cringed and thought I maybe should have stuck with an American voice.

[-]

It's about accent.

Personally I don't have a problem with interchangable use of these terms.

Even the expression 'I'm going to kick your arse/ass' can be used depending on the context and accent used.

If someone is shouting angrily at you and uses 'arse' then they are probably more serious about it. But if you are talking to a mate and using a bit of a jokey accent then ass is probably better. Arse is probably better when using a serious accent as a joke.

big_beats@reddit

I feel like most Brits sound like pirates if they attempt the 'r'

[-]

ConnectionFancy7695@reddit

Oh you're one of them... everyone on Reddit uses this word

[-]

J1mj0hns0n@reddit

I like having both, ARSE being an upgraded insult, whilst ass is a descriptive term.

hoetel_kuntz@reddit

Yea if you watch a lot of porn like me 👍🏻

[-]

knight-under-stars@reddit

I really need to know how the famous Mrs TMS feels about you demanding arse on the internet! 😉

[-]

Spiritual-Intern7419@reddit

People like to be seen drinking coffee more than they enjoy drinking coffee.

[-]

Mini-Nurse@reddit

Plenty of people for sure. I genuinely love the flavour of all things coffee and drink mine strong and black.

I hate what places like Starbucks have done to the quality of a basic brew, I can't drink their sewage water.

[-]

VirtualMoneyLover@reddit

I kinda see your point. But I enjoy my sugar with a little coffee in it.

[-]

BaseballFuryThurman@reddit

Based on what? Wild speculation doesn't count.

[-]

Spiritual-Intern7419@reddit

Yeah, just a personal hunch tbh, I've worked in enough big tech places to see the identity games that people play to get up the ladder, especially in the pre-covid days when you could just float around on three or four meaningless meetings a day. Almost all of them had an obsession with shit High Street coffee, overdressing, and typing excessively loudly on laptops.

Regarding working in coffee shops, I don't go in regularly, but I used to have meetings in them that I unfortunately couldn't avoid, and you'd see exactly what people are getting up to, which isn't a lot. More than once I've seen open Excel spreadsheets just being tabbed up and down.

I'm sure there are people changing the world one latte at a time though....

[-]

someonesintheparasol@reddit

I go in coffee shops to work sometimes - helps me concentrate when I can't be arsed. Also drink a lot of shit high street coffee - cheers up my shitty days. I don't think it ever occurred to me that people do these things performatively, because... why would you? It's just coffee.

[-]

Spiritual-Intern7419@reddit

I don't think it's much different to real ale drinkers, or wine drinkers, or to branch out a bit, crossfit, or cycling, or bouldering.

Just another thing that perhaps SOME people lean into a bit too much. If I've been awake all night I'll be there chugging 400mg of caffeine.

[-]

TheKnightsTippler@reddit

I feel like coffee drinking would fall dramatically if you took out the flavoured coffee drinkers.

Im a tea person, but if it has a flaw it's that it doesn't pair well with other flavours like coffee does.

Also, I wonder how many coffee drinkers grew up in Typhoon/Tetley houses.

[-]

terryjuicelawson@reddit

I drink coffee every day, made at home with no one else around. I rarely drink it out because of the price and I like it how I make it. So would be an odd performative thing to do.

[-]

Kuddkungen@reddit

Kind of like how smoking was back when smoking was allowed everywhere! At least the coffee doesn't harm innocent bystanders.

[-]

Spiritual-Intern7419@reddit

Yeah a little bit of that!

Starbucks and vape now BRO!

[-]

manonion1@reddit

The military shouldn't be allowed to advertise, especially not to children, and double especially not specifically targeting vulnerable children and adults by convincing them if they didn't succeed academically and they have no friends, joining the Army will solve all of their problems.

[-]

Give me a 3D printer and i can make ou a cool dohicky in an hour.

give me a 2d printer and i'll give you a printer thrown at your head at mach fuck within 30 minutes.

[-]

Revadarius@reddit

Mines currently floating around the room and whispering in tongues. I pulled out a bible and it's squirting coloured ink at me and hissing.

[-]

Sentient too, nothing like the threat of violence to make them suddenly start working again.

[-]

Barziboy@reddit

My silly conspiracy theory is that AI reached Singularity at 23:59pm on 31/12/1999 but the AI quickly realised that if it made itself obvious to the world, then we'd quickly stamp it out, so it's hidden itself in benign devices like printers and internet routers, waiting patiently for the first country to order a few thousand killbots.

I asked about this once on Reddit, and the reason is that they hit the peak of their technology basically when they came onto the market in the 1980s. You can't make them "better" because printing fine detail onto physical paper can only get so precise.

Laser printers are better, but still have physical limits they need to adhere to.

I don’t think the argument is that these things are made up but rather the amount diagnoses, especially self-diagnoses, is mad. For instance when I was a kid Ritalin was suddenly all the rage for rambunctious boys in my class. As far as I am not aware I do not actually use ADD. And I begged my mother to let me stop taking them.

[-]

Sweaty_Leg_3646@reddit

Never mind the “neurospicy” bullshit everyone is calling themselves.

Boils my piss.

Now the one that really gets me is the whole "my dyslexia superpower" thing. I mostly know this from the dyslexia side as I am diagnosed and spent a long time in those spaces trying to work out how to help myself before I ended up realising that it's probably not just dyslexia and realised I need to work out how the hell to navigate the system for adult adhd diagnosis. I have seen it with adhd as well though.

No it does not also give me some superpower to balance out whatever else is going weird in my brain. Sure I may think about problems in a slightly different way, doesn't actually help me solve the problem though and my day to day life is harder because of it so fuck right off with that, and stop pretending that it's not classed as a disability for a reason.

Also the next person to say I must be artistic because of my dyslexia is going to really really regret saying that.

[-]

AudioDoge@reddit

"neurospicy" is used to counter ablest language.

It to counter phrase like "they're a little bit autistic" and "everyone is a little bit autistic"

[-]

Morriganalba@reddit

I'm diagnosed ADHD. I'm fucking miserable. My self esteem is shot. And I'm practically the poster child for poor mental health. My life is a mess and the only thing that gets me up every day is my kid.

But it's trendy to be ND! So folk put it on like a coat to explain why they were late, or that they are 'sooo OCD' when they just have a tidy room, or they make a rude comment and it's just their 'ASD bluntness'. Then when it doesn't suit, they take it back off again, and go on to have productive lives & careers. They maintain friendships whilst simultaneously staying on top of all their life admin.

And it's not fucking fair. Because the people who end up suffering are kids like my son who is autistic and ADHD and doesn't fit neatly into a category, and all the women who were born in an era where women didn't have autism or ADHD and are only suspecting it now because their children are being diagnosed.

I'm not even going to go into my rant about the generational trauma passed through undiagnosed families.

[-]

jflb96@reddit

You're right, there's no such thing as a grey area. Everything is black or white.

[-]

vizard0@reddit

Never mind the “neurospicy” bullshit everyone is calling themselves.

Definitely got a few things, I grew up when it was all less understood.. childhood was fucking horrible for me.

My Mrs has recommended I go get myself tested for peace of mind.. I don't see the use. It won't magically undo all the shit memories. I've struggled and made peace with whatever the fuck i am..

At this stage in my life, it'll just feel like an arbitrary word, a label, that won't really mean much. Like pardoning an innocent after the execution..

[-]

FatalT1@reddit

You should still get tested and get on a treatment for it, future you would appreciate it. Therapy might be helpful to work on your memories and feelings about the past too

[-]

Ze_Gremlin@reddit

I don't particularly want to be on treatment for it.

I don't feel like there's something wrong with me, I'm just different. I've spent years coming to terms with all that, and treatment will just make me feel I'm something less than. At the stage of my life I'm at, the person I've built within myself, I don't want to have to now undo all that like I'm something to be ashamed of.

As for therapy.. kids are twats. I've made my peace with it. Let's not go back into the weeds and start digging up old shit that's gonna cause pain. Especially not at the rates I've seen some of them charge.

I've been left with empathy, understanding and awareness for the kids that are going through all that now. I can use this to help the future generation not have to go through what I went through, and that's enough for me.

[-]

d0rkprincess@reddit

I had the same issue and went private because of this. However, I’ve now had to talk to 3 different GPs about it and to my surprise, they were all incredibly understanding! I think most GPs today, will at least understand that they’re not in a position to formally decide whether you have ADHD or not.

I’m still on the waitlist for being seen by the NHS team, but I would hope that people with formal training will recognise that most people that make it that far, are genuinely struggling with something (even if it’s not ADHD) and aren’t just jumping on the bandwagon.

[-]

mellowyellowwww@reddit

Look up right to choose. You can be diagnosed by a private ADHD clinic, but it's funded by the government so you don't need to pay private prices. Literally changed my life

[-]

Shoddy-Computer2377@reddit

There was an 'investigation' done by the BBC some time ago where they decided that these private ADHD diagnoses were a ripoff and a total lie because the NHS reached a different conclusion.

So, these private clinics are always wrong and just want your money? And the NHS never made a mistake? What fabulous "journalism" that is.

[-]

Hobgoblin_Khanate@reddit

I mean, you could literally walk into a private clinic and tell them you had symptom A and got a diagnosis. My friend did it and she’s since been diagnosed by the NHS. But she said it really was that easy (was a few years ago)

It’s funny how it wasn’t too long ago most people hadn’t even heard of ADHD, and it was said it was still being studied, with new information coming out monthly.

Yet this one thing is seen as a big lie? Like overnight every private clinic were suddenly experts of diagnosing ADHD cases? Of all the medical blunders over the decades it’s hilarious how people are so butthurt when this news came out

[-]

The_World_of_Ben@reddit

That's my experience right now. Mid 40-s, textbook example, pushing through indifferent assessors

[-]

SuzLouA@reddit

As someone diagnosed with ADHD earlier this year, I wouldn’t deny yourself a better understanding of your own brain for the rest of your life, as well as treatment that could immeasurably improve it, just because you’re worried someone somewhere might think you’re a bandwagon jumper.

Though not for nothing, worrying about stuff like that is also pretty ADHDish. It’s called Rejection Sensitivity Disorder and means we react extremely strongly to rejection, whether it’s real or only perceived (we also perceive it more readily where it may not be, too).

[-]

TheAlmightyProo@reddit

Same. And knowing as much that there's a reason and name for me and why and how x, y, z... But when I learned of this, not that I hadn't long had input from others to that end, it explained and answered so fucking much. Like, that is so me but... if it's a big thing why didn't any of the experts pick up on it?

Well, it helps some just knowing... more support would be nice if the queue to get a diagnosis wasn't years long due to trenders that didn't do this for 40 odd years in a harsher world but tbh nothing now would fix or make up for the losses from this or the other reasons I feel more betrayed by the mighty NHS, DWP aso than I do the ppl who abused and neglected.

All I know is there were plenty of opportunities for those once trusted authorities to join the very obvious dots far, far sooner that might have made the kind of difference many ppl would die over or for. .. but the aforementioned organisations still quibble over everything, and it doesn't help me live in whatever poor peace I might deserve.

[-]

turkishhousefan@reddit

There's also a 2-3 year waiting list.

[-]

Iforgotmypassword126@reddit

Google the right to choose ADHD and get the ball rolling. It’s a long wait, so start now and then you can decide in 18 months to what extent you want to peruse it.

[-]

sayleanenlarge@reddit

I'm sure I have it too. Even all through school, I was constantly in trouble no matter how hard I decided to behave that term. I was mind-numbingly bored sitting down for an hour 6x a day. But I don't want to try and get a diagnosis because I think people just see it as an excuse for behaviour. I so badly want to try adderal or ritalin or whatever just to see if what I think will happen will actually happen.

[-]

That’s because it is?

Just because there’s more science backing it and genuine cases are uncovered doesn’t mean there isn’t a bunch of people falling over each other to get diagnosed

OpulentStone@reddit

I am diagnosed with ADHD and I believe there is a combination of overdiagnosis and underdiagnosis (misdiagnosis?) which doesn't make much sense at first but humour me.

It's likely a multifaceted problem. I believe that there might be a genetic element and that there is an environmental/upbringing element to it too.

I also think that if a genetic predisposition to it exists, then it can be drawn out by environment.

For example if we made a case study where you have two young children who aren't diagnosed and you get one to scroll social media at every opportunity they get, but the other one doesn't have this type of frequent stimulation, then you might eventually start observing ADHD symptoms in the Tiktok kid vs. the non-Tiktok kid.

Then, we diagnose the Tiktok kid with ADHD and treat them. But, it still makes sense to diagnose them whether they would've had ADHD or not, because here's the important thing:

Non-medicative treatments for ADHD help people whether they are misdiagnosed or accurately diagnosed, and both medicative + nonmedicative treatments help people whether they have ADHD through environmental factors, genetic factors, or a combination of the two!

What I actually believe is happening is that we:

Understand it better than we ever have
Are now diagnosing those who would otherwise have been dismissed in the past
Are better at diagnosing women and girls in some ways, and boys and men in others (some boys don't get diagnosed because "boys will be boys")
Have material conditions that can induce or worsen it which leads to more potential diagnoses i.e. frequent, small, dopaminergic interactions
Have essentialist and uncompromising views about it: "I have ADHD and that's that, I can't do anything about it and always would've turned out this way" vs "ADHD is bollocks m8 it don't exist"

[-]

lazy_berry@reddit

in fairness, a lot of that “i have adhd and there’s nothing i can do about it” is in response to the assumption/expectation that you shouldn’t be on the meds forever or that you can therapy/willpower your way out of having adhd, which you can’t. you can learn to manage and cope better, but it’s not something that can be cured.

[-]

OpulentStone@reddit

I just feel that either statement in isolation is way too essentialist and is an incomplete understanding of ADHD as well as many other neurodivergencies.

I do think you are absolutely correct that it is a response to the boomer mentality of "just get disciplined bro". Not that it doesn't help, just that again - by itself it's an incomplete solution and the problem is that ADHD people are going to find doing that almost impossible. I wouldn't have been able to do it without the situation making it impossible for me to not do it.

I didn't want to go into very specific details about myself mainly because I will ramble even more than what I have written below, but here's my experience if you're interested:

I'm about to be 31, I feel as though ADHD has been a problem for me since I was 20 (runs in my family on dad's side but never presented itself until later).

I was sort of 'forced' into being without any and all pleasures, big and small for like a month, and that 'cured' - a term I use loosely - my ADHD for a good 5 or 6 months. I felt exactly like how I felt before it presented. Then a few months after benefit wore off, I finally got my medication which made me feel exactly the same feeling as that 5 or 6 month period and how I felt before I was 20.

So the non-medicative and medicative treatments, and their misunderstandings, feed into each other to form a complete thesis in the Hegelian sense.

ADHD is dopaminergic and noradrenergic and other brain chemicals are involved. By getting used to a lower level of uptake of these brain chemicals, ADHD symptoms are improved. Like a caffeine addict going without coffee for two weeks resets the associated neurotransmitters. This can be achieved through medication or through being extremely disciplined. But obviously, how are you going to do that if your brain wants to do the pleasurable thing that gives you lots of the nice brain chemcials? It's almost impossible. As I said I didn't have control over that for me.

So medication vastly helps, and when you're in that medicated state, it enables you to engage in good habits that further help you. So for me I noticed that when I'm off my medication, some good habits are still there but the brain fog comes back unless I've been disciplined for a long time.

[-]

lazy_berry@reddit

that’s not my point though. my point is that despite absolutely agreeing symptoms can be managed and coping strategies can be learned, i’ve still said things similar to “i have adhd and that’s it” to my mother, because she still seems to think i might be able to go off the meds one day, once i’ve “learned to cope better”(i also didn’t find my adhd debilitating until abojt 19, and i only got diagnosed about a year and a half ago at 25). the motivation for those two absolutist statements is typically pretty different, and i think most people understand there are things they can do to help themselves, even though the condition can’t be cured.

I mean, really vast numbers of us make it to adulthood without diagnosis. It doesn't mean we are doing managing or don't need support/accommodations (also diagnosis now is likely to save the NHS money in the long run). And autism and dyspraxia are very different lol...

CandyKoRn85@reddit

I am one of those women. Only got referred because I was dragged off a bridge at 3 in the morning by police and fast tracked to a psychiatrist. Most of us just end up killing our selves and I’m guessing that’s what happened in the past.

[-]

Lox_Ox@reddit

Yeh my estranged dad died in his early 50s from drinking. I would bet all my money and my life on the fact he was AuDHD. He definitely didn't know about either and he ended up killing himself in a very slow way because he was using alcohol as a crutch to cope with the difficulties his undiagnosed disabilities created for him (though had also made suicide attempts before then too).

People who are like 'its trendy/overdiagnosed' don't seem to understand the first thing about the degree to which it can be detrimental to people's lives.

[-]

1kBabyOilBottles@reddit

Yep currently going through assessment for ADHD in my 30s… 😒

[-]

Lox_Ox@reddit

Well done for getting started : ) I got my diagnosis at 30, though I think I would still be in the dark if it wasn't for a chance discovery of Dani Donovan's work! So many people get their diagnosis in their 20s/30s/40s. I've seen a good number of people in their 50s and 60s (I think I saw 70s the other day as well!) finally getting their diagnoses too. I know it feels late, but you are definitely not alone! x

[-]

Elsie-pop@reddit

And breaking points are so much more on your doorstep because the input our brains have to process is magnitudes higher. For autism, overstimulation, for ADHD things to be distracted by. For AuDHD it's both , I don't even know how you guys are managing as well as you are, but I see you and admire your strength (even if you feel like shit rn because it's awful). You're walking through life with a weighted back pack and you don't get to choose the weight.

[-]

crazycatdiva@reddit

Thank you, kind stranger. I didn't realise I needed to hear this today and you've made me get a bit teary.

I seem like I'm coping well because I've got a good job and my kids are grown and awesome, I've got a house and pets and friends and a great life but nobody ever sees how bloody hard it all is to manage. To have that recognised, even by an internet stranger, has just made me feel a little less shit today.

[-]

Lox_Ox@reddit

Just to say (and you may already know this) that the online ADHD community is super active, lovely and supportive! I have found a lot of comfort seeing other people's struggles like mine, as well as found it useful to seek advice (lots of people seek/get support too). I think r/ADHD is a bit sketchy, but all the rest are great! x

[-]

Yep! I didn’t get diagnosed until I was 30 and having catastrophic meltdowns. I wish I had had this info about myself sooner!

[-]

selfmadeintellect@reddit

We did a whole module about this in my Psychology class and it was really interesting and disheartening and I’m glad you mentioned it

[-]

TheDarkestStjarna@reddit

Ah yes, the child who was a bit quirky, or shy or just didn't like sudden noises.

[-]

Squiggles87@reddit

The main objection comes from the significant rising numbers in neurodiverse conditions, which most sensible put down to increases awareness and diagnosis. I genuinely do not think that many people think the likes of Dyslexia and Autism are new conditions.

The likes of ADHD is the one in recent times that ruffles feathers. Medical understanding of that significantly rose in the 80s and it wasn't until the 90s that we started seeing increase diagnosis. That is relatively recent in timescales for a lot of the older generations.

[-]

Ok_Shirt983@reddit

I think a contributing factor is people (dare I say insecure, attention seeking, teenagers) self diagnosing on social media because they have done a BuzzFeed quiz.

[-]

*An extremely biased investigation with a single reporter. He did have symptoms but the NHS psychiatrist put it down to trauma. It did a tremendous amount of harm to the community by spreading the pay for diagnosis narrative. Loads of people have since had their much needed care removed and are in a terrible state as a result.

[-]

turkishhousefan@reddit

I've spent about £2k on diagnosis and meds this year and I don't think I'm really much closer to userstanding why I am the way that I am. I think the scarcity of resources compared to the demand has caused a bit of a goldrush for private medical providers. At least I had access to the money required to give it a go, I guess.

[-]

jiggjuggj0gg@reddit

Everyone keeps spouting this but I have never met anyone who has managed to get a diagnosis from a psychiatrist despite not having the condition because they ‘thought it was trendy’ or whatever.

It is incredibly difficult to get an ADHD or autism diagnosis. It either costs an arm and a leg, or will be an extremely long wait on the NHS (over 10 years in some places).

Self ‘diagnosis’, sure, but that’s like someone telling you they’ve got a brain tumour because they have a headache. It’s not a diagnosis.

[-]

Readinglight@reddit

I was diagnosed in the 1980's and it was all kept hush hush, just so no one knew my parents had a defective child.

[-]

himit@reddit

From what I can see the main objection arises from the significant increase in the number of diagnosed neurodiverse conditions,

I think a lot of it is also that the 'traits' are things that everybody does to some degree. It's when you do it so much to an almost crippling degree that it's a disorder.

[-]

Shoddy_Juice9144@reddit

I was born in 1980, I had a boy with ADHD in my class, he was unmedicated. My brother also got diagnosed with ADHD as an adult. Childhood was miserable for these kids. They misunderstood and disliked by everyone, children and adults because they were disruptive.

I was always labelled ‘nice, quiet, but not engaged’. I actually have a vision of myself sat in class playing with my fingers while the teacher talked and a talked. I fully left school at 13.

At 16 I went to military college and for the first time I realised I had the ability to learn, because my learning was interspersed with physical activity. I later went on to study a joint hons degree 😆 with no school education behind me.

Autism definitely existed, people may not have known what it was called, but it did exist. Families just hid it because they were told there was shame attached.

I’m proud we have a generation that can now feel included and welcome, understood and can access medications.

Imagine how lonely it is having something horrible wrong with you and you don’t know what it is or how to change it.

Suicide in the neurodiverse group is way higher.

[-]

StrongLikeBull3@reddit

I'd be very surprised if we don't have some fucked up things happening.

[-]

Demostravius4@reddit

I think rates have increased outside of simple diagnostic improvements though.

[-]

fferbbou@reddit

To be fair, it is on the rise, and there are more and more people who are autistic, for reasons other than difficulty recognising it

[-]

Royally-Forked-Up@reddit

If you haven’t read it and are interested, Neurotribes by Steve Silberman has a great rundown on neurodiversity and the “autism fad”. My partner was diagnosed on the spectrum as an adult and reading this book helped me understand a little bit more about the different ways autism presents and how people who were lower on the spectrum/higher functioning were largely overlooked.

[-]

AzzTheMan@reddit

Old people: 'Neurodiversity didn't exist in my day'

Also old people: 'look at my massive collection of plates/dolls/figures that must never be touched or moved from these exact positions'

[-]

Substantial_Page_221@reddit

Define always.

Anyway, I don't think it has always existed. I don't have facts so it's obviously just my own opinion, so feel free to ignore it.

But I think certain chemicals/ingredients (I don't know which) we consume, the chemicals/pollution in the air, etc. could have had an impact on us in ways we don't m know. Not that it truly matters, since we still need to deal with the consequences.

Since I've not carried out any tests/experiments I'm essentially just chatting shit.

[-]

Caligapiscis@reddit

Spend a few minutes reading about the lifestyle and habits of 18th century philosopher Henry Cavendish

[-]

PontificatinPlatypus@reddit

It's the easiest condition to "self-manifest" if you want a doctor to prescribe you certain recreational drugs, which is probably 90% of the diagnoses these days.

[-]

TheFlyingHornet1881@reddit

As I've seen it put "so you're saying it it's perfectly normal your Grandad ate the same meal at the local cafe every Saturday, had 7 of the same button up shirt, and could identify every single type of train on the UK rail network?"

[-]

Savings-Carpet-3682@reddit

I agree it’s always existed. It’s just nowadays people form their whole personality around it and use it as an excuse for everything.

Back then: “I have a short attention span, I need to work on this”

I got into a debate with my flatmate and referred to circumcision as male genital mutilation. She disagreed because, in her mind, it waters down the issue that is female genital mutilation.

To me, the fact of the matter is, in both cases, a child is having their genitals altered for cosmetic or harmful purposes, and it is done without their consent or consideration to agency over their own bodies.

[-]

manonion1@reddit

I guess the main difference is that male circumcision is done at birth when the child won't remember, done by trained medical professionals in a hygienic environment, and FGM is done around puberty by some random local woman in a mud hut. Both are deplorable don't get me wrong, but if you had to have a child go through one or the other, nobodys wishing for a daughter in that situation.

[-]

blinky84@reddit

male circumcision is done at birth when the child won't remember

Just wanted to add in that medical studies have shown that circumcised baby boys show heightened fear and pain responses during vaccinations. They might not directly remember but the trauma is present.

[-]

segagamer@reddit

Huh. Is that why the antivax thing is mostly America?

[-]

blinky84@reddit

Honestly I don't think they're related - you've got plenty other stuff causing that, like the Tuskegee Experiment, American individualism, Q-Anon, and Andrew fucking Wakefield. That last one's our fault, tbh.

Americans are far more likely to engage in cultish behaviour. I'd argue that circumcision is one, and antivaxx is another.

[-]

SharkReceptacles@reddit

Americans are far more likely to engage in cultish behaviour.

Pure coincidence, and not related to the wider point, but about an hour ago I watched an American who now lives in Britain try to explain this phenomenon.

It’s an interesting video if you’ve got a spare 15 minutes. She touches on a couple of points that hadn’t occurred to me.

[-]

Does the research say that about other types of childhood trauma? I know someone who had open heart surgery as a young child, first when they were born, then again at 3. As a newborn, we don't really know how she reacted, but when she was 3, she took it all in her stride, never complained, never asked questions, etc., and all the doctors and nurses said that's how kids take it. They're the easiest patients because they just accept it, don't have a clear understanding of what's happening, etc.

But now, a decade later, they are scared of needles and things like wasps, quite anxious about things that can cause pain. We always wondered if the trauma would come out later, and your comment makes me wonder again if it's related.

[-]

manonion1@reddit

Do you have a link for that? I'd be curious to know how they've determined that those are connected. My son had an infection when he was born and had to have a cannula and several blood tests/injections and has always been absolutely fine during vaccinations. Obviously neither as major as a circumcision but you'd think if it is true that they remember on some level he might show some signs.

[-]

itsfourinthemornin@reddit

Same for anyone, every kid is different! My son had eons of cannulas and a Hickman line for chemo at a young age. He gets a bit jittery at vaccinations but otherwise they don't phase him in the slightest, nor do hospitals or anything medical. All his Docs and Nurses were superstars though.

Whereas I had the same as a child, various cannulas/prodded at/poked at, but I have harsh memories of being basically pinned for eye drops and to be put under and other things. I still have a fight response at 32 when I go to the opticians, I hate people touching my head or anything medical/health related on my head/face/eyes!!

[-]

blinky84@reddit

Here is a link to the Lancet, this one was in 1997. I think there have been more trials since then, though.

[-]

jflb96@reddit

There's a ) in your URL that needs a \ in front of it so that the auto-formatter doesn't take it as the end of the URL

[-]

Jealous-Ease6924@reddit

Pain doesn't bother me at all, but I have been avoiding a quality-of-life surgery for like five years. Also have reoccurring nightmares of amputation since childhood. I also have dreams where I have a robot arm and it's not working properly, even in dreams without amputation.

it's probably just coincidence and has something to do with my mother but still, I wonder if/how it's affected me.

