IXH826

in today's world, sensitivity is seen as a bad thing when caring about people should be encouraged.

• current generations just care about problems that were never addressed before and breaking down the taboos. things aren't working so we want to change them. this directly contradicts the lazy/entitled stereotype. the generation gap has caused a lot of projection and misunderstandings, with one group pushing for change and the other rejecting it due to being set in their ways and not adapting to a new world. it is not sensitive to be self-aware and compassionate to other people, or to care about problems that don't directly affect you. especially in a world which makes that so hard to do sometimes. besides, why is sensitivity so bad anyway? there is nothing inherently wrong with it, sensitivity is very human.

• no one will get offended by innocent mistakes, we are all learning. when you actively harm people and have no desire to change you will be called out. we want to advocate for freedom of speech, but this does not come without consequences. if being sensitive means not wanting to hear bigotry being spouted everywhere and blatant disregard for people's humanity then it is a badge which should be worn with pride. it is inaccurate to paint millenials as the snowflake generation while they try to make sense of the mess that has been left for them and try to change the system in the process.

• black and white thinking and being chronically online is definitely an issue newer generations are facing though. this need to prove our moral superiority by dwelling on mistakes must go, though this is different to expecting growth from people and wanting to boycott those who have done tremendous harm. the internet has made so much possible, but it has also meant that people passively absorb much of what they learn from it without thinking critically and engaging with it consciously. there are valid critiques of how things are for today's youth, but being "sensitive" is not one them. adjusting to new pressures with little guidance from elders who never faced them is hard and should be empathised with. the stereotypes are often created and perpetuated by those with no knowledge, and research actually suggests baby boomers are the more sensitive generation.

for people who fling the word around, it certainly applies to them too.

(trigger warning: mentions of rape.)

• an example of this is men feeling entitled to make awful jokes and then getting offended when there is pushback. an example is the K.A.M trend. while i personally don't see the humour in this, i understand it comes from a place of frustration and is not intended as a legitimate idea. even if it was, it would not be feasible. of all the responses, men decided to create R.A.W. (r*pe all women.) given the statistics and lived experiences this is a viabme threat and an incredibly horrific response that reflects the issue that created K.A.M in the first place.

• furthermore, people getting legitimately upset about pronouns is an example of who the real snowflakes are. something like pronouns, which are taught at an incredibly young age and used by all in almost every encounter with another person, elicits such a venomous response. being hurt at being misgendered is valid, the actual snowflake behaviour is denying grammar just to spite an innocent person and hurt them. disrespecting people just because you are too lazy to respect them is what i would call a snowflake.

• finally, the backlash against representation in media from this demographic exemplifies the extent of their snowflake tendencies. they operate under the assumption that any representation is pandering, that lived experience doesn't matter because existing as a minority pales in comparison to someone pretending they have since "talent" means pretending rather than drawing on experience to create a performance. they use children as an excuse to justify their homophobia and hypersexualisation of the LGBT community. if being a snowflake is getting upset over people being different, then hating seeing other people getting their much overdue screentime because you cannot handle seeing anyone who isn't exactly like you feels like the pinnacle of snowflake culture to me.

a meaningful life should be what we aspire to.

• we can't always be happy, because happiness is a temporary state. there is no way for us to be happy our entire lives and wanting to is futile. what makes happiness so special is how much more significant it is once you realise what it means to lose it. if we never felt anything more than that what would be the point in trying to uproot our lives? we are complex and feel a vast array of emotions so we should embrace that. things happen in life, some make us happy and others take that happiness away. we will live constantly not knowing when we will next be happy, but what we can control is if we are fulfilling our desires and finding meaning in what we do.

• happiness itself is subjective. everyone has a different idea of what it means to be happy. some people think it is to do with how much material success you have, some people attribute it to family life. some say it comes from adhering to traditional values and some say it only comes from rejecting the status quo and choosing yourself. everyone's happiness is dependent on who they are as a person so why should we strive for something so vague and arbitrary? happiness is ephemeral so perhaps we should chase something that lasts.

we should wash regularly, but daily is not entirely necessary.