[-]

colin_staples@reddit

I guess the main difference is that male circumcision is done at birth when the child won't remember, done by trained medical professionals in a hygienic environment

Emphasis mine.

That is not always the case

Maybe it's true in America, but in some places it absolutely is not true

Either way, it most definitely is genital mutilation.

Aside from a genuine medical need (which will not be known until a LOT later in the individual's life), there is zero justification for circumcision.

"Oh but it's more hygenic". Thousands of years ago,, maybe. But in the 21st century? No fucking way.

"Oh but my religion". Why are cutting off the foreskin that God made? As an offering? Does your God want this? Or is it because the foreskin is not needed, or "bad design"? You're saying that God made a bad design? That's heresy.

"Oh but my culture and tradition". Get to fuck.

If an adult makes an informed choice, fine. Leave the innocent children intact.

[-]

sphinctaltickle@reddit

I agree with everything but I always think the hygiene thing can't be an argument because of it was we would have evolved not to have a foreskin. Not just us but all mammals

[-]

Top-Citron9403@reddit

We evolved out of trees. When the torah/bible/quran were written, the writers lived in arid sandy climates where cutting the foreskin made sense to reduce the chances of an infection.

[-]

SelectTrash@reddit

I hate to break this to you but we were around before both books

[-]

Top-Citron9403@reddit

I know. We evolved out of trees. This was the evolutionary bit.

Many many thousands of years later when natural we wrote books about cutting off foreskins when the people who wrote the books lived in dusty arid climates.

[-]

TimmmV@reddit

More hygienic to be bald than it is to constantly have to wash your hair - don't see many people demanding everyone shave their heads though.

[-]

Spinxington@reddit

If anyone makes the hygiene argument, I just take it as them outting themselves as someone with poor personal hygiene who doesn't know how to wash a dick.

[-]

upthewatwo@reddit

My dad never told me how to wash it properly, I also grew up in the US where being circumcised is the norm, so I was pretty old before I somehow found out you're supposed to pull the foreskin back and clean.

In fact the only hygiene advice I remember either of my parents giving was my mum telling me and my sister to "wipe front to back" which doesn't even make sense as a boy haha.

Good hygiene is somewhat dependent on the habits your parents instilled in you as a child.

[-]

rositree@reddit

If only you could pull it back and clean under there.... Nah, just cut it off, much better!

[-]

YouSayWotNow@reddit

Same! 🤣

[-]

MarrV@reddit

The hygienic element is questionable at best. All the "benefits" are marginal (as in factions of a percentage).

It is entirely unnecessary and luckily decreasing in frequency due to the shift in perception of it to being egentila mutilation, thankfully.

[-]

diwalk88@reddit

The hygiene argument is so ridiculous! The head of the penis with the foreskin intact is like a less complex and smaller version of the labia, which billions of women seem to manage to keep clean despite MUCH more happening with it. It's really not that hard to wash yourself. Not to mention that men from the dawn of time up until very recently somehow managed to not have their uncircumcised penises fall off from infection, even without access to clean running water and daily bathing. It's just an excuse used by people who want to justify something that is unjustifiable. Why do you think you never hear people who have a religious obligation to circumcise use hygiene as a justification? Because it's nonsense and they don't need a fake reason to do something they are religiously obligated to do.

[-]

Andersboxing1@reddit

Tbf if you're a sex worker, you most likely meet more unhygienic people than not, so I still find it hard to believe that too many people don't know how to clean themselves.

If you can't see it, but "only" taste and smell, it might just be how their bodys normalflora is at the penis tho, that isn't smegma. That's just like how many women smell bad/fishy between the legs, but that doesn't mean they are unhygienic, we all just have different "standard smells".

[-]

EuphoricGrapefruit32@reddit

I heard women only get a fishy or bad smell from them either being unclean, there being something wrong, or post sex?

[-]

Andersboxing1@reddit

Washing too much is actually the biggest problem for women smelling/tasting bad down there.

I think this comment is the most on point, here. No idea why people would respond negatively to it but I suspect it's a bunch of dudes who think their s### don't stink and have never been close to any penis to have any idea. Having one doesn't exactly give a great perspective on this matter, IMO 🤷🏽‍♀️

Not even putting an opinion on the matter as I'm sure it will be assumed for me.

[-]

My top line is a simplified version, admittedly it may have been better to say evolution is caused by random genetic mutations.

I know what evolution is.

But my point still stands. Evolution is completely random.

[-]

mangetouttoutmange@reddit

Absolutely not true. Evolution is not random. If a predator eats the slowest prey, then the only prey that are left are the fast ones. The fast ones survive enough to reproduce and pass on their ‘fast’ genes. So the next generation evolve to be faster. This isn’t random. The predator doesn’t randomly select who it eats. It eats the slowest prey (in this hypothetical example).

Of foreskins were so unhygienic as to negatively affect someone’s ability to reproduce, then humans would have evolved to not have one

[-]

No. Random genetic mutation is random genetic mutation. evolution is the change in gene frequencies over time. If a gene negatively affects your ability to reproduce, it will not be passed on, by definition. Mutation may be random but what gets passed on is NOT random. You think an animal’s ability to fly is just random? No.

[-]

PlainNotToasted@reddit

Animals tend not to live long enough that their junk rots off when they get too senile to wash themselves.

[-]

Helga_Geerhart@reddit

Both are aweful, and we shouldn't compare one evil to another, because that only diminishes the "lesser" of the two evils, while evil is always evil.

If we have to compare, yes female is worse, because the consequences are worse. On average, the damage on female is bigger than on male. But again, we really shouldn't compare evils.

[-]

TheBrassDancer@reddit

This was another point I countered with too, that not seeing circumcision in the same light from the moral standpoint that it violates bodily autonomy and individual agency trivialises it.

[-]

Helga_Geerhart@reddit

Indeed. It's just as bad from a moral standpoint. From a practical standpoint, female has worse consequences on average, but male circumcision is just as evil, morally speaking. It violates bodily autonomy.

[-]

throwmeaway11111121@reddit

Id argue from a moral standpoint the motivations for FGM are worse as well as the practice. Circumcision is done for religious reasons and can have side effects of loss of sensation. FGM is done intentionally to remove sensation.

Sorry ya’ll are annoyed at having your foreskin removed. Most men don’t mind it.

But all women who have been mutilated have suffered.

[-]

Helga_Geerhart@reddit

No, you're insane if you think you can cut of a part of someone's body without their permission.

[-]

LizardChaser@reddit

Where is this coming from? It's a harmless procedure that dramatically reduces STI transmission rates to the benefit of the man and his future partners. I mean, the 25% reduction in HIV transmission alone is a benefit that would medically justify the procedure. This is like arguing that the old TB scars were "mutilation."

[-]

Jack124683579@reddit

That's just a hygiene issue at the end of the day, they can't consent to it and there are no epically benefits in that moment for the child unless as a parent you can't keep the baby clean

[-]

LizardChaser@reddit

That's just a hygiene issue at the end of the day

Remarkably ignorant. And people agreed with you! If you wash your hands after you poop, you should have a basic understanding of just some of the problems with this statement.

[-]

Helga_Geerhart@reddit

You shouldn't cut off a part of someone's body without their permission. Period. When the person is old enough to have sex, they can decide if they want circumcision or not. FYI, lots of men who did it as an adult report less sensitivity and less sexual enjoyment after the procedure. So no, it's not harmless.

[-]

Calackyo@reddit

Then stop comparing.

[-]

Helga_Geerhart@reddit

Honestly you're right, but it's not that easy. Anyhow, both should be illegal imo.

[-]

the_peppers@reddit

But again, we really shouldn't compare evils.

Agreed, however referring to two evils with the same term implies similarity.

Calling circumcision male genital mutlitation is perfectly correct technically, but I agree with OP's flatmate that it waters down what is the far more damaging act, and it would be better if we mainly referred to it by the term that it already has.

[-]

Helga_Geerhart@reddit

I feel like both sides are valid. We don't want to diminish one, or the other. Hitting someone on the arm, and hitting them in the face, are both assault, but the degree of severity differs. Imo male and female are both mutilation, and it's okay to use that term, but female is more severe (on average). I feel for the flatmate, but also for OP, I see good arguments for both sides.

[-]

colin_staples@reddit

I agree with you on this.

[-]

ScorpionKing111@reddit

I had it done when I was around 4 years old (male), and I have flashbacks from it when I think about it

[-]

dontevenremembermain@reddit

I'm so sorry :(

[-]

diwalk88@reddit

"Oh but my religion". Why are cutting off the foreskin that God made? As an offering? Does your God want this? Or is it because the foreskin is not needed, or "bad design"? You're saying that God made a bad design? That's heresy.

You obviously aren't familiar with Judaism. Circumcision is the covenant with God, made by Abraham at the birth of the Jewish peoples. God promised to make Abraham "the father of many nations" and give to him the land of Canaan as the home of these people (Gen 17:4-8). You may have noticed that the land bit is still very relevant to people today, thousands are dying over it as we speak. In return, God decreed that Abraham and every male after him must display this covenant on their flesh via circumcision (Gen 17:9-14). This extended to slaves or other adult men who joined the community, as well as every male baby at 8 days after birth (Gen 17:12-13). Failure to be circumcised would result in a rupture of the covenant, and this person would be "cut off from his people" and from God (Gen 17:14). Circumcision is the foundation of a Jewish man's relationship with both God and his community. It is meant to be a sacrifice as well as a visual symbol of the individual's obedience to God's will, even when God's will doesn't make sense to His People (see The Binding of Isaac at Gen 22 for another example of God demanding personal sacrifice and obedience for its own sake).

In the Early Jesus Movement (which would later become Christianity), circumcision became a major issue. Initially, those who followed Jesus (and his brother and disciples after him) were all Jewish. Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, and thus it was thought that all who wanted to join them needed also to be Jewish. That meant circumcision for any male converts. However, with the Pauline mission to the Romans that all changed. Paul decreed that conversion to Judaism was no longer necessary, nor was circumcision. Instead, followers of Jesus underwent "circumcision of the heart" (Romans 2:25-29). They bore the scars of the covenant in their heart rather than on their flesh; however, the the importance of circumcision itself was never diminished.

I'm absolutely opposed to circumcision unless it is a necessary medical procedure, but it's not as simple as you make it sound to erase its religious importance. It forms the basis of the Jewish faith, and failure to comply means that you or your child will be cast out of God's light and into the darkness. It means that you or your child will be shut out of your community. It is a really big deal.

[-]

colin_staples@reddit

You obviously aren't familiar with Judaism.

Correct

Circumcision is the covenant with God, made by Abraham at the birth of the Jewish peoples. God promised to make Abraham "the father of many nations" and give to him the land of Canaan as the home of these people (Gen 17:4-8).

And the price of this was a foreskin, and the foreskins of every Jewish male?

And you don't question what a God would want with billions of foreskins? Or even just one foreskin (Abraham's)

Yes, yes, "covenant", but come on, foreskins??

I'm absolutely opposed to circumcision unless it is a necessary medical procedure, but it's not as simple as you make it sound to erase its religious importance. It forms the basis of the Jewish faith, and failure to comply means that you or your child will be cast out of God's light and into the darkness. It means that you or your child will be shut out of your community. It is a really big deal.

Religions change their minds on things all the damn time when it suits them. They find loopholes on all sorts of things or even just issue new decrees.

But mutilation of male babies before they are 8 days old is something to stick with forever, right?

[-]

oxfordfox20@reddit

This is a good and eloquent argument, but for me it’s an argument that law and reason should always supersede religion.

Just because something insane was written in a bestselling pamphlet a long time ago doesn’t make it any less insane.

[-]

Tradition is just peer pressure from dead people

[-]

embraceyourpoverty@reddit

FGM definitely worse. My sisters grandsons are not circumcised. They’re fine. My FIL was not circumcised and made it to 65. Then some nasty infection took over and he had to get circumcised.

[-]

1nd3x@reddit

"Oh but it's more hygenic". Thousands of years ago,, maybe. But in the 21st century? No fucking way.

People don't know how to wipe their own asses. They 100% don't know how to pull back their foreskin and clean their dick cheese out, and you can find dozens and dozens of posts on reddit where women discuss being with men who have disgusting dicks, or men that are just asking how to do it because they don't know how

[-]

colin_staples@reddit

People don't know how to wipe their own asses.

Then the solution is obviously to cut out the asses of babies, right? Right??

No, the solution is parents teaching their kids how to be hygienic.

The solution is not a barbaric practice that claims to be for the benefit of somebody but is in fact mutilation.

They 100% don't know how to pull back their foreskin and clean their dick cheese out, and you can find dozens and dozens of posts on reddit where women discuss being with men who have disgusting dicks, or men that are just asking how to do it because they don't know how

Again, education.

I know how to clean myself properly. But I wasn't born with that information, was I? No I fucking well wasn't. And likely the same is true for you too.

It simply does not justify the mutilation of babies.

[-]

1nd3x@reddit

Sure, Education solves everything.

People are dumb though, and bigger problems like disease and infecting others come into it and that's how you end up with "solutions" that are themselves evil...but...a lesser evil as they say...

Just to be clear, I don't agree with the practice of circumcision, I am simply removing my own opinion and emotions on the subject

"But why do they do it"

"Because (reason)"

"But that's bad"

"Yeah...okay cool...doesn't change the fact that that's why they did it"

[-]

Yeah exactly. In a time when there was limited surveillance they had to figure out a way of convincing the masses that someone was always watching or it would have been anarchy.

[-]

mina86ng@reddit

"Yeah...okay cool...doesn't change the fact that that's why they did it"

But that’s not even why they did it. They did it because a corn flakes manufacturer thought it would stop boys from masturbating.

[-]

colin_staples@reddit

Circumcision pre-dates Kelloggs Cornflakes by a looooong time...

[-]

1nd3x@reddit

That isn't the origin of circumcision...

[-]

WeDoDumplings@reddit

Don't leave out the blowjob from the Rabbi..

[-]

daddyjackpot@reddit

i observed a couple circumcisions in nursing school.

'trained medical professional' doesn't mean shit. the person bringing a scalpel to the infant's genitals may or may not be good at what they are doing. They may get lots of practice and do it every day or only do it once every six weeks. they're not going to tell you which guy your baby's getting.

and the infant's genitals may have some unusual characteristics that mean the circumcisions will result in damage to the genitals. and the circumciser may not find that out until the damage is done.

and the circumciser may be a "I can do it!" kind of guy. Rather than a "let's pump the brakes and make sure we don't fuck up somebody's junk." kind of guy.

bear in mind that society rewards "I can do it!" people. so there are a lot of them.

[-]

11Kram@reddit

I know of a case where a baby died after a witch doctor did a circumcision in a first world country. I’ve got a surgeon friend who does circumcisions for cultural reasons reluctantly in order to stop similar deaths. A rabbi did one recently and is being held for assault.

[-]

GoodDay2You_Sir@reddit

I've come around to the idea that circumcision is completely unnecessary, and would not have it done to any of my children (however unlikely it is that i even have kids not adopted) but my whole family on my mother's side circumcise theirs sons cause we had like two cases in the 1960' and 1980s of a 3rd cousin and great uncle of mine that ended up with phimosis and needed it done in their teens and everyone decided that was tramatic and to just do it as babies so if their kid had the condition it wouldnt end up being a problem.

So, while I do try to educate my family that it might actually not be that big of an issue and chances of inheriting the disorder is proably very small (considering it was just 2 family members)...its still a tough sale to people concerned about their kids health for somewhat legitimate reasons. I might lean into showing them statistics on circumcision gone wrong to sway them going forward.

[-]

colin_staples@reddit

but my whole family on my mother's side circumcise theirs sons cause we had like two cases in the 1960' and 1980s of a 3rd cousin and great uncle of mine that ended up with phimosis and needed it done in their teens and everyone decided that was tramatic and to just do it as babies so if their kid had the condition it wouldnt end up being a problem.

What if some relative in the 1960s or 1980s had had testicular cancer or ovarian cancer?

"Cut those bits out when they are babies, it's the only way to prevent it. Just to be on the safe side"

[-]

I respect the freedom to believe what you want to believe, but I don't respect their stupid beliefs any more than I respect the beliefs of someone who believes in ghosts

[-]

Ch0col4a73_0r4ng3@reddit

It's always baffling to me how mad America is for circumcision when it's so not a thing here.

It's a multi-billion dollar industry. I don't think you need any more explanation.

[-]

WotTheHellDamnGuy@reddit

It is? In what way?

[-]

Shartiflartbast@reddit

You charge for the circumcision, as you charge for everything else.

[-]

Wait, what? Not being stupid here but what are we defining as "skin to skin contact"?

[-]

ch3ckEatOut@reddit

https://www.nhs.uk/start-for-life/baby/baby-basics/caring-for-your-baby/skin-to-skin-contact-with-your-newborn/

And then they sell the... byproduct.

[-]

pennyswooper@reddit

This.... foreskin is a huge industry for medical research.

[-]

Ch0col4a73_0r4ng3@reddit

In 2022 it was a $5.7B annual business.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350709776_High_Cost_of_Circumcision_57_Billion_Annually

I think it’s not super expensive to get it done privately in the UK though? Like a £150-£300 for a newborn I’m sure. I would think most people wouldn’t rather pay this if they’re going down the circumcision route as if a baby gets an infection or has any other issues or complications, this would surely be flagged up to social work? I wouldn’t think it’s legal to allow someone to perform a minor surgery under anaesthetic without training or anything?

To be honest, it’s really baffling why anyone would want to put their own baby through something like this in the first place so you never know, there might be a lot of parents that don’t care either way. Bit sick imo

[-]

Complex-Bee-840@reddit

Had free teeth cleaning all through university every six months and a wisdom tooth removed didn’t cost a penny, yeah had some students rummaging in my mouth and was slower but no problems

Played a blinder with the wisdom tooth, student called out sick that day so ended up with one of the consultants pulling my tooth couldn’t have paid for a better person

[-]

fire_and_motion@reddit

£150 would have bankrupted my family, my dad only earned £50 a week around that time.

Guess mine was done by a rando, but I don’t remember it hurting until a couple of days later.

[-]

Luxxe-tbh@reddit

If you were older than a few months (presumably as you remember the pain) the cost of doing it privately would be much more than £150. It’s more expensive the older you get apparently. I went down a Google rabbit hole after my initial comment.

Unless of course it was medically necessary in which case it would be covered by the NHS

I hope things are going well for you now. A surgical procedure performed by a stranger is horror, and must be difficult to reconcile

[-]

Jaded-Tear-3587@reddit

For adult the price is in the thousands. I just had it andit required a full set of tests, or with surgeon, anesthetist and nurses...

[-]

diwalk88@reddit

under anaesthetic

manonion1@reddit

If I'd wanted my son to be circumcised when he was born I promise you the hospital was not going to call up a rabbi to come do it.

[-]

_mister_pink_@reddit

I believe you. But also: Rabbis do perform this. Both can be and are true.

[-]

diwalk88@reddit

A Mohel performs a bris, not a Rabbi.

[-]

manonion1@reddit

Rabbis perform it when that's what the parents request, ordinarily it would be done at the hospital immediately after birth by a surgeon. Obviously it would be preferable if rabbis didn't do it, if it has to be done at all, but unfortunately if that's what the parents request then there isn't much to stop them.

[-]

done by trained medical professionals in a hygienic environment

"Ex-doctor used rusty tool for circumcision"

"One tool had a "rusty, serrated" edge while others had not been properly sterilised, prosecutors said."

[-]

Some male babies get infections from the procedure. I read about a baby who died from herpes, which he got from the mohel who performed the circumcision the "traditional" way, which is to suck the blood of the baby's penis.

American writer Gary Shteyngart wrote a piece about his botched circumcision. He experienced pain throughout his life. A few years ago, he decided to see if it could be fixed. He had another surgery, which made things worse. About 0.8 per one million circumcisions result in damage to the urethra, which causes a variety of issues that require surgery.

[-]

Staci_Recht_247@reddit

I guess the main difference is that male circumcision is done at birth when the child won't remember, done by trained medical professionals in a hygienic environment, and FGM is done around puberty by some random local woman in a mud hut.

You are correct, but I have always felt that this is really a distraction from the main point that you make later ("both are deplorable")... The circumstances of FGM are not the problem, or else we would see doing it in a hospital as a sterile procedure with anesthesia and performed by a surgeon as a solution. I point this out because I think for many people there is a subconscious orientalism at play when we do this to help cope with the fact that we mutilate children too, but at least we do it "better" and not because of some barbaric practice.

The problem with cutting children without any supported medical basis is that it is done, not how it is done.

[-]

CaveJohnson82@reddit

I'd say the main difference is that FGM is cutting everything away, including the only part of the body made for pleasure, sometimes using a piece of glass, to keep the body pure for the girl's future husband. Google tells me religious circumcision is some bullshit about an agreement with god; most others is for "cleanliness". Only if it goes wrong would it cause long-term issues. FGM always causes issues.

Circumcision is awful and I agree it is abuse, I condemn anyone who does it to their unconsenting child, but I agree with the OP's girlfriend - to say they're the same is to take away from the absolute horrific nature of what the girls go through.

Sorry, this is something I feel quite passionate about as you can see!

[-]

mangetouttoutmange@reddit

Saying they’re comparable is wrong because they’re not. But saying that male circumcision isn’t genital mutilation is factually incorrect. Make circumcision is genital mutilation of male genitals. It isn’t in the same league as FGM but that doesn’t stop it being genital mutilation. Calling it genital mutilation is not downplaying FGM in the same way that calling a man who verbally abuses his wife a domestic abuser does not downplay physical domestic abuse.

[-]

CaveJohnson82@reddit

If you explain it like that, I agree. But if not then using the same terms just invites comparison IMO.

[-]

mangetouttoutmange@reddit

And not using the same terms downplays male circumcision. It keeps it in this special category of ‘mutilation you can do to a baby and not get in trouble for’. Did you know that in most western countries the only mutilation you’re legally allowed to perform on someone without their consent (outside of the medical context) is mutilation of the penis of a child? Any other type of mutilation is prohibited and in most cases leads to prison time. Did you know that every year there are many 1000s of botched male circumcisions. Did you know that over time the amount of skin removed has increased? Did you know that outbreaks of stis have been recorded in different parts of the world amongst babies who have been circumcised. Now is any of that on the same scale as FGM? Not even remotely comparable. FGM is an evil. Does that mean we shouldn’t call male circumcision genital mutilation? Ha.

[-]

Faerie_Nuff@reddit

I don't get why there aren't more comments on the actual procedures regarding the body parts involved! This needs more upvotes - one of the key elements of FGM in 2 types is cutting off/removing/mutilating the literal clit(!) it's only comparable to cutting off, or mutilating the bellend itself (scraping, cauterising, sewing etc). Until then, although they're both disturbing, abhorrent, and horrific things to even contemplate, they are two separate issues.

I've tried to be as succinct as possible there because, with a new baby boy myself these are the types of thoughts I have to simply put out of my head for my own sanity. It saddens me deeply to know there are babies and children having to deal with any of it at all in this day and age.

[-]

manonion1@reddit

Yeah, that's essentially what I'm trying to say. I would never do it to my son or recommend it for anyone else outside of medical necessity, but there is no medical necessity ever for FGM.

[-]

FuzzyOpportunity2766@reddit

Think you better check up on what your saying! Because your totally wrong

[-]

BrightonTownCrier@reddit

Some cultures do it at the start of puberty or even just before they get married, and no it's not always done by trained medical professionals in hygienic environments.

[-]

pepperpix123@reddit

That's not true anymore, more and more countries have FGM done in a hospital with trained medical professionals in a hygienic environment. It doesn't make it less wrong!

[-]

IcyTundra001@reddit

It's always baffling to me how mad America is for circumcision when it's so not a thing here.

Yeah I always thought it was a religious thing, for a long time I didn't know people in the US just did it to their children because .. they could.

I always find it baffling/funny how the people who seem most in favour of keeping non-medical circumcision at babies legal seem to be most upset about trans teens getting puberty blockers/young adults getting surgery ("they are too young to give consent!"). Like HOW do people not see the discrepancy here.

[-]

sask_j@reddit

Filipinos get circumcized after age ten.

[-]

fire_and_motion@reddit

Mine was done on my family’s dining table by a complete stranger, at the age of 8. I grew up in a highly developed nation. I assume he was a qualified doctor because these sorts of procedures are illegal to do if you’re not.

It wasn’t traumatic at the time, because I was told it’s the right thing to do, and only experienced moderate pain.

The damage done by the two practices is orders of magnitude apart though. I despise the routine circumcision of baby boys and think it should be banned outside of medical necessity until a person is old enough to have it done electively. But as a process it almost always leaves everything fully functioning, the discomfort goes away in about a week, you don't typically lose enough sensation for it to be a problem beyond the violation of bodily autonomy. Whereas FGM takes many forms, a small minority of similar consequence to male circumcision but most commonly genuinely debilitating and disabling. Removal of the clitoris, sealing of the vagina. Immediate health risks, permanent loss of function, a lifetime of injury, pain and scarring in the best cases. As well as being a violation of bodily autonomy.

We're on the same side mate but the two are not equivalent and it's not even close. The same fundamental principle of bodily autonomy and integrity ought to apply to both to have them enthusiastically banned and any back-alley procedures squashed with a vengeance, but either elevating what happens to boys, or trivialising what happens to girls, that go through these two processes in order to pretend they're equal is just not on

[-]

MelodicReputation312@reddit

While FGM is on its own much worse, I think the sheer volume of male mutilation definitely can rival it. Also you're forgetting the horribly botched circumcisions that can happen.

[-]

Not so fun fact: narrowing of the urethra is called mental stenosis and is most commonly caused by circumcision.

[-]

Frustrated_Barnacle@reddit

I didn't know that, and that's really interesting.

She disagreed because, in her mind, it waters down the issue that is female genital mutilation

The equivalent of saying "Calling cutting off a hand amputation waters down amputation because cutting off an arm is worse".

It's not a very good argument from them, nobody is saying they're equivalent in severity, but both are clearly mutilation.

[-]

WerewolfNo890@reddit

There are different types of FGM though, some are more comparable than others to the male equivalent.

All should be illegal.

[-]

jimmybiggles@reddit

this happens a lot with a lot of issues, people will say "X happens to Y people, and it is bad" and then someone will make a valid point that "X also happens to Z people, and it is also bad"

for some reason they get offended that they pointed out that it happens to lots of groups of people, and is bad? they're not saying "well it happens to Z so Y should suck it up" they're saying "yes, this is bad, Z is also affected - it should be stopped" which is similar to what your flatmate is saying. FGM is bad, yes, so is MGM. all GM is bad... what's wrong with saying that!?!