• different skin types react differently, but so do different kinds of hair. in black culture, there are wash days where people can give their hair the proper care it deserves. wash days https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.refinery29.com/amp/en-gb/2020/05/9831520/curly-natural-hair-wash-day-routine are infrequent and may occur weekly but this does not make them unhygienic, it is just what is required for the hair of the individual. while they may rinse their hair daily in water they properly wash it on wash day and that is completely fine.

• depression is a stigmatised topic which is being broken down and talked about, but there is a romanticised perception of it being spread around. we should not judge people who are struggling with self care for mental reasons. https://www.healthline.com/health/depression/hidden-habits-of-depression-and-anxiety we should instead show compassion and celebrate their mini victories and improve the care afforded to them so they can feel well enough to shower more often. for some people, even washing every other day feels impossible and we should be patient rather than judgemental.

• washing daily is not actually proven to be effective but could dry up your skin. it could certainly be a waste of water too, as pointed out by eleanorburleigh. however, if you are very sporty or sweat often you should take more showers than average. body odour is something no one wants and perfume/deodorants are not substitutes to actually washing when needed

he has talent, but we need to examine who we make famous and why.

• he has been known to be rude to people on multiple occasions. it has become a common occurence to hear stories of his happy go lucky persona fading offscreen, rendering him an entitled and ungrateful person. these stories have piled up to paint a picture and form a pattern in a way which can only be compared to the ellen scandal.

• the word overrated itself is thrown around a lot and is starting to become void of meaning. it is a cop-out way of arguing that something is not good purely because an individual does not like it. i do believe james corden is talented, he surprises his celebrity guests often (sometimes taking over the spotlight which is counter-productive,) with his vocals. he can deliver a joke and seems to have a good relationship with some of his guests. this does not take away from the fact that we as a society have a scarcity mindset when it comes to celebrity culture. we are so obsessed with lacking entertainment that we do not care enough about who the entertainers are and how they act.

• however, in order to have this conversation we must think about unhealthy celeb pressure and holding them to a higher standard than anyone else. often people take a bad experience and paint an entire human being as being terrible for having a bad day and feeling low. is it right to take out your own emotions on others? no. is it human? yes. celebrities are people, money doesn't fix everything even though it can change a lot about you. one day you can be seen as an underdog and the next day, in spite of doing the exact same thing, you are now "overrated."

• as much as the former sentiment applies to james corden, there is a difference between having an off day and consistently being awful to people regardless of who they are. we must have empathy though, since it is easy to put famous people on a pedestal and to make assumptions about their lives being perfect for example. fame has turned from a glamorous and desirable position into a type of trauma that renders you a public punching bag. many celebs are more open about the downsides of fame so while james should be held accountable for his treatment of others we should remember that people are complex.

• the most current example of him being hyped up unnecessarily was his role as a gay character which is widely and rightfully so considered to be offensive. this contributed to the frustrating trend of straught actors taking roles from gay actors who could portray the role more authentically and advise on how best to represent the community from first hand experience. this, alongside his scandals, leads me to question whether we are giving platforms to the right people.

we need equity more than equality.

• not everyone has the same access to resources, so to be on an equal playing field we must boost those who are at a disadvantage until we all start the race of life at the same time. different groups are hindered societally in different ways, so we need to address that. there isn't a one size fits all solution, we must listen and learn and adjust accordingly until people can confidently aim higher without being shot down for who they are.

• equality of outcome absolves those who made the mess of responsibility and places blame on affected groups. blaming everything on external factors allows people to conveniently forget their own advantages in life which make it easier for them to make gains without considering those who could also achieve success but were never given the chance for things out of their control.