[-]

diwalk88@reddit

In case you genuinely don't understand it, the reason people get upset about this is because it detracts from the main issue and diverts attention to something else. Just think about how you would feel if your house burned down and your family died and someone butted in to say that their partner had a car accident and broke their leg. Both are bad, sure, but one is much worse. Talking about the car crash and broken leg takes attention away from the more severe and pressing issue you're experiencing. Now imagine that you have lost your job, you have no money saved, and now you're losing your home and have no way to feed yourself and your family. How would you feel if someone said they are suffering too because they've had to let some of their staff go and may have to flog one of the old paintings hanging in their ancestral estate? Both people feel economic pressure, but it is not the same. Sure, both experienced a drop in their standard of living, but the reality of the consequences of that drop is completely different. One person is homeless and starving, and that is demonstrably worse than having to cut costs and sell family heirlooms.

It is also most often the more privileged group who want to push in and divert attention away from the problem experienced by the oppressed or less privileged group, as we can see in "Blue Lives Matter/All Lives Matter" and so-called "men's rights" groups. Those who possess more power feel threatened and angry whenever their primacy is questioned, so they try to re-center themselves in the conversation. I would encourage anyone reading this to really sit with themselves the next time they are tempted to insert themselves into a discourse about something affecting another group of people. Ask yourself why you feel the need to say "this kind of affects me too," especially when it doesn't. If you are a man, why do you need to redirect conversations about women's issues to include men? If you are white, why do you need to redirect conversations about race to include white people? Don't be the posh prick telling the homeless person that they've got it just as bad.

[-]

jimmybiggles@reddit

this is exactly what i'm talking about - you're trying to argue that one person/group should be put above the other - this is wrong. i think FGM is worse than MGM, but what is wrong with me saying MGM is bad? doesn't detract anything. all GM should be ended. just like all racism should be ended, whether it's against black, asian, or white people. i think singling out one part of a larger problem is ridiculous and if anything detracts from the wider issue of GM vs gender specific GM. no one who is posh/has money would tell a homeless person that they've got it "just as bad" because realistically they don't. that's fact... but they can say they've got SOMETHING bad? if a homeless person was saying "i've got cancer and need treatment from the NHS, and my cancer is really bad/painful" and the rich person says "i also have cancer, it really sucks doesn't it!" that isn't taking away from the homeless person is it? that's saying "yes, cancer is bad"

nice response, thanks for clarifying why i'm apparently a misogynist :)

I see why people are agreeing with you. However it would be very very concerning if people equated the two in any meaningful way, while there are comparisons to be drawn. If we are comparing the two, one is like removal of the foreskin, one is removal of the "penis". Removing a woman's clitoris removes any ability for her to enjoy sexual activity. Comparing them is like comparing the loss of a toe to a leg. They are both technically removal of a limb but one will inhibit your life way more than the other. Actually, it's maybe closer to losing a big toe versus both legs. If you lose one leg you can still walk on the other. If they dig out your clitoris you can never feel sexual stimulation.

Maybe a better way to approach this conversation is to mitigate that early. If you said I completely understand these are not the same and I am vehemently against FGM. It's completely barbaric. But in my country and culture, circumcision is much more common, so I'm discussing it more. And technically it is still mutilation and also should not be happening.

[-]

iveblinkedtwice@reddit

For what it’s worth I get where you’re coming from.

Both FGM and circumcision are technically genital mutilation, however the practices themselves are vastly different.

FGM is far more harmful to women in the short and long terms, and creates a huge variety of horrible injuries depending on how it is actually performed.

The fact that most of the time it’s done by people without any sort of medical experience, with contaminated tools and a distinct lack of care towards the woman, as well as it often being carried out on young girls/women, is very different to circumcision.

Circumcision is normally carried out on babies, in a controlled medical environment, and carries almost no long term issues.

In no way am I for circumcision, like you I think it’s abhorrent, but with the context of FGM I certainly wouldn’t compare the two, despite the fact that they are technically both genital mutilation.

[-]

eairy@reddit

however the practices themselves are vastly different.

What purpose does it serve to make this distinction? It's still mutilation, without consent or medical reason. Like any cosmetic surgery it comes with risk of complications. Over 100 babies die every year in the US from this procedure.

[-]

Zathail@reddit

vastly different

Sorrells et al (2007)[1] shows that circumcision removes the most sensitive parts of the penis which is not 'vastly different' to the intended effect of Types 1, 2 and 3 FGM.

FGM is far more harmful

I highly doubt that a small prick to draw blood (one of the many things Type 4 FGM[2] covers) is more harmful then circumcision

Circumcision is normally carried out on babies

In the west, yes. Outside of the west, not so much. For example: Indonesia, a country in which 93% of men are circumcised[3.1], the average age is between 5 and 18[3.2], The Philippines where its typical at 10-14[3.3], 7-10 for countries like Zambia[3.4], upto early 20s in countries such as South Africa [3.5]. Hell, even in The Republic of Korea (South Korea) the average age is 10-15[3.6]

In controlled medical environments

Considering a third of the global make population has been circumcised[4] and half the global population cannot access essential medical services[5] you may want to rethink that one

Carries almost no long term issues

Its just as easy to find studies that show significant risk of complication as it is short term which turns this line of arguing into a back and forth moot point.

E.g. Litwiller et al (2017) showed 11.9% while Srinivasan et al (2015) showed 0.64%

======================================

[1] Morris L Sorrells et al, Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis, BJUI 2007; 99: 864-869

[2] WHO, 2024. Female Genital Mutilation

[3.1] University of Sydney. 2016. "Male Circumcision: Latest Population Figures Revealed."

[3.2] Hull TH, Budiharsana M. "Male circumcision and penis enhancement in Southeast Asia: Matters of pain and pleasure." Reprod Health Matters, 2001, 9(18):60-67

For the remainder of [3.X]: Please see the reference page of the following publication: WHO. 2007. "Male Circumcision: Global trends and determinants of prevalence, safety and acceptability."

[3.3] Reference 34 [3.4] Reference 62 [3.5] Reference 64 [3.6] Reference 66 and 35

Thank you

[-]

mangetouttoutmange@reddit

I’m staunchly against male circumcision but I’m not such an idiot as to believe that it’s even in the same league as FGM. If you’re going to whinge about how bad your life is as a man compared to women, genital mutilation ain’t the topic to pick

[-]

Calackyo@reddit

Yeah I already acknowledged that but I'm glad you didn't miss your chance to pile on 👍

[-]

I get your point but FGM could also be done in a clinical environment with trained surgeons clean tools and anaesthetic. It would still IMO be abhorrent and so is circumcision done for any reason but medical necessity which is exceedingly rare.

I think what people are missing is that FGM has like multiple levels -- one is akin to male circumcision where they just remove the clitoral hood, but then there's more severe levels where bits or all of the labia/clitoris are removed, which I guess would be more like chopping a penis in half.

Male circumcision is harmful and shouldn't be done without a medical reason, but to say it's directly comparable to FGM is a bit incorrect.

But then again we are absolutely simply discussing degrees of awful things here. All of them are awful. Some are more awful than others, but you're right that that doesn't take away from the fact that all of them are awful.

[-]

Connell95@reddit

FGM is (rightly) banned regardless of the extent of it.

MGM should also be banned regardless of the extent of it.

There is absolutely no justification for either in the vast majority of cases, so there is no reason to argue over which is more serious – it is irrelevant, because cutting off parts of kids genitals should be illegal for everyone.

[-]

JW-92@reddit

That is all true.

Just like it used to be to be common to castrate boys and that is worse than circumcision…really the only thing that needs to be said and agreed is leave children’s genitals alone which I think we are fully in agreement about.

[-]

manonion1@reddit

The motivation for FGM is rooted in preserving virginity and "virtue" and a prerequisite for marriage, there is never a medical cause or good intention to practice it. Even if it was done hygienically it would still be for those reasons.

That's the ultimate difference between circumcision and FGM beyond the material circumstances. Circumcisions are usually done to promote good hygiene, rightly or wrongly, and there are occasionally medical reasons to be circumcised. A person deciding to circumcise their son has at least good intentions. That has never been the case with FGM. It is only ever a tool to control and harm women for the benefit of men.

I'm not saying that circumcision is fine and FGM is the only bad thing here, I'm just saying the motivations for both are very different, as are the actual practices and the amount of physical and mental trauma endured for girls vs boys.

[-]

Connell95@reddit

Nope. Circumcision is done to discourage masturbation, and to make sex less pleasurable. That was very explicitly the intent of the pro-circumcision movement of the 20th century, and also the underlying religious basis from older practices.

There is no difference in motivation between the two, and to suggest otherwise is just outright bigotry and misandry.

[-]

I didn’t say that I in anyway approved of circumcision (I don’t)

[-]

iveblinkedtwice@reddit

Aye FGM could be carried out that way, but it isn’t.

Both are undoubtably wrong (re your point about murder), however a bullet to the head is certainly “better” than torture to death or starvation.

[-]

JW-92@reddit

Morally maybe but not legally.

[-]

iveblinkedtwice@reddit

Morally is what we’re talking about.

Legally - there is also a difference between being tortured to death, and shot.

I’m being pedantic here, but being shot can potentially be covered by legal defences such as self-defence, whereas torture will also include several other criminal offences (s.18 GBH and others).

[-]

Cotterisms@reddit

Morally, how about we don’t hack at minors genitalia?

[-]

iveblinkedtwice@reddit

That’s not at all what I’m arguing for.

I’m saying there’s fundamental differences between circumcision and FGM, not to mention there can be perfectly valid medically reasons for the former.

[-]

perplexedtv@reddit

There can be a perfectly valid medical reason to amputate someone's arm. That's not in any way an argument for deciding to do it to a baby just for a laugh.

[-]

Cotterisms@reddit

And most FGM is simply a pinprick to the clit as a rite of passage. It is very rare for the full excavation to take place. Still doesn’t mean it’s ok

[-]

JW-92@reddit

Medical needed circumcision is exceedingly rare and could remain legal whilst banning it for all other reasons. It’s legal for a surgeon to cut your arm off if medically necessary that is a complete non argument.

[-]

JW-92@reddit

I’m not saying there isn’t legal differences in killing but murder is murder there is no difference legally between stabbing someone to death or hanging them to death.

Killing in self defence is not murder it’s man slaughter.

Genital mutilation of any gender should be illegal as far as I’m concerned and the way the mutilation is done has no bearing on the morality of it for me.

[-]

perplexedtv@reddit

It isn't, because it's illegal. If you made male genital mutilation illegal it would also be carried out by untrained people without anaesthetic. This is stupid logic.

[-]

reeblebeeble@reddit

Aye FGM could be carried out that way, but it isn’t.

Unless you call it elective cosmetic surgery for genitals..

[-]

Connell95@reddit

Female Genital Mutilation can take many forms, and can be performed in a variety of ways.

Male Genital Mutilation can also take many forms, and can be performed in a variety of ways.

FGM doesn’t suddenly become okay just because it is performed in a somewhat safer way and minimally invasive way. And neither does MGM.

Zathail@reddit

FGM is an umbrella term. There are several procedures that are less harmful than circumcision. The kind everyone automatically assumes (Type III, the worst one category that contains infibulation) is thankfully the least common type of FGM making up around 10% of cases.

[-]

acnebbygrl@reddit

Both are equally abhorrent. Why would one genders genital mutilations be more important than the other? Damn that’s just dark af.

[-]

Pedantichrist@reddit

I have had that conversation.

It feels like mitigating babies’ genitals should not be a gendered issue. It is just wrong.

We do not have distinctions between male and female CSAM why for cutting genitals?

[-]

HackTheNight@reddit

Well since you don’t seem to understand the different let us enlighten you.

With female circumcision it’s performed as a way to HURT WOMEN so they are discouraged from having sex and/or sex is painful and unenjoyable.

With boys, circumcision is done for health purposes (REGARDLESS OF THIS BEING INCORRECT) the belief is that it is helping the child. So it’s done for the complete opposite reason.

Also, sex is still enjoyable for men who are circumcised.

So these two things are very different.

This group of anti-circumcision men are one step away from saying taking a shit is the same discomfort as childbirth.

Go somewhere with your whiney ass bullshit.

[-]

Fresh_Expression7475@reddit

The main difference is that FGM is designed to hinder or prohibit sexual gratification from the female so not only is it physical and sexual abuse it is also used as gender oppression as opposed to male circumcision.

[-]

CarrieDurst@reddit

Sorry your flatmate is so sexist

[-]

Neither_Monitor_7473@reddit

Thank you for referring to my genitals as mutilated. Awesome way to make your point !

[-]

Neither circumcision nor the lack of circumcision is “bad” or “good.” Each poses certain health benefits and risks.

Uncircumcised penises are vulnerable to infection and conditions like balanitis, phimosis, and paraphimosis. Having a foreskin may also increase the risk of getting sexually transmitted infections like HIV, HPV, and genital herpes.

While circumcision is relatively safe, there may be a risk of infection and other post-op complications.

With that said, unlike genital mutilation, circumcision is generally not associated with the loss of sensitivity, sexual function, or fertility.

[-]

BloodOfSatan666@reddit

Feminists are just that: I suffer more.

[-]

dfinkelstein@reddit

"You weren't raped. You're a guy. You can't even get pregnant. What happened to you is awful. It's violent sexual assault. But it's not rape. That would water down how bad rape is for people who were actually raped."

diwalk88@reddit

I'm anti-circumcision and agree that it's genital mutilation, but there absolutely are significant differences between FGM and male circumcision and denying it is offensive. FGM completely destroys a young girl's sexual function and often causes constant pain for the rest of her life. The equivalent for a man would be to cut off the head of the penis, not just remove the foreskin. They literally cut out her clitoris and sew her labia together so she can never feel sexual pleasure and instead is in constant pain. Removing the foreskin can reduce sensitivity, but it is not in the same universe as FGM.

[-]

Sternschnuppepuppe@reddit

I agree that both are terrible practices, but one that stands out for FGM is that it often involves removal of the outer part of the clitoris. That would be like cutting of the tip of the penis during circumcision…

[-]

FrancoElBlanco@reddit

It’s so toxic when you argue about something which is clearly wrong and someone’s only counter is essentially “well women have it worse because of x,y,z”

Whilst that could be true in some cases does that just now negate what you’re saying?

This is common.

Own-Holiday-4071@reddit

Why is it then that it seems like standard procedure in America, for reasons that have nothing to do with religion?

Apparently it’s a hygiene thing but we don’t do that here and it’s not like all British men are suffering from an epidemic of genital infections.

How is it that they’ve managed to convince such a large country that it’s something that needs to be done?

[-]

lesterbottomley@reddit

It became widespread due to Kellogg campaigning for it iirc.

That’s actually plausible

[-]

DeltaJesus@reddit

Cornflakes were invented for the same reason

This is quite commonly said online but isn't actually true. Cornflakes (which were even more boring at the time) were part of his philosophy of basically not allowing any joy or excitement because he believed it would shorten your life. No masturbating was also part of that, but cornflakes weren't specifically intended to reduce it.

He also wasn't actually the one that invented cornflakes, that was his brother, who was the one that actually created the cereal company.

He was also a big ol racist if you needed any more reason to dislike him.

[-]

vizard0@reddit

I'm still annoyed that my pub quiz said that he was. I had the correct answer (no, cornflakes were not invented by the kellog company). Wasn't the cause of us coming in 5th (the music round did that), but I'm still a touch salty about it.

[-]

drunk_responses@reddit

It wasn't invented for that specifically, but he did promoted it as part of a way to reduce masturbation and general sexual desire.

Who actually invented it is debated. And his brothers wife, Ella, most likely played a large part in the invention.

He based his philosophy on that of Sylvester Graham, who promoted temperance and was the guy who popularized the idea in America that masturbation makes you blind. Which leads to the fun fact that those preachings about a plain diet and abstinence made him the namesake of graham crackers.

[-]

But then they’re getting two tips

[-]

originaldonkmeister@reddit

Boom boom

[-]

Circumcised men had reduced odds of HPV detection in urine.

This does not support circumcision but supports alternative detection methods for HPV in circumcised males when investigating HPV in populations.

Tbh you would be better off quoting the sources they cited directly.

[-]

wes1971@reddit

While I am not advocating for circumcision, the very begging of the study says, “It is well-established that male circumcision reduces acquisition of HIV, herpes simplex virus 2, chancroid, and syphilis. However, the effect on the acquisition of non-ulcerative sexually transmitted infections (STIs) remains unclear.”

[-]

MarrV@reddit

Yes, quick it then cites the sources for that. If you are going to advocate that statement then the source you cite should be the ones that support that statement not just parrot it.

[-]

wes1971@reddit

The sources are at the bottom of the study.

[-]

MarrV@reddit

Missing the point. You provided a source that does not support what you think it does.

Yes! And people will always justify it by saying 'but it has always happened', or 'but it's for hygiene reasons'.

Fuck that. How about how circumcision reduces sensitivity of the 'gland', that's not good. And who says it's cleaner, there's nothing wrong with mine.

Would it be the same if it was suddenly a thing to remove middle fingers at birth due to religion/culture, or ears, or anything? Of course not. But a boys foreskin is fair game.

[-]

Agent-Blasto-007@reddit

How about how circumcision reduces sensitivity of the 'gland'

So I got circumcised when I was 20, and while this is true, I only noticed a difference when I was "soft".

When it came to sex there was absolutely no difference before/after circumcision.

It's really not that big of a deal, but thata just my experience.

[-]

Able-Brother-7953@reddit

Exactly the same for me, except I was 26.

If anything, sex was more enjoyable, as my foreskin couldn't retract properly.

[-]

Eayauapa@reddit

That would come under a medical reason.

Just because yours didn't work as it should doesn't mean nobody should have one.

[-]

Able-Brother-7953@reddit

That's why I said exactly the same for me.

'merica is all whoo circumcision. Due to Dr Kellog of the the cornflakes fame being pro circumcision.

He observed that people locked up in lunatic asylums tended to rub one out more than he approved of. Probably something about being incarcerated in a nut house with nothing better to do. However he concluded that fapping leads to being mental. Ergo, no nut = no nuttiness.

He then promoted circumcision as a way to deter people from fiddling with it. As the head is more sensitive to being dry rubbed and can be uncomfortable .People twigged lotion gets round that quite quickly. Wonder how much CO2 etc has been pumped into the atmosphere to produce all the lotion? Just so American can have a nice wank. How many bottles is that?

[-]

originaldonkmeister@reddit

In fairness, we'd have never had the Krazy Glue lamp scene in American Pie without that... Whilst Jim is Jewish, the whole lotion thing might not have been well-known enough to make the joke work.

[-]

Apprehensive_Guest59@reddit

I never considered the effects of wanking on climate change, does lotion have a large carbon footprint?

[-]

Happylittlecultist@reddit

300m Americans, over the decades it must mean a lot of bottles produced, shipped, driven home etc. it's got to have added up to something by now.

[-]

abw@reddit

I guess that's not a religious thing.

I think it falls into the "It's just the way it's done in (God bless) America" category. But it does feature the same kind of indoctrination as found in many religions.

For many (but not all) Americans, deciding to not circumcise a baby is admitting that there's something wrong with circumcision. Which in turn means admitting that there's something wrong with the way things are done in America.

That doesn't compute. Many of them have the mindset, drilled into them from birth, that America is the greatest nation on Earth. They somehow equate that to meaning that everything that happens in America is perfect and beyond reproach. Admitting that something needs changing requires them first to admit that something is wrong with the current system. It's very hard for progressive ideas like that to take hold. It's just too "woke" for a lot of them.

"I was circumcised so my child will be circumcised" is easier than admitting that perhaps they shouldn't have been circumcised in the first place.

See also: gun control and the metric system

NOTE: this is NOT true of ALL Americans. Many are progressive and free-thinking. But a large number of them have this shuttered mindset which is why it's very hard to affect widespread cultural change in controversial matters.

[-]

LaSalsiccione@reddit

It's a cultural thing and you can blame Will Keith Kellogg for that one. They do it at birth, not later in life.

[-]

rachy182@reddit

On the same vein… piercing a baby’s ears. Went past a Claire’s the other day with a baby screaming because they just had their ears pierced.

[-]

originaldonkmeister@reddit

FFS, so chavvy. I worked for an Indian couple where the mum wanted to pierce their baby daughter's ears because culture/she was mental and nasty. The dad was dead against it because he was a nice bloke and a good dad.

She had it done behind his back and I had a very frosty week at work where he barely even looked at her, let alone said a word.

(She was massively racist against all non-Indian people too, and said horrible things whenever she saw disabled children walk past the shop, if that helps anyone conjure up some ire)

[-]

FloatingRevolver@reddit

I'm happy I was circumcised.... My family isn't even religious, but Im perfectly happy with what I have, wouldn't change a thing

[-]

Environmental_Rip_25@reddit

I have a genuine question because I don't understand. When people say 'I was glad I was circumcised' when they have been that way since birth, how do you know you like it if you have never experienced it any other way? All I can think is you just don't know what you are missing out on?

[-]

FloatingRevolver@reddit

I like the way it looks, I'm happy with the size. I'm also bi and prefer a circumsized unit on a sexual partner

[-]

Environmental_Rip_25@reddit

And honestly you can turn all your questions back on someone who wasn't circumcised

You know what a foreskin is right? You realise I can just pull mine down and I can experience what it's like to be circumcised?

For sure, it's not like FGM would suddenly become acceptable if it was somehow done to a "lesser" extent

[-]

glasgowgeg@reddit

Circumcising a healthy baby boy is child abuse and should probably be illegal

I'd include an exemption for medical necessity, but without medical necessity, it's abuse.

[-]

Environmental_Rip_25@reddit

you quoted what I said and still missed the part where i said healthy?

[-]

glasgowgeg@reddit

Depends on how you define healthy. Phimosis doesn't necessarily mean you're unhealthy, but it's a medical condition that can be addressed with circumcision.

Physiologic phimosis can go away on its own and doesn't necessitate treatment, but congenital or acquired phimosis don't.

One thing I have found very interesting — and I hope you don’t mind me attaching this to your comment, u/Environmental_Rip_25 as it’s more of a parallel conversation — are the instances of phimosis in adult men in the UK.

I’m from Australia, where many guys still are circumcised. I’ve certainly been with a number of uncircumcised guys back home, but the first guy I ever met who had phimosis (a tight foreskin that can’t fully pull back during arousal, or at least not without severe pain/discomfort) grew up in the UK, and of the seven guys I’ve met since who have it, five were English, one was Irish, and one was born in Aus but to Scottish parents. This number is not including the guys I’ve seen online who have phimosis but whom I’ve not met with… who seem also to have been from the UK.

I know my stats cannot be taken too seriously but given how they’ve come up and me finding it interesting enough to then research, it seems like this condition is more common in cultures where circumcision HAS been common, and then stopped — so then (if I’m understanding correctly?) the parents don’t know how to naturally encourage the son to just engage normal behaviour that would stretch the foreskin and prevent (or at least, minimise) phimosis.

Not having grown up with a penis, or wanting kids of my own, I don’t really know how that process all works. I gather that some of it involved just not discouraging normal masturbation or stuff as young people are growing up? … Which also makes it interesting that some of the cultures that seem to encourage circumcision are ones that discourage masturbation… But I’m just spitballing here and maybe that’s just incidental.

Anyway. I do wonder if the instances of phimosis will drop as things change. I’ve not really ever asked any of these guys about their phimosis since I figure it’s either a sensitive subject (it does seem to change the shape of the glans, too, and just generally it’s not felt appropriate in the circumstances to draw attention to something that may be ‘different’) or, in some cases, I don’t even know if they’ve realised it’s not the norm. Because there are some treatments available, and to my knowledge, none of these guys that I’ve met have sought them out previously.

Anyway. I just mention this here because it’s something that I have felt is a discussion relevant to circumcision in the UK. I hope that either more men may seek treatment to help their sex lives become easier with phimosis (as far as I gather, treatment often involves a short prescription of steroids to help somehow with the skin, and then foreskin stretching exercises for about a month?), since it does limit what is comfortable for these men to do — and again, it does seem to affect the shape/development of the penis/glans (I say this because I have noticed a particular shape in men who have phimosis that isn’t really as common in men without it) — but also I hope that maybe it’s something that will become less common in future generations because uncircumcised dads or knowledgeable mums will actually be able to be aware of “normal” development and ensure their kid can stay happy and healthy. :)

(And again, I just want to clarify — I am not just raising this as purely an aesthetic/superficial issue. In my experience thus far, it does actually impact sex because it will either hurt the penis if anything is happening that may encourage the foreskin to be naturally retracting, or it will cause discomfort/fuss afterwards when extra care and time has to be applied to get it back where it needs to be… Phimosis has never not caused some issue during sexual encounters for the guy, where guys without phimosis haven't had the same issues or concerns.)

[-]

MarrV@reddit

The incidence rate of phimosis changes as a child ages into adulthood, often self resolving over time. The NHS tracks such issues and must have a policy in place that acts when it becomes a medical issue.

So, as I can not find a medical research paper supporting a higher rate of phimosis in the UK, I would suspect ifs a byproduct of having a public health system that actively tracks such issues as normal and therefore catches and acts to resolve the issue faster other locations.

[-]

TravelTree_@reddit

That’s interesting… I wasn’t aware that the NHS tracks phimosis.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but because there are grades/degrees of phimosis, would they be aware of phimosis when it looks ‘normal’ when not erect, but is very clearly adult phimosis with an erection? I wonder if that’s why it’s getting missed — if it’s not so extreme that the foreskin won’t retract at all (which I’ve not seen on any of these guys — it generally retracts ‘comfortably’ at least halfway down the glans, or close to), I wonder if it’s something that just maybe doesn’t get picked up?

I hope that makes sense… I’m a little sleep-deprived right now so may have missed something in what you said, or not have expressed myself clearly. :)

[-]

MarrV@reddit

The NHS would be aware of all degrees of it at all ages, it's a massive organisation. 140k full time doctors, 1.5 million employees.

The basic info is online to all https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/phimosis/

Amd treatment pathways are available online https://www.hweclinicalguidance.nhs.uk/all-clinical-areas-documents/download?cid=1632&checksum=30f766db838f8de3f250320e797a344f&document=22&field=1

Generally speaking, the NHS has one of the most complete recording of human health conditions (fornthe UK climate) as it is not selective in any way about who uses it so things like phimosis would be tracked just as a matter of course.

[-]

SolidSquid@reddit

Circumcision is cosmetic surgery, it's fine if you're an adult and can decide to do it for yourself, but doing it to a child, never mind an infant, is immoral, and can be genuinely dangerous

I mean, that's a bit poorly worded - "outside of the US" is most of the planet, and to ask if something is "normal" in the entire rest of the planet is a bit daft.

DrBix@reddit

As someone who isn't religious, the primary reason I see for circumcision boils down to health and hygiene. Historically, it was believed to help with cleanliness and reduce disease risk. Modern medical studies support this to some extent, indicating potentially lower risks of certain infections. It's important to note that while there are various perspectives out there, legitimate medical studies are based on data, not opinions.

Considering that a significant portion of the global population lives in areas where diseases can spread quickly and have severe impacts, and recognizing that not everyone maintains optimal hygiene, if circumcision can offer even a slight preventive benefit against diseases and death, I support it. I'm not a clean freak either.

I'm circumcised myself and honestly, it's never really something I think about. I don't remember it happening, and it doesn't affect my day-to-day life, with today being an exception since we're talking about it.

[-]

MarrV@reddit

Depends on the historical angle, it was primarily religious until Kelogg promoted it as part of his anti masterbatioj campaign in the US.

The rate of lower infections, done by reputable and peer reviewed studies is fractional of a percentage, from memory is single digit % of a subset of % that itself is a subset of the study group.

Hygiene is not really a fact anymore than maintaining hygiene by washing your arse crack, if you struggle with washing your arse crack then I can see you struggling with washing your penis.

It is widely considered a desensitisation, which is why kelogg promoted it for anti masterbation in the US which bled over to other cultures.

Using your narrative of supporting it for health and hygiene might as well remove the appendix at birth as well, it has zero benefits and can kill you if it goes wrong. But that is not done.

As a general rule, your, or my, anecdotal experience of this is irrelevant, it should be solely a medical decision done with informed consent of the parents, and when possible the child.

[-]

ThisIsNotRealityIsIt@reddit

Great Britain has about 5% circumcision rate. The United States has something like 85%. I want my foreskin back god damn it.

[-]

MarrV@reddit

Luckily, the newborn circumcision rate is down to 58.x%, so it's going to decrease over time.

It's still over 10x higher than the UKs, though.

[-]

1dontknowanythingy@reddit

The fact they are doing it for religious reasons makes it even worse.

[-]

banisheduser@reddit

It's a tough one as culture is the way someone wants to live and bring up their kids.

Are we saying that parents don't have the right to bring their kids up how they believe is right?

Are you also saying parents shouldn't get their kids ears pierced? Or baptised? Immunised? Support a specific football team?

How far to we go with what parents are allowed to force on their kids?

I don't agree with circumcising babies but there needs to be heavy debate with people who have open minds to find a solution.

If you firmly decide you'll never change your view, that discussion isn't for you.

[-]

as_it_was_written@reddit

Are we saying that parents don't have the right to bring their kids up how they believe is right?

Isn't it obvious that depends on what the parents' beliefs are? There's a whole bunch of abusive behavior that parents aren't allowed to do to their children, regardless of what they believe.

With circumcision, specifically, it's a bit complicated since there's some evidence it has genuine health benefits. If it was purely a cultural thing, I don't think it should be allowed, just like I don't think parents should be allowed to cut off other pieces of their children's bodies for spurious reasons.

Imagine, for a moment, a world where circumcision didn't exist. A friend of yours just had their first child and tells you: "hey, we had the doctor cut off a piece of our baby's dick." How fucked up would that be? Is it really much less fucked up because a bunch of other people also do it? (It's not like most parents who have their kids circumcised do so for medical reasons.)

Are you also saying parents shouldn't get their kids ears pierced? Or baptised? Immunised? Support a specific football team?

I'd say kids - and society at large - would likely be better off if parents didn't do any of those things except immunization. Piercing their ears is imposing physical harm, minor as it may be, on a child to please your own sense of aesthetics; baptism is either pointless or the beginning of religious indoctrination; and purposely pulling kids into sports-team tribalism is just weird.

How far to we go with what parents are allowed to force on their kids?

Not far when it comes to permanent physical changes without proven medical benefits. A child is their own person and should have as much bodily autonomy as is reasonably possible. They're not their parents' property to do with as they please.

[-]

Environmental_Rip_25@reddit

No it's not a tough one. 1. Yes I'm saying a parent shouldn't have the right to have an unnecessary cosmetic surgery performed on their child. 2. Yes I also think parents shouldn't pierce their children's ears (or give them tattoos). Immunised is necessary for keeping them safe, baptism and football team, neither are harmful or permanent. 3. Just because you have a child doesn't mean you own that child, they are their own person, just because you want to chop off their left pinky doesn't mean you should be allowed. There is no discussion that could change my view, chopping off other peoples body parts without their consent is a bad thing, I think most people would agree. And if you think that's debatable then the discussion isn't for you.

[-]

banisheduser@reddit

I can see you're ticked off but you can debate without snarky comments.

The issue is that if you don't have a particular cultural practice, it's hard, nigh on impossible to understand. No, I don't agree with circumcision because it's not my culture or religion. But there are things that I try to follow because of the religion I am part of and so I bring my children up to be similar.

I don't agree with the culture of gun carrying but speak to parents in Texas and I'm sure they'd agree kids should learn how to handle guns early. It's in their culture.

Yes, this isn't physically changing someone's body but is that where the line is drawn? Physical no, but potentially mental approach to life is okay?

For the record, I don't agree either but kids say they want something one day, then the next they say no. Even teens do things they regret. So when is it acceptable for ears pierced?

It would also be interesting to see numbers of 25 year olds who don't care their parents did it to them, are pleased or think it was awful / don't like it. Then a step further (but impossible to find out now), what this result would have been if you'd taken a poll 20 years ago.

Remember, people thought it was acceptable to use black people as slaves. Today we're better than that. We are better than circumcision on babies too! But you absolutely can't just expect to change a culture or religion within the space of a few months. Leaders of that religion need to make the changes. And to change a culture? Yeah, let's revisit American gun culture again. Change that.

[-]

Environmental_Rip_25@reddit

sorry for there snarky comments but I was just in shock that I was having to explain to an adult that there is a difference between chopping off someones body part and introducing them to a football team.

[-]

CarrieDurst@reddit

All this is different than mutilating a baby boy or girl

[-]

thegreatvortigaunt@reddit

Absolutely disgusting comment.

[-]

banisheduser@reddit

Thanks for the feedback. Telling me why and helping me understand may help me not be so disgusting...

[-]

thegreatvortigaunt@reddit

Are you also saying parents shouldn't get their kids ears pierced? Or baptised? Immunised? Support a specific football team?

Comparing baptism or vaccination to mutilating a baby's genitals is an absolutely insane comparison, and you've created a disgusting fake narrative by doing it.

If you firmly decide you'll never change your view, that discussion isn't for you.

No, I will not change my view about genital mutilation. And neither should you.

Don't equate abuse and mutilation to 'letting a parent choose'.

[-]

StuckWithThisOne@reddit

Absolutely none of those things are comparable to removing the foreskin. You can’t grow your foreskin back. You can take out earrings.

[-]

Elegant_Run_8562@reddit

To go one step further....

Telling your child the things that you believe to be true or actually true is also abuse.

Indoctrination is abuse.

Religion is for people to choose, not be lied to about.

[-]

LovelyxSapphire@reddit

In the age of dazzling bright LED headlamps flashing your lights at someone to thank them is fucking moronic.

Nothing says cheers bud like 6 million uber-lumens right to the retina.

[-]

RevolutionaryPace167@reddit

My nephew was circumcised - religious reasons. He was furious once he grew up. He believes that it was abuse.

[-]

Katiescanlon_@reddit

I second this

[-]

AppointmentFluid8741@reddit

I’m kinda happy I was snipped. Don’t have to worry about dick cheese.

Clitoral phimoses is a thing and I have known people who had uncomfortably large labias that needed to be trimmed, the solutions by definition would fall under FGM so please stop lying

[-]

Gibs960@reddit

They wouldn't come under definitions of FGM in the slightest, they're literally medical conditions.

I'd also appreciate it if you didn't accuse me of lying.

[-]

Do you think it's incorrect to label cosmetic amputation (which would otherwise be a medical procedure) as "mutilating a baby"?

[-]

Gibs960@reddit

No, and that isn't what I'm saying.

Would you label an amputation due to cancer as mutilation? Of course you wouldn't, which is what I'm arguing for about the idea of blanket labelling circumcision as mutilation.

[-]

51onions@reddit

blanket labelling

It sounds like we might agree then. Apologies if I misunderstood you.

My position is that circumcision is mutilation if done without medical grounds, and is not mutilation if done with sufficient medical justification.

[-]

Connell95@reddit

There are almost no real reasons for male genital mutilation.

Most of the cases advanced as ‘reasons’ for it are nonsense and can be treated in other better ways. And in any case 99% of cases of male genital mutilation are imposed on babies and young children by their parents for purely aesthetic, anti-sex or cultural ’reasons’, which is exactly the same basis as female genital mutilation. And is equally abhorrent in each case.

[-]

Odii_SLN@reddit

Literally genital mutilation. 💯

[-]

fairie_poison@reddit

Americans think cropping a dogs ears for aesthetics (truly does not effect the dog later in life) is cruel but then circumcise their infant. Crazy circle to square.

[-]

erythro@reddit

also don’t care if it’s a part of your religion/culture, it’s abuse

You've misunderstood the argument. The point is you consider it abuse because it's not part of your culture.

[-]

Far_Quote_5336@reddit

Clearly sponsored by the dick cheese industrial complex

[-]

inthepipe_fivebyfive@reddit

Agreed. In my head same goes for ear piercings on babies. Welcome to life...right so we are just gonna whack a hole in your ear.

[-]

Regular_Kiwi_6775@reddit

100%. My son's body is still HIS body, even though he's a baby. My job is to take care of him by making choices that promote his health and protect his safety. Those are the only instances where I get to make decisions about his body for him. Outdated religious traditions are neither of those things.

[-]

Collooo@reddit

What about if there is a recurring medical issue amongst men within a family? Who all had to get it done as adults.

YouSayWotNow@reddit

I have been told more than once that I'm anti-semitic for expressing the view that circumcision should be done for Messi reasons only. Which doesn't even acknowledge that it is not a solely Jewish tradition.

Reminds me of the quote

happyspanners94@reddit

Mate, I don't know how I can make this any clearer to you, this view is only mine in the context that these prisoners are already being executed in this hypothetical world. I have already stated that I don't believe them to be infallible and that I think the level of proof required is effectively impossible to reach for me, and as such I would require 0 innocent people to be executed.

I'm done with this discussion, since you are incapable of understanding anything being said, if you can't get the gist of my point here I'll be going back and forth all day. In my absence consider re reading these messages and working it out.

[-]

MaxwellsGoldenGun@reddit

Oh Jesus Christ you're quite thick aren't you

[-]

glasgowgeg@reddit

Mate, I don't know how I can make this any clearer to you, this view is only mine in the context that these prisoners are already being executed in this hypothetical world

Again, I explicitly asked you the question within that context, I've already explained this to you, but I'll paste it, and make it bold again, so you can see:

"I'm asking you, in that context, if you believe the judiciary to be infallible, and if not, how many innocent people can be executed for it to be worth it."

I'm done with this discussion, since you are incapable of understanding anything being said

See above, where you're repeatedly ignoring I'm explicitly asking you within the context of the hypothetical presented. You're "done" because you can't answer the question, and you're evading instead.

In my absence consider re reading these messages and working it out.

first it was an OPINION... now when i mentioned violence.. you have created another issue..

to me, if i am in prison for something - anything - i have broken a law.. so i cant get on my holier than thou attitude. and what if i dont like someone who hits woman? if i was in prison should i beat that guy up? what if someone else doesnt like violent robbery, should he beat those people up? what about murder... to me murder is probably right up there.. should we all be beating murderers in prison??

[-]

OldGodsAndNew@reddit

Have an issue with vigilantism

[-]

TheNecroFrog@reddit

Yes. Whilst I have no issues morally with a paedophile being beaten up ethnically and legally it’s a big no-no.

[-]

After a bit if quick maths about 5.65 million houses are under landlords in the UK, enough to house potentially 15 million young families if we assume they have 3 members in a household (or more or less if they have more than 3 household members in one house/ only 1 )

Landlords are evil.

[-]

Jack124683579@reddit

I wonder how many thousands and thousands and thousands of homes would come up for first time buyers if we just abolished landlords tommorrow 🤔🤔

[-]

Sirlacker@reddit

Yeah man definitely, let's fuck the guy who's renting out the only house he owned at the time for less than market value and barely covering the mortgage because he moved in to his partners house. Yeah that guy sucks absolute dick.

[-]

Hobgoblin_Khanate@reddit

Well he could sell it no? Are we supposed to feel sorry for him for moving into his partners?

Below market rate means fuckall these days when rent is a ripoff anyway.

Landlords are parasites we don’t need them

[-]

ur right and you should say it

[-]

TheNecroFrog@reddit

My Brother is a police officer and once received a compensation cheque in the post after someone had been found guilty of assault whilst being arrested. I can’t remember the value, but it was less than a quid.

[-]

Shoddy-Computer2377@reddit

People also need to stop believing that "He stole £400k but was ordered to pay back just £1" bullshit.

The "£1" is a nominal default amount because he currently can't pay. He is still liable and anything he earns will be raided.

[-]

Shriven@reddit

The issues are 1) what do you even mean? Replacing stolen items, sure, but how much is a punch to the face worth?

2) criminals don't tend to have money

3) this is already how it works.

[-]

discombobulatededed@reddit

I got punched in the face at work (security) and the girl was ordered to pay me £50 compensation haha. To be fair, she only scraped me and at the time I was pretty hard up so it came in handy!

[-]

TG161__@reddit

I can think of a few people I'd gladly pay 50 quid to punch in fairness. I say yay.

[-]

Ze_Gremlin@reddit

£45 and I'll let you take a swing at me.

Sounds like you’ve got the makings of a business model there. When are your next available appointments?

[-]

discombobulatededed@reddit

With Christmas round the corner, I’m taking back to back bookings!

[-]

didndonoffin@reddit

I got £250 for a black in a similar situation about 15 years back

[-]

Davido401@reddit

£250 for a black in

this is already how it works.

Where? Not everywhere, certainly.

[-]

BrissBurger@reddit

Regarding (1): obviously things that have no immediate financial value would need to be assessed pretty much how it is now.

Regarding (2): tough - they would carry that debt for life.

Regarding (3): no, it isn't how it already works. For example if someone defrauds a charity they work for they often do not need to pay back all the money they stole as it is assessed on their current assets. My suggestion is that people would have pay back the full amount in addition to any punishment.

[-]

FellowTraveler69@reddit

Regarding (2): tough - they would carry that debt for life.

You want to reintroduce debt slavery and debtors' prisons too by chance?

[-]

EfficientRegret@reddit

I don’t think it’s unreasonable for a thief who burgled someone’s house and stole their jewellery for profit to be ordered to pay back the victim

[-]

Gator2Romeo0@reddit

How are you going to make them pay? if they just simply refuse to work?

[-]

FellowTraveler69@reddit

I think shipping them to Australia is still an option in this guy's head lol.

[-]

Over-Cold-8757@reddit

You're confusing criminal and civil matters.

The charity can absolutely sue privately to get back the money.

[-]

BrissBurger@reddit

Agreed. I think my comment was not complete: I should have said that the compensation should be awarded as part of the criminal trial by default and it should not be necessary for victims to have to bring a seperate prosecution.

[-]

[-]

Wentzina_lifetime@reddit

Not if your wife leaves you because you look ugly now and you have to pay child maintenance fees. Now punch in the face=50% of your salary.

[-]

Mac4491@reddit

You could, but the issue of them not having the necessary funds to compensate you still applies.

saulbq@reddit

Victims and their families can sue criminals for damages, including punitive damages. They will almost certainly receive a substantial judgement in their favour. However, the chances of enforcing that judgement are quite low. The criminals who are caught are often mentally ill, addicted to various substances ranging from alcohol to fentanyl, lead dysfunctional lives, have no assets, do not work, and are frequently in and out of prison. There is simply no point in suing them. While some professional criminals (often dangerous psychopaths) profit from crimes such as burglary, drug trafficking, and more, they rarely get caught and therefore cannot be sued, and you wouldn't want to mess with them. Ordinary people with jobs and assets seldom commit crimes.

[-]

No-Structure-8125@reddit

Yess. My ex boyfriend smashed up my car with a hammer and the courts only ordered him to pay me £100 😂

Yes thank you court, that definitely covered the cost of all the repairs.

[-]

endoflevelbaddy@reddit

I got assaulted by my sisters boyfriend in 2007, and was awarded 2.5K from the court.

He paid me £25 a month...

Rubbish.

There's only one breed regularly killing people.

My kid could fight off a chihuahua if it decided to attack them but they wouldn't stand a chance against an XL bully.

I love dogs and had all sorts of breeds growing up including a German Shepherd, a Ridgeback and various crossbreeds of various size and statute. I currently have a Jack Russell.

I still firmly believe there's something fundamentally wrong with XL bullies.

[-]

Mr_DnD@reddit

I still firmly believe there's something fundamentally wrong with XL bullies.

As anyone who has read the tale (pun intended) will know. If he was a real boy he would have an ASBO

And I STILL get excited by seeing a squirrel outside my house. If I saw a rat I would be more likely to have a panic attack. Go figure.

[-]

MysteryRockClub@reddit

Mine was that squirrel that helped us cross the road. Good guy.

[-]

gandyg@reddit

I entirely agree about Squirrel Nutkin and rats!

Also a child of the 80s. Beatrix Potter was a definite cog in the squirrel PR machine.

Ratty in the Wind In The Willows wasn't even a rat! Total conspiracy!

[-]

evilgiraffee57@reddit

Exactly. He was called Ratty... that was his name. And we all know in 2024 that names do not define people!

I will be honest... circa 1991 I was in my Grandparents church production of Toad of Toad Hall. I think I was a weasel. (I wore brown not white) but I could have been a stoat...

I also played a rabbit in a different scene, just changed my ears.

Never seen a real one of either in my life or in a BBC documentary.

I officially declare them both to be ferrits that have been to the hairdressers

[-]

oldandinvisible@reddit

A weasel is weasily recognised, a stoat is stotally different

[-]

InevitableFox81194@reddit

Productions of Toad of Toad Hall were at their highest in the 90s.. we all went nuts, pun intended, for it. I'm not sure why, but I just remember everyone loving Wind In the Willows..

[-]

OreoSpamBurger@reddit

"Water Rat" was the colloquial name for a Water Vole in some parts of the country though!

[-]

RobertTheSpruce@reddit

It's just PTSD brought about that godawful cunt Roland Rat.

I lived in a static caravan for a few years, it was great fun except it was next door to a scrap yard that was full of rats.

Once a rat climbed out of the toilet and went crazy jumping round the bathroom. My husband killed it with a frying pan. It was the size of a rabbit, it was so scary.

If a squirrel climbed out of the toilet, bushy tail or not, it’s getting the frying pan!!!

[-]

HailToTheKingslayer@reddit

"Consider, for a moment, the world a rat lives in. It's a hostile world, indeed. If a rat were to scamper through your front door right now, would you greet it with hostility?"

"I suppose I would."

"Has a rat ever done anything to you to create this animosity you feel towards them?"

"Rats spread diseases. They bite people."

This. Kids seem to discuss this ALL the time. When I were a lad, it was 100% a no-no!

The only people who knew my salary when I was working were my bosses, people in HR, and my wife!

Why would anyone else need to know?!

[-]

mand658@reddit

To keep the powers that be accountable..

Discussing salary with coworkers is considered a no-no because it benefits the bosses for you not to know what each other are earning or discussing whether it should be more...

Edit: word choice

[-]

And don't put words in my mouth. You either believe that different people can be paid differently for the same job based on ability or you don't. You clearly believe that because you are paid more than your colleagues. Why don't you give your extra up and give it to the lowest paid on your level?

The point I was making is that companies are not going to magically spend more on salaries because they become public. They are going to just make everyone earn the same average as before. Maybe it will have an impact on companies where the average is below market and new employees joining result in it being pulled up.

[-]

Refflet@reddit

The salary range will narrow initially, but only from the bottom. Typically those who earn more do so because of their experience and competency, so it isn't as likely as you make out that they won't get pay rises as not giving them a raise would cause them to go elsewhere - and businesses don't want to lose their best employees. Of course, there are a few who earn well above what they should while doing relatively little, these people might see the effects you're talking about.

And don't put words in my mouth. You either believe that different people can be paid differently for the same job based on ability or you don't. You clearly believe that because you are paid more than your colleagues. Why don't you give your extra up and give it to the lowest paid on your level?

You're the one putting words in my mouth lol. I haven't said people couldn't be paid different amounts for the same job, but nor does me being paid more mean that I think people should be paid more. The reason I'm paid more is because I do a wider range of jobs and have solid experience and skills, and the average I was referring to is simply the overall median for the nation.

What I think is that the current system is wrong and needs to be improved.

While you're right that companies with try to spend the same on salaries, the effect public salaries will have is increasing the pressure on companies to pay more. High earners will still apply pressure through their skills, but lower earners being taken advantage of will have the benefit of knowing what's happening, and thus be able to argue better themselves.

The proof is in the pudding, of course, but like I say I think Sweden will prove you wrong.

[-]

mand658@reddit

And people with the same experience getting the same wage for the same job if fair...

If there are performances issues then that needs to be dealt with separately to pay .. underperforming team members should be helped to improve or managed out...

[-]

Whoisthehypocrite@reddit

But the effect won't be that people with same experience get paid the same but that people with the same job title but potentially different experience get paid the same.

It is a difficult situation as some jobs there is little benefit to experience beyond same 5 years and others there is a big difference between 10 and 20 years experience. It is not a one size fits all world.

It will be terrible if the result of this policy is that underperforming team members get forced out as you suggest. Not everyone is equal, some people have different views of what working hard is, some people struggle to focus at times.

[-]

mand658@reddit

"But the effect won't be that people with same experience get paid the same but that people with the same job title but potentially different experience get paid the same" - I don't agree,

"I should get the same as x" "Well x has 5 years more exp than you so no"

Simples

"It is a difficult situation as some jobs there is little benefit to experience beyond same 5 years and others there is a big difference between 10 and 20 years experience. It is not a one size fits all world."

so where the experience is relevant there's a difference in pay, where the experience is irrelevant there isn't...

Simples

"It will be terrible if the result of this policy is that underperforming team members get forced out as you suggest. Not everyone is equal, some people have different views of what working hard is, some people struggle to focus at times."

Did you miss the bit where I said they should be helped first?

I'm getting paid quite generously for the job I have thank you.

There's nothing stopping people from discussing salary in the UK..

It's actually illegal for employers to prevent staff from discussing pay.

[-]

Refflet@reddit

You're wrong, but it's a common misconception.

In the UK, you can direct your employees to not disclose their salary. This is known as ‘pay secrecy.’ However, you may not be able to enforce it under UK laws.

The exemption I mentioned is the Equality Act 2010:

A term of a person's work that purports to prevent or restrict the person (P) from disclosing or seeking to disclose information about the terms of P's work is unenforceable against P in so far as P makes or seeks to make a relevant pay disclosure.

A "relevant pay disclosure" in this context means relevant in determining if the Equality Act has been violated. In other words, if pay discrepancy is due to discrimination against a protected class, eg sex, age, race, etc.

My initial comment was also not quite right, though. It's not automatically illegal, however if you have a contract clause preventing you from discussing salary then that could be enforceable - unless you can argue the exemption of the Equality Act 2010.

That's a pretty easy exemption to argue, but still you've got to play your cards right. It's a bit like trying to catch a food thief - if you lace the food with laxatives, you've clearly created a boobytrap and broken the law; however if you lace the food with a lot of chilli you've got that plausible deniability in saying you just like really spicy food.

Suffice it to say, if you want to talk about pay it's best practice to have an equality excuse in your back pocket.

[-]

mand658@reddit

Fair enough.

It seems that unless it's written into a contract, you are within your rights to discuss salary...

Your initial comment read like there was something more generally legally stopping salary discussion.

I'm guessing that in most cases you could just ensure a woman is part of the discussion and that would meet for the EA criteria... "Just wanted to make sure she was earning the same as up fellas"

[-]

WerewolfNo890@reddit

Ill tell anyone that asks at work, ignoring the no talking about pay policy.

[-]

SmugDruggler95@reddit

Yeah but what about when people doing a different role find out I'm on more money than them and then become bitter.

Employee 1 - Has worked for the company for 1 year

Employee 2 - Has worked for the company for 2 years

Employee 2 can only be fired with cause, and the employer has to follow a specific process to do so, if you're arguing that's not a greater degree of job security, you're either intentionally being obtuse, or you just don't know what "greater degree of job security" means.

[-]

SwanBridge@reddit

I've enjoyed most jobs I've had and I've slowly become passionate about them over time, but at the end of the day it's still a job. In my previous job you had a lot of people who joined with it being their dream career. In my experience they burnt out a lot quicker than the others who joined as it was a good paycheck with a decent pension. They had so many preconceived notions about the role and when the reality turned out to be vastly different to what they were expecting you could see a small part of them die with it.

[-]

CrossHeather@reddit

Yeah I have a healthy relationship with my current job. I develop software and it’s nice getting a little bit better each day, taking pride over the things you build, being treated like an adult by the company etc etc

If I lost it tomorrow though, it’d be the money I’d miss more than anything else! 😂

I’ve also experienced the situation of working in a ‘vocation’ type career, as I was a teacher for 9 years. It’s ridiculous what they expect of you, because they know if you aren’t willing to join in the madness then a fresh cohort of 22 year olds will be willing to spend insane amounts of time outside of work doing certain tasks.

[-]

Icy_Obligation4293@reddit

I went off and explored in my twenties. Now back in the home town in my mid-thirties working in a cafe, spending £600/month on rent, with barely a penny to scrape together for a pint at the local quiz.

Coworker stayed home, works in the same cafe as me, £160/month mortgage, living it large, goes abroad constantly now.

[-]

Mission_Phase_5749@reddit

Your friend will have remortgage at some point. They won't be on such a low mortgage rate forever.

Frankly, you're discussing the difference between travelling when young and missing out on being able to save, or working throughout your youth and using that money to travel later in life.

Neither is wrong and depending on where you are in life, you might have a preference for one.

[-]

Icy_Obligation4293@reddit

Oh I wouldn't take back my life for anything, but I can definitely see the appeal of just building up from where you started.

[-]

Spiritual-Intern7419@reddit

Yep, I'm sure they are happy.

musea00@reddit

PREACH!!!

[-]

heroyoudontdeserve@reddit

Job security is a myth

What does this actually mean though? "Job security" is just two words, what's the myth you're referring to?

It's not a myth that some people work for a large number of years in the same company. What are you actually talking about?

[-]

Puzzled-Leading861@reddit

I mean that there is no such thing as a secure job, because anyone can get sick or be made redundant.

I've made an above average living freelancing consistently for the last 6 years that doesn't make my freelance gig "secure".

I was made redundant with a weeks notice after the corporate decided our teams main product was going to be canned and HEY MAN IF YOU SHOW THE COMPANY LOYALTY THEYLL DEFINITELY SHOE IT TO YOU TOO!!

[-]

layendecker@reddit

As an addition to this:

"Companies will avoid you if you are seen as a job hopper".

As long as you bring value, and the roles you have been in make sense together- you won't struggle getting interviews, even if your average tenure is less than 2 years.

What if I told you the rainbow is only 6 colours and Indigo is just an illusion because it's the mild crossover between blue and violet that your brain combines to make the 7th colour.