• it only seems unrealistic or somewhat utopian because we think it is, which discourages progress. we have to begin to consider obstacles people face and then act accordingly to break those down, so people gain based on their merits as a person and not due to unfair social circumstances. it is easy to dismiss it as impossible but it is so incredibly worth it to not just hand out opportunities out of pity but to reform the status quo so that the best and brightest can thrive without worrying their identity will stop them. it is patronising to imply that who you are prevents you from doing well, people don't want to merely be a diversity quota filler, they want to show they are as capable as anyone else.

sometimes they conceal it, but often they don't even try to.

• sometimes they embrace it and don't even try to hide it. they believe they are less racist than anyone while frequently displaying behaviours that reflect their true values. actions matter, sometimes more than intent, and when that level of cognitive dissonance is present then the racism and sexism is only invisible to the person spewing it as they believe they are already enlightened and above it.

• sometimes they hide behind people they know or deny their actions entirely, while simultaneously behaving in a racist/sexist manner. the excuse "i have black friends" is used to justify using the N word but is rarely given as a reason for these people supporting movements that protect black lives. they may simply ignore criticism and continue acting in an obnoxious manner and continue to deny they are racist. they may be attempting to appear normal, but that is debatable since they are only hiding in plain sight. this shameless and awful behaviour continues the cycle so people further feel the lack of a need to hide their hatred.

• while it is true some people hide it to avoid backlash and to appear acceptable, sometimes misogyny is paraded under the guise of wokeness. often this is through benevolent sexism, which is infantilising and patronising but some people who are actively trying to appear not sexist believe is treating women right. however, sometimes even the people who ought to know better give into their unconscious ideas. some people may actively try to put on a good facade to save face and act out in private to avoid cancellation, but for the most part people are not compelled to care in a world that makes it so easy to be intolerant.

everyone has biases, this doesn't automatically make you a bad person but it is something to work on.

• everyone internalises the harmful messages they see growing up and we need to actively unlearn it. we receive subliminals everywhere, from the media in particular, about what is beautiful and desirable and POC soon learn that this is not them. they are subject to stereotypes, limitations and sometimes violence and bullying before they can make sense of it. if children can pick up racism then it shows how deeply ingrained in us it in since birth. some then grow up to be parents who pass that thinking onto the next generation so it stays that way. due to a lack of interactions or understanding with people outside of their bubble they focus on differences and rely on stereotypes they learned to fill the gaps. sometimes it is merely blind hatred and the plain refusal to understand. everything from microagressions to outright hate crimes is proof that racism is so normalised and thus present even unconsciously in most of us.

• even P.O.C can internalise it or discriminate against other minority groups. racism goes so much deeper than we know, to the point where some people reject who they are to fit in. they refuse to acknowledge their identity out of embarassment and wishing to be white. sometimes this is passed down, like relatives warning kids away from the sun in case they get too dark. anti-blackness is rooted in many other cultures too and this is merely one manifestation of it. the myth of solidarity between oppressed groups is indeed a myth, since no one is safe from holding harmful views. we may not realise the effects of our actions or the reasons for them, since implicit bias affects them massively. no one is claiming that everyone is consciously racist, but on an unconscious level we all need to take a moment and think about what we have let go unchecked.

• some people are actively working to be anti-racist and put in the work, most people are not consciously racist but the fact is that no matter what we can all do better to check ourselves.

this is an archaic idea that needs to die and soon.

• this is a scary way to think. we have so much more depth than purely existing to make more people. kids are simply not for everyone and that is okay. they are not little accessories they are future grown human beings who will experience life as vividly as you. more people should consider this before having children, since many want extensions of themselves and not a proper person with thoughts and opinions. they are not the be-all end-all and actually can have a severe effect on one's mental health. we put a ridiculous amount of pressure on people, women especially, to have children even if they explicitly don't want to. it is treated as though it is an obligation and not a desire.