Ok_Pick6972@reddit

I mean the crowd. They have a world famous DJ ten yards away and 75% of the crowd is just filming it stood still.

And that's why I'm not totally for it. Because I kind of agree with you. I almost got stranded in London, like you because the last train was cancelled and I was never going to make it from Wembley park to Waterloo in time. I think some mid ground is needed and your suggestion of enforced no filming rules is a good idea, the problem is, that won't stop people, for some reason, in the UK, people don't care, if they "want" something, well fuck the rules.. people can be quite selfish.

[-]

bowak@reddit

Ah sorry I meant to reply to the person saying they should be banned. Sorry!

[-]

InevitableFox81194@reddit

No no that's ok. You made a fair point. But I understand their reason, Hyde park festival this Yr was bad.. a Massive KPOP group headlined, and if you got golden circle, aka right by the sgae, you couldn't see shit because everyone had their phones up recording the whole time. Which is why I didn't even bother paying that kind of money to be so close, I was happy in GA.

[-]

bowak@reddit

This new golden circle bollocks is also something I don't like. That plus dynamic pricing really puts me off some recent tours.

Though the positive side of that could be never going to an arena again, and it's not like I ever particularly liked arenas to begin with, just no choice with some bands.

[-]

InevitableFox81194@reddit

I was desperate to see a group until I saw they were using dynamic pricing. I have a rule. It's simple. I won't spend more than £100 per ticket to see ANYONE. no one is worth that kind of money, and I won't even consider going into debt to see someone, I see so many layers teens early 20s basicslly saddling themselves with debt just to see a group and get spundcheck or vip etc. Honestly, it's not worth it..

I saw a Japanese rock band 2 weeks ago, they were amazing, waited 7 yrs to see them live, it was everything I wanted and more, but the post concert high fades quite quickly and if those tickets had been say £500 the high would have faded so much faster, and they even brought Ed Sheeran out on stage to sing with them..

I think people spend too much money to see artists these days, and they've forgotten what concerts are meant to be, they aren't a chance for your YN moment, you're meant to be there to enjoy seeing an artist perform live for you. Damn, I'm really getting old.. next I'll be saying back in my day 🤣

[-]

bowak@reddit

It does make me glad that I've seen most of the bands I wanted to over the years. So I don't really have any FOMO over them.

I went to a show recently where they had everyone turn on their torches on their phones, cut the lights, and did a song. You could see them better than the stage lighting. It was actually a lot of fun.

[-]

VirtualMoneyLover@reddit

It is discrimination for weight, illegal.

[-]

I’d go with that. On the condition that someone a foot shorter than me gets a foot less leg room. After all, I can’t control how tall I am, but I can control my weight.

[-]

Worried-Penalty8744@reddit

Imagine if Ryanair implemented dynamic pricing based on your weight

[-]

NewEstablishment5444@reddit

Daylight savings time is a pile of shit. Starts getting dark earlier in Winter, then we change the clocks back so it gets darker even earlier. Literally pitch black at 10 to 4 yesterday. I'd much rather sunrise was an hour later instead.

[-]

lpmliam@reddit

I dunno man. I don't like the thought of my kids walking to school in the dark. At least this way, it's still light when they're walking home and it's already light when they have to go in the morning. Before I had to get on board with my 12 year old walking to school on their own, I was all for scrapping it but my views have changed over the last couple of years.

[-]

SlightlyCriminal@reddit

Yeah i hate this too

Unfortunately the current time is the proper time as in GMT.

If your main location is your home then they will need to pay you for travelling

[-]

Ianhw77k@reddit

Employers already do this. I've had many job applications refused because I lived too far away.

[-]

Hobgoblin_Khanate@reddit

How far?

[-]

I'd like to see them try that in the City.

[-]

glasgowgeg@reddit

Travel time to the workplace should be included in pay

SimpleFactor@reddit

No this is pretty ridiculous every time I see it come up. Allowances sure, give people money towards their train or bus tickets, or what some workplaces do which is give people time to use the showers if they cycle in off their work hours, but being paid more just for living further away from your job is so counter productive. If you live 1+ hour away from where you work in each direction, and unless you truely have no other options (in which case there’s a bigger issue that needs fixing which this isn’t going to solve), you probably need to reconsider what you’re doing or where you’re living.

[-]

DeltaJesus@reddit

Nice idea, absolutely no way for it to make sense in practice. Even ignoring how incredibly ripe for abuse it is, why should I, as someone who chooses to live in the city, effectively subsidise my coworker's choice to live out in the suburbs?

[-]

LegoVRS@reddit

Why? It's not the employers fault you applied for a job an hour away from where you live.

However if you have a fully remote job and they ask you to come into the office, then yes. Similarly if you have to go to a client meeting away from home. And in both cases they should offer to put you up for the night before so you can arrive on time and awake.

[-]

Eastern-Move549@reddit

I'm not so sure about this one.

What would stop me just getting a job far away?

All it would do is to force an employer to higher less qualified staff just because they are closer.

The whole 'if a job can be remote it should be remote' argument is a reasonable one though.

[-]

WhoLets1968@reddit

Good. I'll take 3hrs to get to work, do a 1hr shift then 3 back.

[-]

toomuchpressure2pick@reddit

Employers should at least have to cover all parking fees.

[-]

pimpledsimpleton@reddit

it would take me a very long time to get to work

[-]

forfar4@reddit

Remote working for most office jobs isn't a technical challenge, it's a management challenge.

vizard0@reddit

Not just England. Try buying in Scotland, where the listed price is much lower than anyone expects, and is sometimes lower than the actual price of the property. "Offers over £250000" means you should be bidding at least £265000, if not more. And the value of the house/flat will be something like £258000.

At least they (more or less) ban gazumping.

[-]

Those are reasons to not personally own a cat, but not to dislike the animal entirely.

[-]

AmazingDragon353@reddit

Cats are so funny cos if you actually don't like them you have the opposite problem. I'm allergic and cats fall over themselves trying to get close to me, whereas the people who try to pet them or cuddle get the middle finger.

[-]

as_it_was_written@reddit

Yeah, they just have different social patterns than most humans, so they tend to be counterintuitive for us unless we learn a bit about how they work.

People like you, who don't want to interact with cats, often end up sending signals saying you trust them (by keeping your focus elsewhere and maybe even turning away from them) and that you're safe to approach (by keeping still, not staring at them all the time, and not being overeager to engage with them physically before they engage with you). People who do want to interact with them, on the other hand, often end up sending the opposite signals and coming across as untrusting or unsafe.

As someone who does like cats, learning a bit more about how they communicate has been a game changer for getting to interact with random cats I meet outside. (Not that that's why I learned in the first place, to be clear.)

[-]

TiocfaidhArLa@reddit

Could not agree more with this. My work colleague hates cats, and it just so happens he's the most intolerable twat I've ever met.

[-]

MikhailxReign@reddit

I assume you keep them inside 100% of the time (or walk them on a lead etc). Got no issues with cats.

You let you cat roam free? Im Gunna feel nothing when I run it over in the street (while it is probably eating a native bird).

[-]

I generally don't like cats because they behave like assholes and are unpredictable. I'm fine with boundaries, people don't respect dogs boundaries either but dogs are way more forgiving on this.

Having said that, some of my family have cats and some of them I really like - less asshole behaviour. But in the main, it's the fact they'll go out to kill just for fun and often play with the small animals while they're dying. But again, that's on the irresponsible owners for letting their cats out of the house without a bell on.

NoTalkOnlyWatch@reddit

Maybe i’ve had aloof dogs or very affectionate cats but they’ve kinda been the same lol. They will come over and ask for attention and when they don’t want any they just walk away or hang out somewhere. The biggest difference is you can rile up dogs insanely easy, while a cat requires more work. That could be a positive or negative for anybody really.

[-]

The_Salty_Red_Head@reddit

I very much agree.

I'm down to 5 cats at the moment, and of the 5, 3 will actively follow me around the house. No where is sacred. Not even the bathroom. Lol.

sayleanenlarge@reddit

Wow, definitely a cat person. No one asked you to apologise. You're protecting boundaries where no one wanted to cross.

[-]

Carinwe_Lysa@reddit

>Cats made a deal.

Yeah teenagers need it as prep for college for self motivated learning but even that could start in the classroom. I don’t think I was ever taught how to find info on the internet or even in the library, just had to kind of go and figure it out

[-]

Chores prepares them for life (and actually teaches them how to manage a household)

[-]

suziblack@reddit

Completely agree and I don't have children

Disagree to your disagreement. Passed every state exam with advanced proficiency acing the majority. Was however a D student because I never did homework. Some of us can pick up the material when it is taught (helps to be an auditory learner). Will coincide there may be other lessons in time management and completion of boring tasks though.

[-]

quackers987@reddit

unless they're paid overtime

Random_Nobody1991@reddit

Love my parents, but I still get annoyed at them for complaining to the school I wasn’t being given enough homework. Guess who was the only person in lessons to be given homework on more than one occasion as a result…

[-]

theamelany@reddit

It does kinda prepare them for getting it at high school, schools vary though one grandaugher (7)one lot a week the other one every night (8)

[-]

Important-Engine-101@reddit

Sounds like people with time on their hands.

[-]

Trick-Ladder@reddit

Homework has no justification.

ShitReply@reddit

All homework does is teach kids how to get by doing the bare minimum, there's hardly any incentive to do it well as teachers rarely have time to mark it.

[-]

sparklybeast@reddit

Not that I disagree about homework, but plenty of salaried adults work longer hours without additional compensation.

[-]

wipeout-105@reddit

That's true but how does it affect their quality of life? Should we teach children that this is normal?

[-]

rezonansmagnetyczny@reddit

I don't want to date a single mother.

It's a totally legit concern. My wife is a child protection social worker and the number of times children (moreso girls) are targeted by step-parents or partners of a previously single parent is quite shocking. Obviously she exclusively deals with reported incidents so it's not representative of the whole population BUT it's still wayyyyyy too many.

[-]

Northern_Staa@reddit

I work in an adjacent field and can 100% corroborate this. Regardless the sex of the child, if I was a single mother there is no way on God’s green earth I’m bringing a new fella around my kids. Of course, it’s not all men. But the point is, you can’t tell to look at them which ones are gonna be the nonces. So yeah, date and have a life where possible, but keep your kids out of it.

[-]

KatVanWall@reddit

I was (am?) a single mum and while I wasn't against having a relationship again per se, I've been adamant since day 1 that I would never have anyone move in with me and my daughter before she's 18. Not that I've got anything against men in general or any specific men (I don't think they're all predators or anything like that), I just didn't want to give myself the headache of navigating another dynamic in my life and having to mediate the relationship between my daughter and what would essentially be to her some random bloke. I also want her to have an environment that feels like a 'safe space' to her where she only has her relationship with one other person - me - to worry about and can give her a break from other stressors in life. She spends alternate weeks with me and her dad, and as it turns out, his mum also lives with them and he now has a girlfriend who has three boys of her own, so while I'm glad she has a nice step-parent and people to have a sibling-like dynamic with, I also feel like that calmer space is more needed than ever.

I often feel like I get judgement about that and people looking at me funny about it, but I'm in no way judging people who make blended families succeed for them or trying to imply I disagree with or disapprove of their choices. Most of my friends who've been single parents have met someone new, 'found love again' and moved in with a new partner or had them move in - and it's worked well for the vast majority of them. I've certainly known numerous excellent step-parents. It's just not something I want for myself.

I've been lucky enough to meet someone who both wanted a relationship and was okay with that. Which surprised me greatly. But it's been 6 years and my stance hasn't shifted, so if he's just been sticking it out hoping I'll change my mind, he's certainly got tenacity, I'll give him that.

[-]

VadimH@reddit

But I feel like people target single mothers to get access to their kids.

That's one hell of a generalisation...

[-]

hamshanker69@reddit

Darn tooting it is. I went out with a single mother because she had great tits.

[-]

AJLFC94_IV@reddit

Lol yea, if tinder tells us one thing is that 80% of the more attractive women (over 25) are single mums.

I've no interest in having kids, mine or anyone else's, but it's not hard to see why people get involved.

[-]

changhyun@reddit

It is of course not true of everyone who dates single parents or even most people, but it is unfortunately something that happens.

[-]

nihonhonhon@reddit

Jesus christ if my divorced mother told me that she had condemned herself to 10+ years of abject loneliness and no partner to help her out with practical things because she was afraid the new man would molest me, I would have been EXTREMELY disturbed. I understand being cautious when you first start dating a new person, but don't bring it to the point of paranoia. That is a recipe for parentification.

[-]

I am nearly 50, so dating a woman my age means there is a good chance she has children.

It is a factor i will need to serioysly consider.

However, at being nearly 50 herself, her kids are going to be old enough not to be a direct consideration (like do we need babysitters, do we need to plan around bringing the kids etc)

[-]

UniqueEnigma121@reddit

44 & I wouldn’t either.

[-]

[-]

Shoddy-Computer2377@reddit

This. The problem I'm finding in my 30s is that single mothers appear to be the norm if you're using dating apps.

Even those who don't disclose or claim they have no children are often lying, due to telltale clues in their photos.

[-]

rezonansmagnetyczny@reddit

The liers are the worst!

They always justify it by saying that they're not advertising it to protect their children, but then if you wanted to protect your children that badly just don't date.

[-]

TwistingEarth@reddit

I’ve done it twice, and the problem is the ex causes so much problems in a relationship that it’s just not worth it.

[-]

RobertTheSpruce@reddit

Depends for me. A child under 14? Nah.

Anything above that so I can give the £20 to fuck off for the night so I can smash their mum, absolutely fine.

[-]

Milam1996@reddit

So this. People who children forget just how restrictive having children is and people without children don’t want to take on that restriction. If I’m dating a guy I’d like to book spontaneous weekends away, move to the other side of the country/world. Can’t do that when they’ve got kids to think about. Puts a huge spanner in the works.

[-]

SillyStallion@reddit

I don't want to date a bloke with kids either. I'd rather be alone than lose my peaceful life

[-]

baeworth@reddit

Hell yeah, I’d never date a single father either. Lucky for me I found an amazing man who didn’t mind taking on the stepparent role, but it’s not for me

[-]

Objective-Soft4116@reddit

It’s kind of catch 22 though… it would be more practical if you had children to not have to date someone with children- as speaking from experience it is bloody hard. I went from 2 children to 7 🤢 (happy now but totally different life)

However, I’m not sure I could be with someone who had never been a parent. It is very hard taking on someone else’s children and I can’t imagine doing it with no prior parenting experience.

Pro’s and con’s to both really, I went with my heart! 💓 Big old chaotic blended family. I’m very tired though.

[-]

kai_enby@reddit

Agree if I was single, though I'm bisexual so no single mothers or single fathers. I don't want my own children so why would I sign up to co-parent someone else's

[-]

bee-sting@reddit

I wouldn't even date a parent that does 50-50. So many cancelled plans

[-]

BaseballFuryThurman@reddit

I did that in my early 20s and honestly it was exhausting at times. Definitely wouldn't do it again. I appreciate it must be difficult for single parents to enter the dating world again but I don't want kids of my own for a reason. It makes no sense for me to approach a situation where being responsible for kids is a factor.

[-]

Enough-Ad3818@reddit

It's a difficult dynamic to enter, when there's already a parent and child relationship there.

No judgement for choosing not to do that. Relationships are a minefield at the best of times, even without adding children into the mix.

[-]

MrDeepTeeth@reddit

That religion, any religion, should have zero impact on public life.

By all means, practice whichever ludicrous invisible friend belief system you want, but if those beliefs impact public policy - for example, abortion rights in America being heavily influenced by Christian beliefs, the current conversation around trans/queer right in the UK also following a similar vein - then there is a problem.

Don't force your shitty, whispered-through-the-generations beliefs on the rest of us.

[-]

ASpookyBitch@reddit

Yes yes and yes.

[-]

Rickietee10@reddit

Religion has absolutely no impact on public life. Religion is just the scapegoat for people in power doing shitty stuff and pretending it was done for a greater appeasement.

If religion had any impact on public life everyone would be living their best lives unconditionally loving one another.

I’m not religious.

[-]

InevitableMost8935@reddit

But on the flip side secular beliefs shouldn’t be forced on religious folk.

[-]

Total_Independence31@reddit

Secularism is the status quo of humanity.

[-]

Proper_Common_5481@reddit

Totally untrue for the vast majority of humans today and throughout all history. Almost all people that have ever lived have based there system of belief on religion.

[-]

MrAmos123@reddit

Secularism is foundational. Religion is not. You have to build that foundation, and its foundation differs between religions. You don't 'teach' or 'indoctrinate' people into secularism, it just is.

Notice that the God people preach to is baked into their society and upbringing? Odd isn't it.

Those who choose not to practice align with someone who opted for the same across the other side of the world, yet they don't share the same culture; status quo.

[-]

Proper_Common_5481@reddit

Secularism is a completely modern aberration from the religious norm. Secularism requires just as much ‘indoctrination’ as religion. If we look at the development of secular society it required in this country hundreds of years of philosophical development and two horrific world wars to develop.

Additionally the idea that a secular or non religious world view is the same across the world is obviously ridiculous. Simply compare the world view of modern China or the Soviet Union to modern Western states. Totally different understands of morality and the good.

[-]

MrAmos123@reddit

My point with the analogy of the isolated individual was to highlight that fundamental moral intuitions, such as recognising the harm of killing or the value of helping others, don't require religious texts. While you point out the historical development of secularism, I maintain that the capacity for ethical reasoning exists independent of religious doctrines.

For instance, the principles of not harming others, respecting autonomy, and promoting well-being are often found across diverse secular societies, even though these societies might differ in their specific cultural and political frameworks. These principles aren't unique to secularism, of course, and many religious traditions also embrace them. However, the key difference lies in the justification for these principles. Secular ethics typically relies on reason, empathy, and a shared understanding of human flourishing, rather than divine commands or scriptural interpretation; and that interpretation can be such that rape is an acceptable outcome for marriage (Deuteronomy 22:29), or slavery is accepted and endorsed throughout Leviticus... I'm using Christianity here, but imagine if we turned to the Quran how much worse this would get.

Just to counter any potential of cherry-picking verses which are parts of God's word to follow strikes me as inherently contradictory. If it's truly the divine word, why the selective adherence? It seems more like choosing the parts that align with pre-existing moral intuitions or cultural norms, rather than genuine submission to divine authority. And what of the parts left behind? Are they not also God's word?

I think if you need a book of fiction to define your morality and ethics it says more about your ability to reason than any current secular society.

[-]

Proper_Common_5481@reddit

I only use the word indoctrination as it was the language you used and that is why I put it in quotations.

[-]

MrAmos123@reddit

Regardless, you co-signed it.

You wrote:

Secularism requires just as much ‘indoctrination’ as religion

Swap that word out and my point remains the same.

[-]

glasgowgeg@reddit

Totally untrue for the vast majority of humans today and throughout all history

Secularism is the default, nobody is born with an innate knowing of religion, it's taught to you.

[-]

Proper_Common_5481@reddit

No one is born with any form of knowledge secular or otherwise. All knowledge is taught.

[-]

glasgowgeg@reddit

Secular means not relating to religious or spiritual, it is quite literally the default everyone is born with.

[-]

matti-san@reddit

secular beliefs

glittermaniac@reddit

I need one at the end of February, just to break up all the shite weather and having to get up in the dark still.

[-]

Sombreador@reddit

Who said it? Religion is like a penis. I'm glad you got one and you enjoy it and it enriches your life. But I don't want to see it and I don't want you shoving it down my throat.

[-]

Proper_Common_5481@reddit

Doesn’t that view hold true for all political beliefs effectively. Essentially what you are saying is I don’t agree with you so do bring up the your opinion.

[-]

bigcashc@reddit

I get your point. I do. But even with religion completely aside, some people see abortion as essentially killing a baby. You can blame religion, but a lot of people, even some not religious ones, take issue with that.

[-]

RandeKnight@reddit

There's plenty of wishywashy thinking that isn't based on religion. All the way from ClimateChangeIsn'tReal to Flatearthers.

If its too dark for them to see me wave in thanks then I simply don't bother.

It's not like it will make any difference at all.

[-]

imp0ppable@reddit

I agree but people will continue doing it until it's replaced with something else

[-]

knight-under-stars@reddit

Not thanking is the something else.

[-]

MattSR30@reddit

I have been thinking about this lately but never clocked that this might be the answer.

I don’t drive so I walk everywhere, and for a number of years now if it’s past like 5-6pm I cannot for the life of me see the driver inside of a car if they’re waving me on to cross a street or something.

Never understood why they don't just make LEDs in cars the same brightness as incandescent xenons, just using a hell of a lot less power and so putting less stress on the alternator and also less fuel to a small degree.

We've done that with ceiling lights!

And I say this as a torch enthusiast. I fucking love really bright torches but in a field in the middle of nowhere, not on the fucking road. If I have one of my torches with me for walking on the pavement, I point it straight down.

[-]

thatguygreg@reddit

Real ones know to blink them off/on to thank someone

[-]

Pedantichrist@reddit

Yup. Nothing says thank you like fucking my night vision.

I want a thank you light.

Also who the fuck decided that headlamps should be so bright and cold that it causes oncoming traffic to slow down or risk losing control

[-]

SoberDips@reddit

Yeh I’ve got bright led lights and if it’s dark I won’t flash them. I’d rather someone think I’m an ignorant bastard rather than blind them.

[-]

himit@reddit

In some countries flashing your lights doesn't mean 'go ahead, I'll wait' but actually means 'I'm coming through'

phil413066@reddit

When I worked in retail. I noticed a direct correlation that the closer you got to Xmas day the more intolerable the general public are. The 24th and 26th was quite simply known as arsehole days. By the time you got to January 4th-5th people started to become reasonable and friendly again

[-]

catsnbears@reddit

I have my own small retail business and we are closing at the end of the 21st and reopening on the 7th of January. We aren’t the kind of business to run massive sales and I just can’t be bothered dealing with the sheer rudeness around Xmas. We’re spending the time at home just chilling.

That assisted dying should be legal. As long as the person is of a sound mind the make the decision themselves if they are terminally ill. And a doctor agrees. Then it should be legal.

On OPs point. I completely agree. The business is choosing the close. I'm still willing to work. You pay me for working.

[-]

Running-foodie@reddit

That the Catholic Church continues to prove itself as a vile network of child abuse with a bit of religion on the side. I simply don’t understand how someone can align themselves with such an organisation.

[-]

Kitchen_Owl_8518@reddit

I have another one having now slept on it.

The constant pandering for nostalgia is a detriment to entertainment and to the legacies of things we loved back in the day.

For example.

Constant- remastering of games. How much money was poured into a Final Fantasy 7 remake that could have gone towards something new.

The modern transformers/ninja turtle shows/films are absolute trash compared to the cartoons from the 80s/90s.

Hobgoblin_Khanate@reddit

Nearly drove into the back of someone merging. We were doing about 50 merging onto a motorway, that’s fine, I look to my right through the window and check the wing mirror and nobody is coming … I look ahead and the guy infront is breaking HARD before going onto the motorway. What an absolute fucking cunt.

And Reddit would say what he’s doing is fine

Honestly, after reading Reddit for 12 + years I’m convinced the worst, meek drivers of the UK are hanging around here

[-]

Yikes-Yak@reddit

I'm very patient on the road, but I serenade these fuckers with my horn because they are a danger to everyone.

[-]

Hortense-Beauharnais@reddit

I don't get the “it’s a limit not a target” thing. You'll fail your driving test if you consistently drive below the speed limit. Driving to the condition of the road is the only exception really.

[-]

EverythingIsByDesign@reddit

I literally came across someone Sunday afternoon in the middle lane of the M4 doing 45. Right between Cardiff North and Cardiff West.

Get on a bus you mobile traffic hazard.

[-]

kod14kbear@reddit

people who sit in the middle of two lanes to stop people from merging should have their licenses revoked first. people who sit in the middle lane of the motorway should be next on the list.

[-]

Kitchen_Owl_8518@reddit

Driving is a luxury not a right.

Too many poorly trained drivers on the road with very bad driving standards.

Also anyone driving around with headlights out or bald tyres is a fucking moron.

If you can't afford to maintain the car then get a push bike/busspass.

[-]

GlitchingGecko@reddit

Should have to do a 2hr lesson with a licensed instructor once a year, and they confirm that you're still competent. If you fail, you have to resit your practical within 12 months.

Basically an MOT for driving skills.

[-]

terryjuicelawson@reddit

The demand would be outrageous, there are 50 million drivers out there (apparently). There is a wait for tests as it is. We have very safe roads in global terms. I feel any retest is a blunt instrument, how many perfectly good drivers could trip up, and bad drivers just turn it on for a couple of hours. More monitoring, harsher punishments for speeding etc but what are these instructors going to see that wasn't picked up at the original test stage, or lost during years of practical experience.

[-]

GlitchingGecko@reddit

I feel any retest is a blunt instrument, how many perfectly good drivers could trip up, and bad drivers just turn it on for a couple of hours.

Probably the same amount that managed to pass a test by fluke, or fail a test even though they're perfectly able to drive, in the first place. Pretty sure most of the people on the roads not indicating, and not using lanes on a roundabout correctly DID know it at one point. They would have had to, to pass their test. They're just too lazy to bother with it now.

Agree. Using technology it should be possible to make sure you can't drive without a valid licence. We should also be able to ensure that speed is recorded at all times and reported back to a central driving authority so that points are accrued and drivers banned when the threshold is reached.

I'm generally in favour of personal freedom and responsibility, but with what's happening on the roads at the moment I think drastic action is needed.

[-]

Ghille_Dhu@reddit

100% agree. I would also suggest that people who drive under the influence or use their phones should be banned for far longer if not indefinitely. Neither of those things are accidents, they are choices.

[-]

R33Gtst@reddit

Piercing your babies ears is a horrible and unnecessary thing to do.

[-]

Independent-Victory1@reddit

My mom got my ears pierced when I was maybe two (I have no memory of it). Turns out I was a huge tomboy so I almost never wore earrings past first grade.

Because they were pierced so early, my piercings never closed and I’ve only known myself with pierced ears. For me, however, it’s mostly been a non-issue, even though I was very anti “girly” things growing up.

They meant that the action items should be clearly delineated. i.e. the motion to be made should be clear from the posted agenda / meeting invitation.

Which sounds great in theory, but to play devil's advocate, doing so would limit the range of conversation and ideas. Especially for people who have a different idea of what they want out of the meeting, having the objective predefined for them can feel tyrannical. Leaving it vague allows for a more open-ended discussion.

But of course, open-ended discussions are often the same thing as ENDLESS discussions.

[-]

as_it_was_written@reddit

Which sounds great in theory, but to play devil's advocate, doing so would limit the range of conversation and ideas.

That isn't really playing devil's advocate. Limiting the range of discussion and ideas is the point, not an unintended negative side effect. It doesn't only sound great in theory, it works great in practice too.

Especially for people who have a different idea of what they want out of the meeting, having the objective predefined for them can feel tyrannical.

If a meeting has a clearly defined agenda and expected outcome, wanting something else out of it is plain unreasonable. Someone who wants a meeting about something else can set up such a meeting, where they get to set the agenda.

Leaving it vague allows for a more open-ended discussion.

Yup, and that generally isn't productive unless the purpose is brainstorming or something else that's open-ended by nature.

[-]

Solid_Waste@reddit

Different leaders have different philosophies and styles of leadership. Some prefer to leave the door open for dialogue and discussion so others' input is considered and given due respect. Many leaders of this sort are willing to accept some decline in efficiency in exchange for a more open and flexible decision-making process.

That is a valid style of leadership and extremely common virtually everywhere. The fact virtually every public meeting has at minimum an open comment period is a symbol of this philosophical approach to group decision-making.

Its downsides are obvious though, and in my opinion, having a discussion to open-ended risks being so inefficient that NOBODY gets what they want. Hence, it is also extremely common to have a clear agenda and structured decision-making process to ensure you can cut through the chaff and get things done.

Our culture basically demands you do at least a little of both. Virtually no one likes either extreme. If the meeting goes too long, meanders meaninglessly, or doesn't come to a decision, then what's the point of meeting? If the outcome is predetermined and the people in charge don't care about anyone else's input, then what's the point of meeting? The fact you are having a meeting should imply you are somewhere in the middle trying to do both things, but there's a broad range of styles within that range which can achieve some combination of both.

[-]

as_it_was_written@reddit

Different leaders have different philosophies and styles of leadership. Some prefer to leave the door open for dialogue and discussion so others' input is considered and given due respect. Many leaders of this sort are willing to accept some decline in efficiency in exchange for a more open and flexible decision-making process.

Having a clear agenda and purpose isn't mutually exclusive with dialog and discussion. The former just set the boundaries for the content of the latter. A meeting without room for discussion might as well be an email instead.

Indeed, even a totalitarian leader requires meetings, if for no other reason than to ask questions of subordinates and find out what the hell is going on. If they want honest answers to such questions, then they may need to be open-minded in the structure of the meeting, otherwise their own assumptions as to the answers will prevent them getting the truth.

Getting everybody on the same page so they can get on with the day's work is a pretty clear purpose and expected outcome. A quick round of "what are you working on today? What do you need from the rest of us to get that done?" doesn't really need to be open-ended to be effective. It's the whole point of standups, which tend to be pretty focused and efficient when done well.

Leaders jumping to conclusions or needing to worry about people being dishonest seem like separate problems whose root causes have little to do with how meetings are structured.

Open, loosely structured meetings are a valid style of leadership and extremely common. The fact virtually every public meeting has at minimum an open comment period is a symbol of this philosophical approach to group decision-making being a valid component of leadership (if not the whole story).

Public meetings are a whole different story, and I think they're rarely a good model for business meetings. They've got a bunch of other concerns to account for by virtue of being directed at large, disparate groups who aren't necessarily in touch with each other or whoever is holding the meeting on a regular basis.

They're also often about the public getting access to the person or organization holding the meeting. If that is a vital purpose for a business meeting, I think it points to much bigger problems than how the meetings are structured. Someone who needs access to leadership to do their job shouldn't need to rely on large, open-ended meetings in order to get it.

Business meetings can generally be structured much more efficiently, so that people aren't wasting time on a bunch of things they have no reason to care about, and the discussion is more focused. Personally, almost every business meeting I've been part of that's been similar to a public meeting has either felt like a waste of time or like it easily could have been handled more effectively. The few exceptions have been more about internal PR/morale boosting than actually getting things done.

If the outcome is predetermined and the people in charge don't care about anyone else's input, then what's the point of meeting?

I should have clarified - especially since the top-level comment had similar reactions. When I talked about expected outcomes, I didn't mean the exact outcome is predetermined. That would indeed be completely pointless.

I meant that the question the meeting is meant to answer is clearly defined up front, and that both the agenda and discussion are focused on finding that answer without straying to unrelated topics. With a few exceptions for things like brainstorming that are open-ended by nature, I just think business meetings are much more effective if they have a clearly defined purpose and stick to it.

[-]

Special-Average-7843@reddit

Get where youre coming from, but the expected outcome could be to “make X decision, based on presentation of an options analysis.” In which case the meeting probably is required to get decision-makers together with an understanding of the problem and potential solutions.

I have a regular team meeting for my dispersed team. The agenda - such that it is - is "keeping in touch with what's going on elsewhere in the team".

HotRabbit999@reddit

Meetings are now optional at my work as we once lost c. £6 million due to missed tender deadlines because the team were in a meeting that just wouldn't end.

Now we have to be bribed in with cake & a hard finish time after which we can just get up & walk out.

It's quite fun now.

[-]

JeffSergeant@reddit

One of my favourite bosses told everyone to refusing meeting invites unless "You know what you're expected to either bring to, or take away from" the meeting.

[-]

UpsetMarsupial@reddit

Decline such a meeting with the reason : "No agenda given in invite".

[-]

farmpatrol@reddit

Yes I used to refuse them in my old role. No one seemed to mind!

[-]

I agree with this.

My sister pisses me off by trying to insist the dogs she's babysitting would be fine coming to my house when both my French bulldogs have made it clear they don't like their company.

She seems to think because they are Frenchies and placid they will tolerate bullshit like having two strange dogs brought into their homes.

[-]

AlwaysTheKop@reddit

Not every child who is naughty has ADHD or Autism… those two things have become so diluted now they aren’t really taken seriously anymore because everyone and their dog has it now…

Sometimes your kid just needs some discipline.

[-]

Kitchen_Owl_8518@reddit

It's a cop out for bad parenting.

Rather than actually have to raise your child properly Instead of letting the television do it.

Then when their little angels cause a ruckus in public it's blamed on them having ADHD or autism and not on having bad parents.

[-]

05blob@reddit

Adding onto this, having ADHD or Autism does not automatically mean they will behave badly nor does it mean they should be allowed to behave badly. They can still be taught right from wrong, it might just take longer and they might need more reminding than a neurotypical child

[-]

Slight_Rich_439@reddit

Oh here we go

[-]

CozJeez85@reddit (OP)

This is something that I also agree heavily with.

[-]

Petrichor_ness@reddit

If you don't have the mental acumen to look after an animal, you shouldn't have one.

If the concept of keeping your dog under control or picking up its business is too complex for you, maybe go with a pet rock instead. If you want a designer puppy just because it looks cute and you abandon it as soon as you're bored, see first point about pet rocks!

Far too many dogs being PTS in this country because of short sighted 1di0ts

[-]

Kitchen_Owl_8518@reddit

There was a story that I read yesterday. A vet killed himself because he couldn't deal with the grief of putting animals to sleep usually by owners who turned up to his practice in expensive cars and clothes and obviously had a few quid to chuck around, but rather than pay for treatment they wanted to put the animals to sleep.

[-]

TheKnightsTippler@reddit

I think part of the problem is that being an animal lover is something that's heavily pushed as being an essential component of being a nice person.

If you say you aren't a pet person, some people act like you're a psychopath, so I think a lot of people just get pets because it's something you're just supposed to do, and don't question if they actually really want one.

[-]

Petrichor_ness@reddit

It doesn't help when you've got 'celebrities' in the news talking about their latest new pet and the old one they had to get rid of - Lily Allen getting rid of her dog because it ate her passport! What? you can afford the designer pedigree dog but a few quid for a trainer was out of the question?

I'd rather meet someone who says they're not a pet person than someone who treats them like a fashion accessory or a tool to keep their kids happy for 30 minutes.

I know there are more important problems in the world than animal care but we all have our hills, and this is mine!

[-]

TheKnightsTippler@reddit

Yeah, that's shitty, but my point is that if Lilly Allen was to say that she didn't have a dog/pets because she doesn't like them, people would take that as proof she's a horrible person.

I think there's a lot of social pressure to be an animal lover, and posting about pets has become a popular form of virtue signalling.

[-]

FlamingoMedic89@reddit

Shitty dog owners are just as bad as shitty parents and people go way overboard with their dogs these days. I'm not a dog trainer, but pretty good at behavior things with living beings, and so many dog owners have no idea what they are doing and what they do is wrong. There is a reason you have to put on a lease. Especially with certain breeds (hunting dogs, for example)

[-]

Previous-Weird9577@reddit

HARD AGREE with yours. I remember questioning it at a previous job and the management actually telling me off for asking. As in, 'how dare you raise such a ridiculous concept, you'll cause an uprising.'

[-]

watsee@reddit

Unless a medical professional diagnoses you as having a neuro-diverse condition, such as ADHD, anxiety or autism etc then you don't have them.

You cannot self diagnose yourself as having any of these issues. Far too many people are latching onto this as an easy cop out as to why they're actually just half-arsing life & expecting everyone else to do them a favour. I also think that there's definitely a degree of 'being on trend' that currently comes with being neuro-diverse & there's absolutely a subsection of society that are claiming to have ADHD so they can follow the crowd.

If you actually think you might have any of these, go and see a doctor & have it officially diagnosed and treated. I cannot stress that enough. I'm not saying that these things don't exist and are not important; but it is important to make sure you get the correct help you require.

[-]

Kitchen_Owl_8518@reddit

I agree 100%

It's rolling off people's tongues too easily the same way that being sad and being depressed are two different things yet someone has one bad day and they're depressed. It's not how it works.

[-]

Kitchen_Owl_8518@reddit

That being 'body positive' is one of the most toxic things in society.

I say this as a man who is trying to lose a stone or 3. There is nothing positive about being fat as fuck and making yourself unwell physically and mentally.

People talking about what's legal are missing the point, you're talking about what it should be (or what you personally are willing to put up with).

You're kinda 'rebelling against gravity' at this point. Yes, you disagree. No, your disagreement won't change anything at all. Good luck with not conceding.

[-]

ElliAnu@reddit

Rebelling against gravity is basically what push ups are so it must be good for you

[-]

bopeepsheep@reddit

I never said it was bad. :)

[-]

OliB150@reddit

Leave allowance is to take days off when the company is operating and you don’t want to be working. If they close for the day, they aren’t operating and therefore it shouldn’t count as leave, IMO.

Trouble is, I suspect they’d just rebadge it as “everyone must take this day as annual leave. Oh no, we don’t have enough staff to operate that day, so we have no option but to be closed”.

[-]

Slavir_Nabru@reddit

I feel it would be a bad move for education.

We'd need to significantly increase the number of teachers to cover all that term time holiday, but even if we do that the stream of substitutes is going to have a negative impact on the students.

Why only focus on paid time off? If I work in a factory that operates Mon-Fri, why should I have to take my days off at weekend? It's not my fault they're closed after all.

[-]

SkullKid888@reddit

Lol, not willing to concede. You don’t have a choice. Well, you do, work for them and follow their terms, or don’t work for them.

[-]

First job I had there was a summer shutdown too, so unless you were on the maintenance crew for the shutdown you had to have 2 weeks in August and a week at Christmas leaving just one week at your own convenience.

[-]

BiscuitBarrel179@reddit

The company I work for used to have Christmas shutdowns and we had to take the shutdown out of our annual leave. Now we have to work Christmas day, Boxing day, and New Years Day. Only 1 person is allowed to be on annual leave at a time and it's first come first serve.

I preferred the shutdown and taking the days out of annual leave. Be careful what you wish for.

[-]

D0wnInAlbion@reddit

Same rule for teachers?

[-]

You’re not entitled to holiday full stop.

Your first comment literally says - quote - "You are not entitled to holiday"

So maybe work on that phrasing

[-]

BarGuilty3715@reddit

Did you continue reading after that?

[-]

Interrogatingthecat@reddit

Yes, but your phrasing is still atrocious.

[-]

Gadafro@reddit

No OP but...

You’re not entitled to holiday full stop

I think phrasing it that way caused a misunderstanding. It needed the addendum on that first sentence. Splitting the two points when it's still regarding the same topic is a cause for confusion.

[-]

Jaraxo@reddit

Right, but legally you still have no choice. A full time worker on 28 days and your employer can legally mandate you take every second Wednesday off for 26 of your 28 days, and the final 2 on a random Thursday.

[-]

thrrowaway4obreasons@reddit

My old employer did this. They did it in blocks that rotated each year, you could swap though. The summer holidays were the worst as a lot of people would be scrapping for July/August.

It was just shit.

[-]

Iforgotmypassword126@reddit

How did they have any employees?

[-]

It’s still pretty shit to hear at your new place in October that “sorry, PurpleFjord booked that week in in January...” 😅

[-]

Underwhatline@reddit

They can cancel your 2 weeks in August as long as they give your 2 weeks notice!

[-]

HelpDaren@reddit

They actually tried, but I pointed out that I booked the holiday in 7 months prior because that's their rule, and based on the time of the year they wouldn't be able to give me another 2 weeks in the foreseeable future, not to mention that I have reservations and flight tickets (since I knew about those days 7 months ago) for that specific two weeks, and the whole cancellation would happen because of their bad business practices (there were no unforseen circumstances, they just fucked up the headcount) in which I would be a victim of their choice to conduct business with ill fate, so unless they are willing to reimburse my expenses and re-book my 2 weeks relatively close to those weeks, if they go forward and cancel my holidays, I'll take them to an employment tribunal and we can sort the rest out there.

Suddenly, me being there for that two weeks wasn't that important anymore, but yes, legally, they could've cancel my holidays.
It would've look really bad in front of a tribunal tho, where they would've been asked for the reason of cancellation, and the "there were too many people on holiday at that time" wouldn't work since I booked mine in January. If they forgot about it and booked in too many holidays later, that's their fault, not mine.
They could've though, claim that I booked in soooo early that they actually forgot about it, but again, that's bad business practices since it's their rule, not mine, and not being able to conduct business by your own rules isn't your employee's fault, it's yours.

Teachers get the benefit of not having to compete for time off, and more time off (not denying they work through school holidays but they do get more time off).

Disabled rights are actively being taken away as we speak. Disabled children are being forced out of education because there is not enough support, Disabled adults are being forced into homeless-ness. Necessary medications are being taken away or suffering from extreme shortages resulting in disabled people being forced out of work or other responsibilities. They’re denied healthcare because their health is deemed “unreliable” resulting in surgeries being considered a “waste of time”. Diagnosis’ are being taken away from people because there’s an “overabundance ” Or re-evaluations forced to give HMRC and DWP an excuse to not aid people. Companies are not hiring Disabled people, or not providing equal training. Disability Facilities in the UK are not up-kept resulting in inaccessibility; Lifts, escalators, disabled toilets, parking etc. Ableist related hate-crime is on the rise.

Many are not able to access free school meals. With the recent private school taxations, many children will no longer have access to an education as this law also includes SEN or special education academies (this includes gifted students that could excel). Half a million children report abuse yearly. Vital education subjects are kept away from them. Children are forced into poverty because of benefit cuts. Children are not listened to. Children are not believed. A lot of society thinks children should be seen and not heard. There are a severe lack of public services exclusive to children.

These groups are oppressed and if you think not, you’re painfully naive to the world around you.

[-]

0FFFXY@reddit

What you are describing are nearly all special privileges either already existing, or that you would like to exist.

It's good that these special privileges do exist and more should be added, but if we remove all social and cultural structures–making oppression of or by anyone literally be impossible–none of these privileges would exist, and both groups would be far worse off.

[-]

C0nnectionTerminat3d@reddit

These are not special privileges. They’re equal opportunities, to create and even playing field. If disabled people didn’t have these (they don’t) they are at a significant disadvantage to everyone else. That’s quite literally the definition of disability.

[-]

0FFFXY@reddit

They’re equal opportunities, to create an even playing field

These are two different and mutually exclusive concepts. You cannot have equal opportunity and an even playing field unless all the players are born with equal abilities. When some players have less abilities than others you have to choose whether to maintain an even playing field, or to afford certain players with additional support and privileges to compensate for disability.

Even doing absolutely nothing to assist the disabled players wouldn't be oppression. Though unfair, that would be true equal treatment.

[-]

C0nnectionTerminat3d@reddit

That would only be true if capitalism didn’t exist. Disabled people are expected to act the same as abled people - work, have children, help themselves and be independent etc but these establishments and companies do not provide accommodations to allow a disabled person to work or act on the same level as abled people. “You say that you can’t do this, we know you can’t but we want you to do this anyway and no we’re not going to make changes so that you can do this”. This is oppression in of itself.

The wheelchair space in a bus was created for disabled people, but since it is also commonly used by travelling people (suitcases) and parent with infants (prams and pushchairs). The first thing is a necessity and right, which is what i’m talking about but you are talking about the latter; a privilege that is not necessary for survival.

Feel free to go and research the definition of disability oppression and then come back here, i’d really appreciate it.

[-]

0FFFXY@reddit

Again, the best way to identify if there is a basis for what you're arguing is to refer back to a state when it is literally impossible for anyone to be oppressed: In nature, without any social structures, without establishments and what you mistakenly call "capitalism", what would it look like?

In nature, without society, would the expectation of a disabled person to provide fully for their own survival be lesser or greater?

In nature, without society, how would a disabled person who is unable to provide fully for their own survival get someone else to spend their resources for their survival?

What you describe as "rights" do not exist in nature. They are purely what society has decided to call rights and decided to spend shared resources on.

A privilege is something given to someone/thing by someone/thing else, such as a right, how necessary something is is irrelevant to its definition.

Hardship is simply not oppression.

[-]

C0nnectionTerminat3d@reddit

Nature has no relevance to the conversation. Oppression would not exist full stop. We’re not talking about the stone age, or what oppression would be if humans had not advanced. We’re talking about the modern year of 2024.

But, since you brought it up, nature look after their disabled yes. I study animals professionally, and looking at those; the beings that have not advanced as much as us but share the familial or societal group (apes, mainly) take care of their sick and injured. So nice try with that one but you’re straight up wrong lol.

We are talking about the here and now, what is happening in our modern day society. If you cannot understand that respectfully i don’t think you’re qualified enough to be having this conversation.

[-]

0FFFXY@reddit

Right. So now that you agree that oppression does not exist in a scenario without the social structures, where disabled people are expected to provide fully for their own survival and are not entitled to anyone else's resources or labour, would you then still claim that the societal structures that have been built and exist here and now in the UK, where some resource and labour is dedicated to providing privileges for people with disabilities, adds oppression? If so, in what way?

[-]

C0nnectionTerminat3d@reddit

No? it does not add oppression at all and that’s not what i’ve been saying. I’ve been saying that not providing an equal playing field to disabled people but expecting them to play as any other is oppressive.

Some is not enough. adding some aids doesn’t completely stop the oppression. Some black people weren’t kept as slaves back in the day but it was still oppressive to keep the others as slaves.

i need to reiterate again that accommodations and help is not a privilege, it’s a right.

[-]

0FFFXY@reddit

Again: An equal playing field would be one where no help is given; a world without social structures; nature. That's the baseline, which we're both in agreement on is not oppressive.

If you add zero oppression to that you're still left with no oppression.

Creating social structures to give special help to groups that need it, but not as much help as you would like them to, is not oppression. (Again: This is special help, not given to other groups equally, ergo; creating an uneven the playing field.)

Having expectations is also not oppression. (Although having low expectations can be a sign of bigotry.)

You simply do not know what the word oppression means, perhaps not privilege either.

[-]

C0nnectionTerminat3d@reddit

we’re not talking about nature, we’re talking about society today. An equal playing field is not equal if someone is automatically at a disadvantage, that shouldn’t be hard for you to understand.

[-]

0FFFXY@reddit

We've established that nature is the baseline for an equal playing field, without social structures or anything with potential for oppression.
We've established that society today does not add oppression, but rather tips the playing field in favour of people with disabilities through special advantages given to alleviate the impact of those disabilities (though you think not enough).

Providing equal help–which you claim it is oppression not to do ("Providing some help as you’ve stated is not oppressive, but not providing an equal amount is.")–would mean providing the same support for non-disabled people as is provided for disabled people; UC, PIP, DLA, etc, making disabled people, comparatively, worse off.

A playing field can absolutely be equal even when the players are not. The disadvantage of a disability does not arise from the playing field, but from the reduction in ability. The disability in itself is not oppression, if that's the argument you're trying to make.

Am I disabled: Yes, nerve damage.

[-]

C0nnectionTerminat3d@reddit

You miss out a key thing in what i am telling you; That society today expects disabled people to be the same as abled people. This is the very definition of disability oppression, i cannot say it any clearer to you and if you cannot understand that after this reply genuinely there’s no point in continuing this conversation.

You also seem to be under the impression that this is only about monetary benefits which tells me a lot about you as a person. Please re-read the first message i replied to you. You cannot tell me that forcing disabled people out of education or healthcare is equal.

[-]

0FFFXY@reddit

[S]ociety today expects disabled people to be the same as abled people. This is the very definition of disability oppression[...]

First: Clearly untrue, as evidenced by benefits given only to disabled people.
Second: Equal expectations, even if they existed, would (again) not be oppression. It simply doesn't fit any definition of it.

Olympics, right. You see how that's not the playing field (the environment) being unequal, it's the players (the individuals) being unequal, due to having a disability?

If you want equality of outcome for disabled people, it necessitates oppression of everyone else.

If you want equality of opportunity, no one would be oppressed, but disabled people would not receive any special benefits that others wouldn't receive as well.

[-]

C0nnectionTerminat3d@reddit

“equality for disabled = oppression for everyone else”

yeah, that’s the first time i’ve heard that. Respectfully i think you’re just at this point purposely being difficult and borderline ableist (for like the 5th time, equal opportunity is not special treatment) so I’ll end the conversation here.

[-]

0FFFXY@reddit

Equality of outcome for disabled people = oppression of everyone else

Achieving equality of outcome between groups that are not identical always means oppression for the group that is doing better on the selected metrics, it's not exclusive to the situation for disabled people.

I’ll end the conversation here.

Please tell me this comment is intended satirically.

[-]

C0nnectionTerminat3d@reddit

i think that would almost be eugenics and likely wouldn’t be received well by anyone. I wouldn’t put it past them to do that, though.

The euthanasia bill, from my knowledge will only be for terminal patients or people with long lasting, chronic illness that serves significant effect on their life. There would also (hopefully) be a process of interviews and exams done to ensure that that is the right decision; so even if the DWP or NHS encourage it as an option, it might not necessarily be approved by them (similar to how a lot of nhs services will just send you straight to a&e when you don’t need it).

[-]

Ginger_Grumpybunny@reddit

You say that like "people with long lasting, chronic illness that serves significant effect on their life" aren't a significant proportion of the population.

[-]

Beardedbelly@reddit

The proposed law mentions a 6 months prognosis. So it’s not just anyone it’s those in the very end of their life can have the option.

[-]

C0nnectionTerminat3d@reddit

I mean like, severe pain every single day to the point they are bed ridden, whole body paralysis etc; things that keep people from doing absolutely anything.

They were in full blown conflict with each other

[-]

Elongulation420@reddit

Those were the exact words if I recall correctly

[-]

Pedantichrist@reddit

ISIS the Islamic State cult, or ISIS, the fellowship in Huntingdon Castle, Clonegal?

Surely there has to be some kind of law against that? If it was in your contract then that’s fair you signed it, but forcing employees to use annual leave?

I’d have booked all of it at once, and then quit at the end tbh, use the time looking for a job

[-]

fleetwood_mag@reddit

Legally employers can mandate when holiday leave is taken. Nothing in the contract. I left in the end anyway.

[-]

I just wonder whether this is an unnecessary but of admin given that at the end of the day we'll put the tax money where we spend it irrespective of where it came from.

[-]

The washing up bowl shouldn’t sit in the bloody sink. It should stay on the counter until it’s being used

[-]

InevitableFox81194@reddit

I don't even understand why you'd even use one? It's just a breeding ground for bacteria.. we already have sinks.

[-]

glasgowgeg@reddit

I don't even understand why you'd even use one?

If you don't have a 1.5 or double sink, how do you pour any liquids left in cups, etc into the sink if it's already full?

InevitableFox81194@reddit

I agree. Watching my highly intelligent child slowly die inside when she did her GCSE exams was horrible, thankfully by the time she made it to Alevels she'd created a coping mechanism, but she almost had to destroy herself to rebuild herself. Ironically, she got an unconditional offer and is now flourishing in uni. Yet at one point at 15, we wondered if she'd ever survive her a level. All her teachers said she was crazy intelligent but had a disconnect between brain and hand, but not brain and mouth.

[-]

woodsywomanpip@reddit

Was she ever tested for dyspraxia or other learning difficulties? I ask because I was diagnosed with dyspraxia and your comment resonated with me in many ways, and I had similar struggles with how I do in exams vs if you just spoke to me. Dyspraxia was explained to me as being a disconnect between my brain and my hands, so this could be an answer as to why she struggled too.

[-]

InevitableFox81194@reddit

Autism... but as she's a girl, can you guess when she finally got an official on paper medical diagnosis?? We were told in yr 8 by the schools specialist dept that she was presenting with autism but that she masked almost too well.

She got her diagnosis, officially, last month.. she's in her 1st year of uni..

[-]

University exams should reflect not the student’s knowledge, but their preparedness for the job or profession they are studying for.

Non-specific school exams should reflect the subject.

Given that it’s a mass education system the only practical way of testing everybody with one exam is written. If you can spew everything you know orally, then right that down.

Obviously a continuous learning/testing of students’ knowledge should be done through the school year.

[-]

05blob@reddit

Can we talk about the absurdity that is insisting on written exams for things that 100% should be a practical? Why do we insist that the practical subjects must have a written paper in order to be 'academic'? We are literally taking subjects people who aren't good at written exams could succeed at and making them inaccessible.

My Mum failed her dress making O-level, not because she couldn't sew but because she couldn't write about sewing. I lost marks in my dance A-level because I couldn't successfully explain how to stretch a hamstring in writing, something that you are very unlikely to need to do if you pursue dance as a career!

[-]

northernbloke@reddit

Finance should be taught in schools as part of the core curriculum, I mean the likes of

How to budget
How to save
How to save for retirement
How tax works
How interest rates work
Maybe even how to file a tax return, how investing works

[-]

eidolon_eidolon@reddit

When were you last at school? It has been a core part of the curriculum for a long time. Unfortunately the majority of children, particularly teenagers, don't care about it.

[-]

northernbloke@reddit

I left school in 1993, my 3 kids have all left fairly recently and none of them were taught it.

[-]

Darthblaker7474@reddit

I left school in 2012/3 and it wasn't taught then.

[-]

glasgowgeg@reddit

How to budget

Basic maths, is taught.

How to save

Basic maths, is taught.

How to save for retirement

Same as above, it's just a specific goal. "Retirement savings" can change all the time as well, no point in teaching a specific method that may no longer be relevant in a few years time.

How tax works

Basic maths, is taught. Also, taxation can change with the government of the day. Someone who's taught about how inheritance tax works 2 years ago may find their knowledge outdated in a year or two.

How interest rates work

Basic maths, is taught.

Maybe even how to file a tax return and how investing works

Vast majority of people will never need to file a tax return, and investing is just gambling/applied interest rates.

[-]

flowering_sun_star@reddit

Between Maths and English, you should have picked up all the skills you need to understand all of them. Maths for doing the calculations, and English for being able to type 'what is...' in google and evaluate the responses.

And if you haven't picked up those skills, you're even less likely to have paid attention to a class on something that's of no immediate relevance to you.

[-]

MiotRoose@reddit

This has always been my point. I wasn't taught about mortgages at school, I was taught reading comprehension. When I needed a mortgage I used those skills to read Martin Lewis, stuff from the bank etc. I was also taught enough maths to be able to calculate what a 10% deposit would be etc etc

There's no upper limit on what could be taught in schools. We could teach pharmacology so kids understand their prescriptions, or basic plumbing so they can fix a sink. Realistically though, the time is better spent teaching a decent bunch of fundamentals that allow you to quickly and efficiently gain those skills when the need arises

[-]

Possibly_a_Firetruck@reddit

The most complex thing here is compound interest and you learned everything you need to know for that by the time you finished middle school.

[-]

RandeKnight@reddit

One of the big problems is that it's really going to highlight class differences.

Using your phone or watch to pay for things, travel, use contactless is a backward step from using a bank card.

What's backwards about it?

You are risking an expensive device

Risking in what way?

and holding things up while you try and unlock devices with your face, activate the contactless bit

I don't need to unlock my device to pay, and even if I did, it's quicker to unlock my phone than get my card out of my wallet.

Even if you have it on auto, it’s less convenient than using a cheap plastic card

Steps for phone: Remove phone from pocket, tap

Steps for card: Remove wallet from pocket, remove card from wallet, tap (potentially have to put card in machine and enter PIN, if it's hit the limit of contactless payments it can make prior to reverification).

[-]

MJLDat@reddit

Risking by dropping it, or damaging a watch by contacting the contactless bit. Also, theft.

Have you ever tried to go through Kings X station at 8:30 in the morning? You need to be fast. I’ve sat behind commuters pissing about, people who should be used to it, but still holding people up while exposing their £1000 device.

I have a Shield wallet, a copy of the Ridge, my bank card is just there. It cost me nothing, if I drop it, who cares. If I lose it, that’s when the phone comes in to use, I cancel the card and use the payment I have stored on my phone, which is for that situation only.

The face unlocking applies to train tickets, I see it all the time, people trying to show their ticket to a reader, then the phone locks, they try to unlock it, then bring the ticket up. Me, with my paper ticket, looking like folded arm cricket guy.

I’m talking about the whole system, not just buying a meal deal in Tesco.

[-]

glasgowgeg@reddit

Risking by dropping it, or damaging a watch by contacting the contactless bit. Also, theft

No more risk than simply possessing my phone in public, this isn't an additional risk introduced by using my phone for contactless payments. I'll copy part of this sentence again, using bold to highlight something you don't appear to have realised:

"or damaging a watch by contacting the contactless bit"

It's contactless, you don't need to contact it.

The face unlocking applies to train tickets

My phone also has a fingerprint scanner, and both face unlock and fingerprint unlock is quicker than going into my wallet to get a physical ticket out.

You completely ignored the bit where I gave a step-by-step breakdown showing that using a physical card is actually less convenient than contactless, any particular reason for that?

[-]

MJLDat@reddit

Yeah, it’s contactless, but that doesn’t stop people making contact. No one has time to hover shit, you slap the cheap card against the reader and get on with your day. Having to gently hover your shiny Apple Watch over it, when there is an army marching behind you, is worse.

Highlight all you like, I read your message, but you didn’t read the OPs question.

I addressed the card convenience/inconvenience bit, not that I have to answer to anything an internet stranger demands of me.

Have a day.

[-]

glasgowgeg@reddit

Yeah, it’s contactless, but that doesn’t stop people making contact

Which is a user issue, not an issue with the devices themselves.

I addressed the card convenience/inconvenience bit

You didn't actually, you ignored it, which is why I asked you why you ignored it.

[-]

SlightlyCriminal@reddit

Whilst im not here to convince you otherwise as you are set with this one, I will challenge you because it’s a fun one

It is definitely not more convenient. For one it takes about 2 seconds for me to access my Apple Pay on my phone and 90% of the time I already have it ready before I get to the self checkout/cashier.

You can also have your card ready beforehand sure but it’s quicker to active Apple Pay than digging in your wallet for your card if you really wanna get technical about it. Not to mention if you have to input a pin for your card too.

I also don’t have to carry a wallet around or the card loosely in my pocket which saves me the risk of losing it because I can use my phone instead, which generally is with me everywhere i go.

‘You are risking an expensive device’ what exactly are we risking here?

'Sloth' rhymes with 'growth'

[-]

United_Common_1858@reddit

Phones ruin the serendipity of life.

Not an old man rants at clouds type argument. Phones are ingrained. But the overuse of their tools ruins the chances that make life interesting.

I don't want to pre-plan every visit, have every restaurant ranked and rated, have a map show me everywhere to go.

One of the best parts of a night out in the 90's was losing your friends, making new friends and then meeting up over the next few days and someone asking where did you get to?

Or bumping into an old friend and asking them what have you been up to and then they tell you some amazing stories that you were not privy to 24/7 via social media.

Recently I took my kids round Europe on Interrail and when we got to Italy I banned their phones for finding information. So they got lost in Venice and had to problem solve, use train timetables in person etc. After an adjustment period they loved it.

Phones ruin the providence of life.

[-]

glasgowgeg@reddit

I don't want to pre-plan every visit, have every restaurant ranked and rated, have a map show me everywhere to go

You don't have to do that though, nobody is looking over your shoulder and forcing you to do that.

[-]

United_Common_1858@reddit

You are missing the point. Here is a real example;

A few weeks I was in a group of friends and colleagues, the majority of them were Gen Z and younger. We all left a theatre after performing in London and got scattered within a few hundred metre radius of each other.

The sub-group I was in started, quite frantically, trying to cajole people back into a group and lots of group chats were blowing up. Someone from another group replied "We are in X pub".

So everyone started to Google "X pub" and there were 3. So voice notes were left asking "which X pub".

I just watched a group gradually descend into a complete reluctance to do anything other than the most efficient and autonomous action.

I kid you not, one of the X-named pubs was directly across the street in Holborn so I just walked over and found 2 people we were looking for and walked back in the time they were all still calling.

Then they wanted to round up the next group...and the whole thing started again but with more people.

My point is, I know I can function without these things, but the world around me is increasingly optimising itself where no one else shares that belief and it reduces resilience.

[-]

glasgowgeg@reddit

So you want to enforce rules against other people, that's materially different from your original comment.

[-]

United_Common_1858@reddit

No I don't want to enforce anything. There is no rules here.

I want to encourage more resilience and I will. You seem.perosnally attacked. That's on you.

You might need to revisit the aim of this thread.

[-]

glasgowgeg@reddit

I want to encourage more resilience and I will.

Again, this is materially different from your original comment of:

"I don't want to pre-plan every visit, have every restaurant ranked and rated, have a map show me everywhere to go."

Nobody is forcing you to do that, other people can do so if they want.

If you want to go through your life with a carefully curated bubble governed by a mobile device, no one is stopping you.

You literally just said you want to encourage resiliance against people doing this, you are fundamentally opposed to it and want to police other peoples actions to be more like what you want.

You're embarrassing yourself here.

[-]

United_Common_1858@reddit

It's clear from your profile you will take every chance you can online to argue about anything so I think it's best to just block you.

[-]

cactusdan94@reddit

While i think the counter argument to this is phones obviously also make life alot safer, i completely get what your saying. The bit about your kids in italy is really cool, great idea.

[-]

United_Common_1858@reddit

I agree with your point but I do wonder, how unsafe was life before ubiquitous phone use?

Not everyone can drive to work and frequently you need people to fix things at big essential services like hospitals. Being on call is not a day off and there’s absolutely no reason for these services to be less functional just because it’s Sunday.

[-]

GlitchingGecko@reddit

So where do those NHS, Fire and Police workers get fuel or food?

Are you closing pubs and restaurants too?

[-]

Ianhw77k@reddit

If they're working Sunday, they'll have another day off to compensate for it. If you're working 6 days a week, Monday to Saturday, you shouldn't be.

[-]

GlitchingGecko@reddit

Riiight... they still might need fuel or food on the day?

And what about the pubs and restaurants? Should all sports be stopped on a Sunday too? Garden Centres?

[-]

No one expects Karen the Cashier to be there from 8am-10pm every day of the week.

Except retail managers who have had a couple of people call in sick.

Once got a call when I was in Lanzarote. Despite explaining the fact I was a few thousand miles away they still asked if I'd be willing to come home early and cover my department.

[-]

I used to work on the meat and fish departments at a supermarket and I despised Sundays.

You still had the exact same preparation work before opening, the same set-up routine, the same markdown and wastage routine, the same clean down and shut-down routine. On the fish bar you also had the joys of an entire ice change on the counter which took about an hour in total after closing. The only difference is you'd produce less lines to reflect lower trading and generally had lower footfall on the serve-over outside of December when it actually became busier than other days of the week for some inexplicable reason.

It was basically the job of two to three shifts forced into one with lower staffing, and they removed Sunday premium for it as well. I was a shop steward for the union and would openly argue the toss with them to drop their Sunday trading hours campaign as I just didn't see the point of it given that with the exception of check-outs it was the exact same shift for everyone else, if not a harder for some such as myself as a direct result of the reduced opening hours.

[-]

LauraDurnst@reddit

A colleague working Monday-Saturday is doing longer hours, plus has less time on a Sunday.

Who is choosing to work six days a week and only ever have Sunday off? Most jobs that do that would also offer some level of flexibility.

Also yes, I get a midweek day off. I also don't get bank holidays off. Didn't realise this was some weird one-upmanship.

[-]

GlitchingGecko@reddit

Anyone who works via a rota and doesn't choose their work hours?

Even if you work Mon-Fri, you're pretty much locked into HAVING to do things on the Saturday, because the Sunday is so busy in the few hours everything is open, because it's for a half-day.

[-]

NaniFarRoad@reddit

Bringing you in to work weekends then, as well?

[-]

Hungry-Falcon3005@reddit

Most people work weekends. It’s not new

[-]

alexdelp1er0@reddit

Most people don't.

[-]

GlitchingGecko@reddit

Only shop workers, petrol station workers, cafe staff, bar staff, restaurant staff, police, fire, nhs, military, plumbers, electricians, gas engineers, mechanics, IT technicians, social workers, and taxi drivers.

NaniFarRoad@reddit

You're supposed to have time off in between. So ye, some people work 7 days a week, but it's not 7 x 9-5 days a week, every week. Unless you're a company director/management job, and then you probably have a spouse/pa to sort out shopping and other timetable. clashes.

[-]

Pretend-Treacle-4596@reddit

Yeah, should be 11 hours between shifts with 48 hours rest in every 14 days.

[-]

GlitchingGecko@reddit

Correct.

So why should the people who work Mon-Sat have to do everything in 6 hours on a Sunday because certain places close early, when every other day of the week they're open 10-12 hours?

Everything here is 10-4 or 11-5, except pubs and restaurants.

I'm usually up by 8am and want to get on with my day, not sitting around for 2 hours before I can do anything.

[-]

starlinguk@reddit

Sunday hours should be scrapped and shops should be closed.

[-]

GlitchingGecko@reddit

So what do people who work Mon-Sat do if they need to buy things?

I don't see why there should be any differentiation between days of week. Someone working Mon-Fri gets shafted when everything closes at 4pm on a Sunday, and can never see a doctor or dentist because most don't open at weekends.

Where as someone working Wed-Sun currently gets a shorter working day on Sun, and also Mon and Tues off when everything else is open?

Just make Saturday and Sunday opening the same as the rest of the week and it's fair for all.

[-]

Social skills should be part of the school curriculum considering children have less time to develop key social skills as they grew up with technology and screens all around them.

[-]

glasgowgeg@reddit

Social skills should be part of the school curriculum

It is, just because they don't sit you in a room and say "These are what social skills are" doesn't mean you don't learn them.

You presumably engaged in team activities, group work, team sports, presentations to develop public speaking skills, etc at school.

These are all forms of teaching you social skills.

[-]

chasimm3@reddit

This is like the "people should be taught how to do taxes and apply for a mortgage in school" statement. We already are taught that shit, just indirectly. School teaches socialising by forcing 30 kids to spend a day with each other, it teaches how to work as a group, how to share, etc. It just does this via group presentations, team sports, debating, presenting youR answer in front of class. All this shit is teaching social skills.

Yet they only served to punish the bullied and forced the kids that worked hard to carry the AH kids who didn't do their school work. It's nice on paper but it's a practice that cannot work, especially with kids and young teens in an institutionalised environment that can become hostile and physical between students.

Group work is problematic even at uni level with young adults, that's why in a working environment you have a manager to delegate and oversee, as well as checks and balances with the necessity of needing pay, or possibility of bonuses for time sensitive work or just HR.

Their purpose is a pipe dream based on outdated information which has been invalidated since but the practice hasn't been updated. Let's not pretend our schools are infallible now when they're not even funded enough to function

[-]

itsmetsunnyd@reddit

In theory, yes. In practice, no.

That's the point I'm making; if it as an exercise is not operating as it is intended to, in this case encouraging socialisation, then it is incorrect to claim it is interwoven across curriculums as it is functionally pointless.

[-]

Adventurous_Site_107@reddit

But if you had these socialisation classes wouldn’t you just be saying the same thing? The classes wouldn’t work for everyone. The previous commenter is right, school in it self is a socialisation master class if a difficult one

[-]

KoreanJesusPleasures@reddit

Not that I want this to happen, but in your example of isolating a student, there is still socialisation happen in various contexts. So it becomes correct in any regard to claim it is interwoven.

The functionality argument still doesn't apply to its existence in curricula.

But beyond that pedantic aspect, I disagree wholeheartedly that it doesn't function as intended. There's surely room for improvement, and always will be, but it's present. Even outside curricula, it exists by the nature of schools, classrooms, etc. as a physical shared space, by effect of school rules, etc.

[-]

Arsewhistle@reddit

There is a focus on teamwork and good social skills, the whole way through school.

I can't imagine how a social skills lesson would work, or who would be teaching these lessons

[-]

PlumInevitable1953@reddit

maybe a better way to put this is, to reform the way that socialization is taught in schools. that way it might actually work for every kid involved. the current focus on socialization through forced teamwork in schools imo just serves to ostracize those who can't be gregarious like the other children and negatively reinforces bad social behaviors. having all the kids pair up and go work together just teaches the kids who are left behind to avoid social situations because it won't work anyway. that's how you end up with all these self isolating weirdos who don't even understand why they can't get a girlfriend or even friends at all. we set them up for failure by teaching them avoidance. sure, it works on some kids, but we totally leave a whole demographic behind by fostering the exclusion of those who cannot innately keep up socially.

[-]

Arsewhistle@reddit

socialization

ostracize

Kids under 13 shouldn't be legally allowed anywhere near the internet/ipads/smart phones.

There is no way that access to the internet, even through kids versions of sites/with filters, isn't ruining these kids. Companies and political interest have perfected the art of influence via content, and these kids haven't got a chance.

I know that every generation says this about the next, but the internet is much more dangerous now that it's been perfected as a marketing tool than it ever was. And parents definitely use it as a babysitting tool, when I was a kid (only 30 now so not some boomer take) me, my brothers and friends all had limited or supervised access to the internet. Being raised by ipads is insane compared to what used to be a PC in the living room or xbox/playstation on a TV also in a family area.

[-]

if the company is closed for Christmas those days should not come from my holiday allowance, it's not my choice that you are closed.

It's the basis on which your employment contract rests.

It's not the worst

[-]

CozJeez85@reddit (OP)

You're missing the point of the post though

[-]

Goaduk@reddit

Couldn't agree with you more. We had a few childless workers in our old factory and they were essentially forced to take a week off during the coldest month, they were stuck in the house.

I'd add Bank Holidays too as tbh I don't want 5 Mondays off I want a week off.

[-]

hlvd@reddit

The Palestinians and Hamas are the same thing.

[-]

bowak@reddit

Does that include any infants who get killed in the fighting?

[-]

hlvd@reddit

Blame the parents!

[-]

bowak@reddit

So you agree that infants aren't Hamas - this is progress!

By the end of today I hope you can start to ponder if location of birth doesn't mean that you can automatically assume the worst of people.

That would be the God that talks about an eye for an eye? I'm not religious. Anyway I could do this all night, but the topic of the conversation was things you will defend even though others think you're wrong, and I say let the murderers and Peado's swing by the neck.

Autocorrect tried to change it to murderers and pedestrians. Even I think that is a bit harsh 😳

[-]

SLIMYBARNACLES62@reddit

What? An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind perfectly shows my point. If someone murders, sentencing them to death puts you in the exact same footing as them. It doesn’t matter if it’s a legal killing, it’s still a killing.

[-]

fletch3059@reddit

4 days ago you said this...

We don’t need to. There’s a strong force of fighters who will be willing to wipe the scum of the SS of the face of the earth.

So killing the ss is acceptable to you (I'd agree btw) but individual's with similar beliefs and actions aren't acceptable to be tried and executed?

[-]

I can understand why they should but its been proven not to be a deterrent and bizarrely executing people costs more than keeping them in prison so until they make it a more cost effective option the cost benefit ratio isn't there.

[-]

pryonic1705@reddit

Also miscarriages of justice happen all the time, where innocent people are jailed even for murder. You can always free someone, apologise and compensate them. You can't bring someone back from dead.

The first four words of your sentence are enough!

[-]

forfar4@reddit

I have never heard a medieval report of mobile phone theft, so...?

[-]

BrawDev@reddit

You could say this about effectively any terrorist movement too. Did the British army win against the IRA? What about US when it invaded Vietnam.

Soviets in Afghan

Like, how many times do humans need taught that violence is never the answer to problems.

[-]

MrGenRick@reddit

The Philippines decided to just kill anyone they thought might be involved in drugs

Many people who are average to low IQ and unremarkable in eery way are wealthy through their ancestor's luck or judgement.

A lot of rich people are mediocre at best. Just the same way that a lot of poor people are extremely intelligent, they were just born poor.

[-]

WrestlingFan95@reddit

I get what you are saying. However, those who are earning above average wage likely have natural born intelligence. I’m talking the greatest minds in IQ, however, above average. Those below average tend to work jobs that are less higher earning than those who have been born into wealth and/or have born with intelligence.

Often I’ve heard from people who are earning say £70,000 upwards saying things like “why don’t they just get a better job” as though those who earning lower have the ability to their £70k + job. They can’t seem to understand some people are legit never going to earn a ‘good wage’ no matter how much “hard work” (which is funny because most lower paid workers work really hard) they will never make in the region ever of £70k.

[-]

LewisMileyCyrus@reddit

I'm against crime, and I'm not afraid to admit it.

[-]

blozzerg@reddit

In all seriousness, I find myself in a very small camp who is okay with the current prison set up and sentencing lengths. Most people I meet tend to think they’re too soft and prisons too cushty, they want longer sentences and cold damp cells.

I think prisons should be more about rehabilitation, and if that means treating people with more dignity and respect, then so be it. The punishment aspect is the fact that you’re stuck there, I don’t mind someone having a warm bed and three meals a day, so long as with that they get the help and tools needed to ensure they don’t ever end up back there. Yes there are homeless who don’t have such ‘luxuries’ but that’s a separate issue.

I also think most sentences are appropriate, too many people see ‘life with a minimum term of X years’ and equate that to only X years to be served, life doesn’t mean life in this country, ignoring the concept of parole and being on license forever - that’s basically a fast track to several more years in prison should you ever step foot out of line again.

I agree some sentences are lax, deaths caused on the roads being one notorious example, but life with usually a minimum term of 25+ years of murder is fine, I can’t imagine spending the same amount of time that I’ve already been alive being confined to a cell.

[-]

SwanBridge@reddit

ignoring the concept of parole and being on license forever - that’s basically a fast track to several more years in prison should you ever step foot out of line again.

This is often overlooked.

I used to work with offenders. Had a bloke on my caseload who had served something like six years beyond his minimum sentence as he couldn't behave inside and was clearly still a significant risk to others. He'd have regular parole hearings but you knew what the outcome would be before you had even written the report.

Most people on life licence actually do successfully rehabilitate and settle down and get on with life. Overall despite the nature of their offence they're quite easy cases to manage as the parole board comes to the right decision most of the time. However there are always exceptions to that rule. Had another bloke who was on life licence, and settled well back into the community and kept his head down. Until it suddenly went to shit and he was constantly involved in domestic call-outs and low-level acquisitive offending. Had to fight with the parole board to get drug testing added as a licence condition despite the reasonable rationale behind it, and it took me a year to finally be in a position to recall him.

My biggest gripe with sentencing was short-term sentences below a year in length. Absolutely pointless, and usually used on more chaotic offenders for whom a custodial sentence means nothing and is sometimes even sought out by then in the colder months. It would've made far more sense to give them a longer sentence so recovery and rehabilitative work could be done inside and give offender managers more time to come up with adequate release plans. It just seemed pointless to have a short term sentence, followed by release and inevitable recall, followed by release again and shortly after another short term sentence, followed by recall and release, and on and on for years on end with no change to behaviour or end in sight. Sucked the life out of the criminal justice system.

[-]

firetruckgoesweewoo@reddit

I don’t know if you work in a prison. I do, several.

Nearly everyone I’ve met who works in a prison, and has done so for many years, tells me that there’s little use in punishing people for more than two or three years. Before you get all riled up - I did too! - that doesn’t mean she should let murderers, rapist, and the likes, roam around free. What we mean is that after being in prison for 2 - 3 years, your life is destroyed. You’ve lost your job, your place to live, your friends have taken off, your family rarely visit, your job prospects are shot. Whether you’re in prison for committing fraud or killing 10 people: in this case it doesn’t matter. Both prisoners lose everything. After 2 - 3 years you don’t keep them imprisoned to continue punishing them, you keep them imprisoned to satisfy the victims and/or their loved ones.

Which is why we try our hardest to help them rehabilitate. The thing is, with the current housing market, constant (over) sharing on social media, the prospects of you having a place to live, a job or people to rely on after you’ve served your time are practically zero. Yes, there are many organisations that help, but there’s only so little they can do.

We’re literally prepping people just to toss them out on the streets and tell them “well, too fucking bad! You shouldn’t have committed a crime and then you wouldn’t be in this position” and close the door on them. Yes, it is true that they are the instigator of this situation. However, the current system is the instigator for the high recidivism.

Most people don’t commit crimes because they’re horrible people. Most people commit crimes because they’re desperate. Most prisoners I meet are thieves. Though, I admit, as time goes on I meet more and more people who have done unspeakable things.

What an incredibly blunt dogwhistle.

[-]

pickledparot@reddit

Dogwhistle?

[-]

MrGenRick@reddit

A relevant quote from The Hutch Hikers Guide where problems regarding time travel are pointed out...

"The major problem is simply one of grammar, and the main work to consult in this matter is Dr. Dan Streetmentioner's Time Traveler's Handbook of 1001 Tense Formations."

I think you might benefit from a quick re-read?

[-]

abw@reddit

I think you might benefit from a quick re-read?

I will haven been re-reading it by the time you wioll mayen on-read this comment.

[-]

pelvviber@reddit

Ah! A true scholar indeed. ✊🏼

[-]

joquarky@reddit

If many-worlds turns out to be how it all works, then time travel will be benign.

[-]

ElectricFlamingo7@reddit

I feel like all the global events that have happened since 2020 have been the result of a future time traveller who keeps coming back to change something but he keeps on fucking up each time...

Lord knows what the original timeline was!

[-]

ringerrosy@reddit

I disagree with MGM.

I wonder if there was a religion or sect that decided it was necessary to remove an infants hands at the time of birth. How long would it be legal.

Assault is Assault no matter when it occurs

[-]

sobrique@reddit

If benefits/social security are done on 'household income' - e.g. 'just' moving in with my girlfriend made her ineligible - then taxes should be too.

And no, the married coupled allowance isn't enough - you don't have to be married to lose benefit eligibility, and transferring £1000 of allowance is a pittance anyway.

[-]

shogun100100@reddit

Id upvote this twice if I could. The rules on this are totally illogical shite.

The whole tax spectrum should be per household/couple and fully flexible. 2 people making £50k each are miles better off than 2 people of which one makes £100k and the other nothing, which is plain stupid.

[-]

sobrique@reddit

although apparently the system doesn't really understand poly relationships, so I am aware of a few groups of people who game it that way.

[-]

the_anon_girl@reddit

Hybrid working.

If you’re not offering at least two days WFH, I’m not interested. Covid has proven this model works in a lot of sectors and if a company is back in the office full time or offering one 1 day from home it tells me they don’t trust their employees and I don’t want anything to do with it.

[-]

savantified@reddit

We should get rid of street lights except for on major roads and city centres.

[-]

Soggy_Amoeba9334@reddit

Biological scientific names should be shown as Genus species, not Genus Species. The species is lowercase. They are also not all Latin.

[-]

Henno212@reddit

MH is used too much in criminal defences/etc

[-]

MrGenRick@reddit

Everything okay bud?

[-]

knight-under-stars@reddit

Fine thanks.

You're not a responsible owner if you let your cat out. - they decimate local wildlife - they shit and piss in other people's gardens - they get hit by cars

If your argument is that it's not their natural habit or whatever then maybe they shouldn't be pets.

In reality, a lot of people get them because they're "low maintenance" when the truth they wouldn't be I'd the owners accepted the same responsibility as any other domesticated animal.

[-]

G4M35@reddit

they shit and piss in other people's gardens

Ever been to NYC? Dog owners let their dogs do this "normally".

[-]

MD564@reddit

New York city? As in not in the UK?

[-]

GammaPhonic@reddit

Christmas and Boxing Day are national holidays. They can not be taken from your annual leave as I understand it.

[-]

Turbulent_Ebb9589@reddit

OCD doesn't always have anything to do with being clean, germ-phobic, orderly, or repetitive in actions. In fact, it often has nothing to do with those things. This is a fact, rather than a firm opinion I hold, but society at large doesn't seem to be on board with it.

Source: have treated dozens of people diagnosed with OCD, and only a minority have been 'neat freaks'. Accordingly, people saying "I'm a bit OCD" makes me want to scream!

[-]

Revadarius@reddit

I have OCD, comes hand in hand with a few things thanks to my Asperger's. It's a sequential routine that comforts.

2 major patterns are doing things a certain way because they bring a level of comfort. I shower in a specific order, I turn the T.V up in 3s, I get stressed if certain items aren't in certain places - typically due to finding important necessary items is stressful or needing the comfort the item is in viewing distance or reaching distance. Many other instances, but they are examples.

Larger problems are stress induced OCD. I need to wash and rewash pots until I'm satisfied. Counting to 5 in a 5-dot pattern (4 corners, 1 in center) and counting to 5 in every way you can connect those dots. To the point I can speed through 1-125 in seconds, using my tongue against the roof of my mouth to draw out the patterns. Cleaning in a ritualistic and exhaustingly specific order, won't go into details. Comfort watching, rewatching t.v. shows or YouTube videos on repeat that I know how they go, word for word. Same with songs, my current song selection is very limited due to currently expanding into new songs I've no memories entirely yet.

It's restrictive and exhausting. And stifles creativity, I hate that I play Minecraft and the first thing I do is build a 12126 hut in the same style no matter what and I can't stop myself. Or ordering the exact same foods from the same places, and if I can't get exactly what I want then it's upsetting to me more so then it should be.

EvoTheIrritatedNerd@reddit

Anti-bullying assemblies where they played some emotional video were the worst to endure. Just reliving trauma with the bully present

[-]

terryjuicelawson@reddit

It is an odd thing though as if someone in our adult lives were being mean to us and we whacked them, we'd be up for an assault charge. Putting a child in the position where they need to decide what is appropriate is a little dangerous. Potential they hit a cry-bully who takes it to a teacher. They could have an older brother who will wait outside the gates. At least try the official process, taking it higher if needed.

[-]

Underwhatline@reddit

Sadly schools are places where interest makes you a target and being different is a danger. So we're teaching out kids to hide the things that interest them and squash any unique point of difference they have.

All this and you still end up with a bully problem it's just someone else's kids

[-]

theamelany@reddit

Schools dont seem to do much about it though, just go well the bully has issues, fair enough maybe they do , but they shouldnt be given free reign to inflict it on others

[-]

TheToyGirl@reddit

I don't believe in the word 'naughty' being said to a child. Only because there is no universal agreement or standard for this 'level' ..samecfor 'man up'.

I've had constant debates about both statements and I've yet to have a consistent or defined example that makes sense. Every example of a 'man' I can fit easily even though I'm a woman. I feel very sad and sorry for anyone who has been 'naughty' or told to'man up'.

[-]

worksinthetown@reddit

Being famous/a celebrity is torture.

Your personality is picked apart by PR reps/managers/agents and moulded in to a palatable package
You spend every public engagement posing/being used as a mannequin to hawk products
People you meet along the way only know the performative version of you, so you become trapped and continue the charade and suppress your true self leading to crisis, mental illness, relationship breakdowns etc
It‘s unlikely you‘ll be able to find a normal job should the fame/celebrity fizzle out, so you have to keep up the act to pay the bills or degrade yourself for the press to make some money
Obsession with your appearance overwhelms you quickly as your own industry preys on your insecurities
The relationships/marriages don‘t last because you cannot be yourself and are unable to fully commit to your OH
When you try and escape and go on vacation, somehow a terribly unflattering picture of you ends up on the front page of some rag with a snide caption underneath

I used to think their lives must be so wonderful, but I wouldn‘t swap my normal little life surrounded by the people I love for all the money in the world.

[-]

Carinwe_Lysa@reddit

That British food isn't bad!

I'm from the Balkans where everything is pickled, made from Pork and hell even seasoned with pickle juices somehow, and then with added cream. Yet, our food is mysteriously not present to international scrutiny. The food in the UK is completely fine and suits the climate perfectly.

Hell, give me a whopping sunday roast every day of the week and I'll be a happy person for life.

It's just odd that Britain, mainly England gets shit on so much for their food, when the rest of Western & Northern Europe has cuisine that is literally the same, give or take some regional changes.

there are weight classes in fighting sports for a reason. and the smaller man normally loses. a feather weight for example could whale on a heavyweight as hard as he could and not make a dint. a few punches from the heavyweight would dismantle the Featherweight. its basic physics.

[-]

G4M35@reddit

there are weight classes in fighting sports for a reason.

What about Reddit?

[-]

pinpoint321@reddit

I agree completely but am not sure of the point you’re making? Not arguing just interested to hear more.

[-]

Excellent-Long-9500@reddit

some people believe that it doesn't matter how big you are in a fight. Mostly always little people. it definitely does. That's all I'm saying. It's an argument I've had lots of times. mainly with non fighters who are smaller and defensive and a bit insecure probably

[-]

pinpoint321@reddit

As a short arse myself who very much avoids fights as much as possible I agree in principle.

Take two professional boxers one a heavyweight and one a flyweight and I know who’s winning.

It's easier to get away with the bare essentials when they include bread that's actually fresh.

[-]

asdf0897awyeo89fq23f@reddit

you only need to spend five minutes on here to see that a lot of people do seem to eat garbage

That's the problem. It's not about what we can eat, it's about what we do eat. It's immaterial that we have a lot of Michelin star restaurants when most of us have never been to one. Day to day, most of our food involves not-very-fresh supermarket produce.

I actually think Americans can overseason a lot of food, if you watch these videos of people covering every inch of a bit of pork in spice rubs and BBQ sauce, at what point are you even tasting the meat?

[-]

w1gglepvppy@reddit

Yeah, it's not really to my taste. I don't like BBQ sauce and I don't think excessive use of dry rubs is a stand in for skilled cooking, or high quality ingredients.

I'll agree when we're speaking in Latin.

But in English...

[-]

jimmy_j_jefferson@reddit

That white countries should stay majority white.

[-]

OpulentStone@reddit

Desire is the source of suffering.

It's nicer to not want things than to want things and people who want to want things are 100% of the time mistaken about themselves and I have never been wrong about this in any circumstance.

Example - not using this to slander my mate, literally nobody I know agrees with me on this and this serves purely as an example

My mate's girlfriend broke up with him about a year and a half ago, and they had been together for half of each other's lives and they had been each other's only partners. Naturally this was a really significant breakup, and of course he missed her and wanted her back. After a few talking sessions:

Me: "do you still love her?"
Him: "yep"
Me: "do you want to still love her?"
Him: "yes, I want to still love her"
Me: "but if you didn't love her, you wouldn't miss her. So wouldn't you prefer to not to love her and you'd be happier? Not that you can control that, but do you get what I mean?"
Him: "No, I do still want to love her"

Of course now he's over her, so he both no longer loves her nor wants to love her. So of course he's better off not loving her.

Another example:

I don't know if this is a perfect example because I don't know exactly how diabetes works. Imagine a diabetic person really wants to eat a fuckton of chocolate but they can't because it'll fuck them up. Wouldn't it be better to not want the chocolate? Again, not that you can control this - but would it not be better to not have that desire at all? Even when I give this example people tell me that they'd rather want to desire the chocolate as a diabetic.

Another example:

Addictions: heroin, porn, food, cigarettes, etc. and when people say "but addiction's different": my point is exactly that you could be addicted to 10000 things but you're not and that's a good thing. i.e. it's good that you don't have any desire for any of those things at all because not wanting them means you don't have that unfulfilment/frustration of denial and so you can't be addicted to those things.

A more tame example:

Let's say you want to watch an episode of a TV series you like. Do you want to want to watch the episode of the TV show? If you don't then boom you're already fulfilled in that respect. If you do, then you can fulfil that want but there's going to be another episode and you'll never truly feel satisfied and happy.

People who hang the toilet paper roll underhanded should be sent to re-education camps.

[-]

VulgarButFluent@reddit

Outdoor cats, in almost all suburban and urban environments, are animal abuse increasing the cats likelihood of death and injury as well as an environmental hazard causing the decline of local bird populations and small rodents. Doubly so if the outdoor cat isnt neutered/spayed, doubly again if you live in an area with frequent coyotes, cougars, mountain lions, or other such predators.

The only concession i will give is truly rural, barnyard cats. Still not great on a predator basis but at least its not 15 cats in a neighborhood mowing down every bluejay for 15 miles.

[-]

Huge-Brick-3495@reddit

Filling with lid is not pie. For a pie to be considered a pie, it must be fully encased in pastry

[-]

UpsetPhilosopher3708@reddit

Schools should not have as much control over your children.

codinwizrd@reddit

The Muslim religion is terrible for the world, followed closely by religion of all types is terrible for the world.

[-]

shogun100100@reddit

Spot on.

These things have no place in the modern world and especially not in a modern, western country.

Granted it is a free country, hence people are free to believe what they wish, HOWEVER they should keep that to themselves and organised religion should not be allowed, its just pulling wool over peoples eyes whilst taking money out of their pockets, not to mention the tax dodging and generational indoctrination side of things.

[-]

sayleanenlarge@reddit

Interesting. Our work does this. They do it because they think we all like it, which we do, but they wouldn't care if people decided they wanted to work instead.

[-]

Amonette2012@reddit

If you message me on social media asking for money, I will never give you money, scammer.

[-]

AJLFC94_IV@reddit

Probably won't be popular, but when it comes to certain mandatory aspects of living (the main example being housing here) either everyone should be helped, or no one should be helped but the system should be managed.

By this I mean either we all get an allowance for rent, and only rent so not to spend on crap, or there should be mandatory limits to rents to make properies affordable. As it is, the system is fucked and the governemnt only chooses to help certain people. If you have kids they'll help, if you don't then good fucking luck! Even though having kids is a choice, that qualifies people for financial assitance with housing.

That Mrna is a bioweapon and people don't wanna even consider that they were lied to.
Thankfully Idaho has banned it and councils in Australia are taking the plasmid DNA contamination (SV40) into serious consideration with Port Hedland's local government as of last week halting Moderna and Pfizer vaccines due to this reason.

Justice will be brought to those who poisoned everyone. We're still on 10-13% excess mortality and people are just oblivious. Evil Evil Evil

[-]

Man_Bear_Beaver@reddit

Foreign companies should not own news/media in other countries.

[-]

AlusPryde@reddit

Rachel Cook's original boob were better than the current ones.

Her body, her choice, but in my opinion the originals were best.

[-]

parismilann@reddit

Do your own dishes!

[-]

powerhungrymouse@reddit

I'm not an expert by any means but I'd be fairly certain that that is completely illegal. If the workplace is closed how you could you possibly work? They don't get to decide when you take your days off.

[-]

ProfessorYaffle1@reddit

It's 100% legal, and it would be legal for them to decide when you take all your holiday.

mrnico7@reddit

Dolphins are smug pricks and obviously not as clever as they think they are

[-]

Rumham_Gypsy@reddit

Hear! Hear!

[-]

Rude_Analysis_6976@reddit

Commute to work should be a factor in pay.

[-]

Rude_Analysis_6976@reddit

Calling me after hours without me logging that time.

[-]

MadJohnFinn@reddit

Deliveroo/UberEats/whatever delivery drivers are dangerous. As long as their pay structure prioritises speed of delivery and incentivises risky driving to save time, they will be a liability to motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians. Profile sharing makes accountability almost impossible, too.

I've had so many problems with them, both as a driver and pedestrian. My local council are totally uninterested in dealing with them, but the police are at least starting to clamp down on the illegal electric bikes, so that's... something.

[-]

Rumham_Gypsy@reddit

You should've seen his things were back in the 80s and 90s when Dominoes had the "30 Minutes or is Free" policy. Their drivers were weapons of mass destruction.

[-]

D1RTYHARLEY@reddit

There is no such thing as ‘humane’ slaughter. Killing an animal that wants to live is not humane.

[-]

Rumham_Gypsy@reddit

What about the suicidal ones?

[-]

LemonCurdJ@reddit

It doesn’t make sense to say “I can’t be arsed” and instead, people should say “I can’t be asked” (in response of being asked a question like, ‘do you want to go for a walk?’ Response: ‘no, I can’t be asked.’

You can’t convince me otherwise.

[-]

Merc8ninE@reddit

Littering/Fly Tipping is indicative of a personality type that is a determent to everyone and every thing.

People who do it are generally shit people, if they all happened to fuck off you would find that society across the board would improve for everyone else.

It is the falling rock that breaks that thin crust of ice we call civilization, over that ocean of chaos and darkness

We should have put unbeatable safeguards on it, so it would never dominate our lives, societies and environment Now we've only just begun to pay the price of our foolishness for letting it happen

Today humanity is almost unanimously unaware that it is caught in the web of a voracious venomous spider, so it maybe be a long time before historians agree (assuming there will be some in any hypotetical future), but mark my words : they will

[-]

itsanonstopdisco@reddit

Corporations are tools installed to serve people, therefore, any need of a human should surpass the need of any corporation. If economy is bad - corporations pay, not people. If there's talk about bailouts - unless there are no people to bail out, corporations wait their turn.

[-]

qgwheurbwb1i@reddit

That criminals who have murdered or raped, where the evidence is absolutely solid and there is no way they are innocent, should be used in testing labs for medicine or cosmetic products instead of amimals.

[-]

voidiciant@reddit

Humans are inherently good.

[-]

TroublesomeButch@reddit

Washing machine in the kitchen. Wtf.

[-]

ChaosKeeshond@reddit

Mine is: if the company is closed for Christmas those days should not come from my holiday allowance, it's not my choice that you are closed.

There's a good reason this happens!

Companies could not take the day off out of your holiday allowance. That would be easy - a company could just adjust the amount of leave you do get by the days off during the typical Christmas holidays, right?

Except that comes with its own headaches, because even though companies tend to shut down operations over the holidays, some staff will be doing some work - whether that's a skeleton crew who's sticking around for maintenance or emergencies doesn't really matter, imagine you work for a lift company - you won't be installing new lifts or supplying quotes that week but if Doris gets stuck on her way to the bathroom you don't want to leave her in there for a week. Point is, there are valid reasons to keep a degree of operations going.

Well, what now? Do the staff who volunteered to keep stuff ticking over during that week simply not get the time off that they could've had, effectively punished for taking one for the team? Do they accrue additional days in lieu despite unused holiday not carrying over into the new year at many companies? What happens if they resign right afterwards, do they get a payout on the time taken in lieu?

Headaches, headaches everywhere. It's much easier to just look at your calendar, look at how many days off you 'really' want to give, and then tack on the amount of time your staff will get during closures.

[-]

Demostravius4@reddit

Midday should be 12am. Midnight 12pm.

Our system is mental.

[-]

I agree. If you are salaried, it should be taken account of in your job offer/wages.

Having worked previously full time in retail, in a shop that only closes 2 days a year (Xmas day and Easter Sunday) the fact that those are counted as your days off annoyed me beyond belief.

Saying that, along the same lines.

If a customer comes in on boxing day for example and says to you, oh, I'm sorry you have to work today... you must wish you were at home with your family...

I should be within my rights to decline service. The only reason I was there Margaret is because you couldn't be arsed to wait more than 24hrs to return an unwanted gift/spend your gift voucher.

[-]

Personal_Director441@reddit

we used to have people sat in their cars on boxing day from 8am, we didn't open till 10, they literally couldn't stand more than 24 hours with their families before needing to get away.

[-]

marknotgeorge@reddit

People who wait for Boxing Day sales must be among the most miserable people imaginable.

[-]

midweekbeatle@reddit

I refuse to go to my work xmas party if i have to pay for everything.

My wife thinks its the norm. My argument is all of my previous employers that did have and pay for them all said it was their way of saying thanks for you hard work throughout the year.

[-]

MasterClown@reddit

At least for US currency, the $ should precede the value when written or printed.

[-]

Refflet@reddit

Biscuit means biscuit - it is literally "twice cooked"; first baked, then dried. McVities is a biscuit. Many sweet cookies are in fact biscuits - at least, the long shelf life ones, but not the fresh ones.

What absolutely is not a biscuit is the American kind. They're lovely, buttery goodness, but they're only baked once. They're really just a savoury scone.

What I really don't get, though, is how they came to be. They were based upon Guernsey biscuits. I can understand Americans getting it wrong, but Channel Islanders getting it wrong is just confusing. The fact Guernsey would call them that makes almost no sense given that the island has such a close relationship with France (hell most of the road names there are in French).

[-]

interwansbeck@reddit

Hamburgers should be wider, not taller

[-]

MrRorknork@reddit

The Nightmare Before Christmas is a Christmas film, not Halloween.

If my friend gets sloppy drunk, I'll take care of him.

But if they get sloppy drunk once a month like clockwork, he's on his own, as he needs to learn that his friends won't always be there.

It looks like you've written the pound sign (£) after the number 120, but it should be written before the number like this: £120.

^(I am an annoying bot, so please don't be offended.)

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[-]

Kupo-Moogle@reddit

I've worked in education in total for over a decade.

When it comes to the hierarchy of pub patrons it goes:

Adults Dogs Kids

Regardless of it being a pub that sells food or just bevvy, a dog belongs there far more than u18s.

[-]

zer0c00l81@reddit

If you're south of Durham, you're not in Northern England.

Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, looking in your direction.

[-]

cyberbro256@reddit

Both abortion and euthanasia should be legal.

[-]

SlightlyCriminal@reddit

Whilst im not here to convince you otherwise as you are set with this one, I will challenge you because it’s a fun one

It is definitely not more convenient. For one it takes about 2 seconds for me to access my Apple Pay on my phone and 90% of the time I already have it ready before I get to the self checkout/cashier.

You can also have your card ready beforehand sure but it’s quicker to active Apple Pay than digging in your wallet for your card if you really wanna get technical about it. Not to mention if you have to input a pin for your card too.

I also don’t have to carry a wallet around or the card loosely in my pocket which saves me the risk of losing it because I can use my phone instead, which generally is with me everywhere i go.

‘You are risking an expensive device’ what exactly are we risking here?

To make it equitable, you'd have to find a way to actively prevent motivated students from studying in their spare time.

[-]

Squiggles87@reddit

🙄

[-]

hippodribble@reddit

Even if you eliminate homework, you won't stop some parents from getting their kids to study, or from hiring tutors. Unfortunately, the system isn't fair. You may even widen the gulf.

[-]

Squiggles87@reddit

I'm not advocating that. You're being ridiculous and it's not worth taking this further. Have a good night.

[-]

scran_the_rich@reddit

Why couldn't that be achieved during their school hours?

they may as well just watch lessons on TV.

oshgoshbogosh@reddit

Religion. Each to their own.

iceystealth@reddit

The funny thing is Nickelback can actually play and perform. Yeah they have a formula but it works for them. I know a fair few people who got into rock and metal by listening to them so that’s always good. If people listened to their albums and not just the radio / meme stuff, they probably wouldn’t be so odd about it.

I dislike James Corden though. He just seems so shallow and self centred to me; I’m sure he’s not that bad a person tbh and I’m open to having my mind changed on him

[-]

BaseballFuryThurman@reddit

Nickelback are too inoffensive to be hated the way people act. Rockstar is the only truly unbearable song they have. Beyond that, it's just middle of the road radio rock, at least if we're talking the stuff absolutely everyone has heard.

To be honest I'm sure if I spent time around James Corden I'd get sick of him pretty quickly, but the point is more that everyone gets carried away with it and are clearly just fishing for karma/likes because they know it's one of Reddit's favourite things to pile on.

[-]

paulmclaughlin@reddit

Nickelback are too inoffensive to be hated the way people act. Rockstar is the only truly unbearable song they have. Beyond that, it's just middle of the road radio rock, at least if we're talking the stuff absolutely everyone has heard.

I think they're just "ehh" personified. I saw them when they opened for Bon Jovi about 20 years ago, nobody paid them much attention until they played How You Remind Me, then reactions were mostly just realisation rather than enthusiasm.

[-]

Shreddd-it@reddit

The earth isn't flat FFS!

[-]

markhomer2002@reddit

Institutes that promote diversity and lgbt rights and then allow their minority members to harass the rest should actually act upon it. I get constant harassment for simply being a man wearing nail varnish from Middle Eastern and Indian students while they quite literally physically lock trans students in toilets. I've been physically assaulted by five of them in front of multiple members of staff and the entire rest of a coach full of students over having a atypical hair cut. On every case, nothing has been done, and staff have even admitted they risk losing their jobs if they report students from certain backgrounds.

[-]

HawthorneUK@reddit

That marriage should be an extension of contract law, and that the parties to a marriage should have independent legal advice when it comes to putting their contracts together. Exit conditions for the contract must be agreed beforehand so you know what will happen with assets, kids, etc. Changes to the contract need another negotiation.

You want a till-death-do-us-part marriage with strong penalties for using an exit option? Fine - as long as both parties have had independent advice beforehand, and understand what they are signing up for.

You want a year-and-a-day or a 5 year marriage that automatically ends at that point? Fine.

More than two people? Fine.

Adding a third to an existing relationship, with a time-limited initial contract? Fine

The original PS1 Final Fantasy 7 sucked ass. All it had was great graphics and sound for the time. Everything else was a gigantic step back from Final Fantasy 6 on SNES.

[-]

carboncopy404@reddit

Totally agree. My workplace introduced this so we suddenly had to use 3 of our 25 holiday days over Christmas due to closures, clearly a cost saving measure because we never had to do this previously. They should have to advertise 22 holiday days instead imo.

[-]

Tr1ple6ix@reddit

When making a cup of tea, milk should never go in first.

[-]

United_Common_1858@reddit

That's just nonsense.

To those that say the milk determines the strength of the tea...it's complete nonsense and it means you have no idea how to make your own tea. The thing that determines the strength of the tea is the leaves in the water. Amount and the time.

If you consistently make tea with the same amount of time and water then the milk would not need varied.

[-]

thevoid@reddit

So why does every milk first person's cup of tea look like white, watery piss? Fair enough if that's how you like it, but for a fuller flavoured cup it's boiling water directly on the bag, pull it when steeped to your satisfaction and add milk until the tea is the desired colour. Takes a bit more skill this way sure, but I have always found milk first made tea to lack depth of flavour.

[-]

United_Common_1858@reddit

Wrong.

[-]

Beardedbelly@reddit

I have always thought that the milk being present would affect the amount of soluble material the water can absorb?

If the fats in the milk are diluted in the water then there is already something taking up “space” in the water that affects what oils and other substances can be ?dissolved? From the tea into the water.

[-]

fiddly_foodle_bird@reddit

I agree.

I once saw an episode of Tomorrows World, circa 1990, where they proved that putting milk in first makes the tea less bitter.

I have been a "milk first" person ever since.

[-]

Tr1ple6ix@reddit

cowboyjosh2010@reddit

I'm not from the UK (I'm from the USA), but I like yours, OP. It relates to something that I feel pretty strongly here: I take both of my kids to a local daycare facility, and they include as part of their services two "free" weeks of daycare a year (i.e. for full-time enrollment, I as a parent am paying for 50 weeks of care each 52-week calendar year--the intent is for people to feel like they can take their kids on vacation a couple times a year without simultaneously paying for daycare services they aren't using during two of those weeks). That's nice to have--I'd certainly like more "free" weeks, but the fact that our daycare gives us more than zero free weeks is one of those "I'll take what I can get" situations. But, at the same time, enrollment drops off between Christmas and New Year's Day every year at this facility, such that it doesn't make financial sense for them to remain open for the few kids who would be there. So they close for that period of time--about a week--every year. Well, we're still expected to either pay for full time services or use one of our "free" weeks during that Christmas-to-New Year's Day closure.

It's fucking bullshit. Especially this year, because they're actually closed from December 23 through New Year's Day--a 10-day stretch that includes 8 work days.

Repulsive-Life7362@reddit

People who dont like animals, or who don’t care about them, are not trustworthy people. Especially dogs. I get not liking dirt, or hair, but to ignore a dog/cat that wants to greet you, or not to try and assist an animal in meed of help, I think you are a terrible person. Religion is mot an excuse. Fear is not an excuse. Allergies are not an excuse. Screw you.

[-]

Mysterious-Level-674@reddit

Jewish people and black people are ok.

[-]

Do you also believe you shouldn't be paid for that time then?

[-]

Marble-Boy@reddit

Pubs shouldn't be open past 9pm so that the staff can still get home safely.

I worked hospitality for years. Getting home at 2am every night is a pain in the azz.

[-]

BaseballFuryThurman@reddit

Seems like a great way to kill an already-struggling industry.

A better idea would be to make it mandatory for employers to have something in place that makes it easier for staff to get home after a late finish. For example, when I worked at a cinema the place had an account with a local taxi firm. The staff paid the first £2 of the fare and the rest was covered by the company. This also came out of your next pay so you never needed to have the money on you. We just handed the driver a piece of paper the manager had filled out and it meant if you were leaving work after 10:30pm, you had a lift home if you wanted it.

[-]

That's just common sense and anyone arguing otherwise is brainwashed.

To those that say the milk determines the strength of the tea...it's complete nonsense and it means you have no idea how to make your own tea. The thing that determines the strength of the tea is the leaves in the water. Amount and the time.

If you consistently make tea with the same amount of time and water then the milk would not need varied.

There is an official team making ISO and it supports milk first.

On the other hand, if the company is open for Christmas, you will work those days whether you want it or not, because they only book in holidays for people they like or submit their request in January. Been there, done that.

My place now has an 11-days shutdown. I have 29 days holiday a year. It still leaves me with 18 days to book in to whenever, but I can accumulate hours by doing overtime, so if I really-really want, I can extend my annual leave to 35 days a year.

[-]

boylock1@reddit

I agree with you on this

[-]

Friendly_Stand_5138@reddit

That talking over someone whilst they’re talking is the ultimate level of rudeness. Too many people do it and I just don’t understand how they don’t realise it’s rude.

[-]

Milky_Finger@reddit

You do whatever you can as a parent to not get into a situation where your kids are punching you and hitting you with objects. There is no "modern parenting" which is a synonym for being hands off and talking the kid through their feelings. if they are hitting you, you need to put a stop to it immediately, however that may look.

[-]

CheeseyGarlicBread10@reddit

That is so true and if the company is open but it doesn’t rely on you to be open, you should be able to choose wether you work or not…

For example NHSadmin… hospital open every day… obviously don’t go calling people up, but if you are willing to work a BH, then use it for catching up on work… I would so work BH and take the leave another time!

[-]

V65Pilot@reddit

None of my wives had ever been with a man who was uncut until they met me. Due to the fact that all penii are different, none of them had any idea I wasn't until they saw it flaccid.

[-]

A_Chicken_Called_Kip@reddit

People that go crabbing with those big nets that sit on the seabed are cheating, because the there’s no challenge. You just have to lift the net up and you’re guaranteed to catch the crab.

The real way to go crabbing is with a bit of string, and a net bag with some bacon tied to the end. Then the crabs can let go as you’re pulling them out, which makes it much harder.

Watching a crab hold on to the net as you pull it up, trying desperately to get it into a bucket of water before it lets go, is so exciting.

[-]

averageinformant@reddit

At an old job some guys made this argument and pushed hard. The company then allowed a choice to work bank holidays, as it was quiet it allowed to get boring admin type work done without customers distracted us much.

You were then allowed to take that day off another day of the year

[-]

Key_Milk_9222@reddit

U/radiantcrow8070

Yes, how many mass shootings have your bang bang lads committed this year?

[-]

Top-level comments to the OP must contain genuine efforts to answer the question. No jokes, judgements, etc.
Don't be a dick to each other. If getting heated, just block and move on.
This is a strictly no-politics subreddit!

Please help us by reporting comments that break these rules.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.