• this argument fails to take into account infertility, asexuality, gay couples who do not want to find other means of having kids, not wanting children in general and many more situations. the implication that not having them will make life meaningless is demonstrably false and harmful to people who wish they could but cannot. to render human life worthless due to not procreating is sickening.

• there are billions of people, furthering the human race is not an issue. essentially, people are becoming more invasive and often ask personal and sensitive questions they would soon stop asking after hearing the real reasons some people do not want to have children. it is patronising to decide someone will want to have children when they say they do not and disrespectful to assume everyone must live life how you do. everyone can determine their own purpose and sometimes kids don't fit into the agenda.

how could people simply existing as minorities make the workplace suffer?

• this insinuates that just by being a minority you are bringing down the workplace performance. diversity has countless benefits.
  for example, it leaves the option open for more perspectives on a wide range of issues since people will have far more different experiences and varying backgrounds.

• it is important to show younger generations of POC so they can have role models so they don't feel alienated and unable to partake in certain professions due to their race. there is a huge and unfair gap that needs to be bridged and the best way to do that is to allow opportunities for people who are qualified but rejected for reasons beyond their control to shine. there is a notorious issue with people being judged for their name and how ethnic it sounded, which is just an example of ways in which you are shunned if you are not white.

• by this logic we just shouldn't hire minorities altogether. this would then feed the hypcorisy and fuel the narrative that people of colour are lazy, while they are also blamed for taking jobs. the problem is not diversity which is much needed for more reasons than can be shared. the problem is and will always be racism.

some people's experiences may be like this, but most of the time it is much more complex.

• detransitioners exist, but this doesn't mean we should assume all trans people will regret their decision. some people may find themselves realising that they are not actually trans, though the reality is most people know very well that they are. everyone's experience is valid, so while some trans experiences are short lived not everyone's is.

• many detransitioners who found it to be short lived did so due to the disapproval or an inability to continue. they do not usually wish to be used as a reason to judge and frown upon trans people since many of them are still in fact trans. the problem is not with trans people but in fact with those who make them feel so unwelcome they cannot see a life where they can be themselves.

• it doesn't matter if someone wants to try a new label and it ends up not working. no one should be judged if they realise they were wrong on the complicated path to knowing who they are. the issue comes when we generalise these experience and weaponise them against a marginalised community to invalidate multitudes of rich experiences that disprove the notion it is all about social influence and a short lived "phase."

• this is a wild sweeping statement and generalisation - this may be the case for some people but for the most part it is forever. it would be a counterproductive choice to be trans due to "social influence," when in fact your social life may suffer as an unfortunate cost of embracing yourself fully. who would choose to be at risk if it was for trivial reasons?

• perhaps it is short lived because the death rate is so high for trans people, and not because of the arrogant view that we know trans people better than they do. who are we to dictate how someone identifies and if it is valid or will last?

acknowledging that identities co-exist and affect each other is not divisive.

what is the alternative? ignoring that people have complex identities? we don't get to make people choose which of their identities are more significant because all of them matter. it is not one or the other. people who fall into the minority in various ways do not get the luxury of separating them, a woman of colour will have a different experience than man of colour or white woman because she has sexism and racism working against her simultaneously. this isn't to say everyone's experiences are not valid at all, rather to be aware of how some identities intersect in ways that shape an individual's experience in unique ways. there are nuances that make being in more than one marginalised groups complicated.

we'll never change if we simplify social issues to be palatable - for example, black trans women are some of the most oppressed in society. we can't just pretend that doesn't exist. they are not black, trans and women. they are black trans women. there is a difference and it matters. they experience all of these things at once and have overlapping experiences and challenges. the intersectional lens is not divisive, it is essential to understanding how people's experiences differ on a hollistic level. there is nothing wrong with understanding that, contrary to what the media considers representation (e.g. a singular character who is of one minority group) , many people are marginalised and oppressed in a multitude of ways.

life is worth living no matter what, but examining it is wise sometimes.

• if we interpret this statement to be hyperbolic for the sake of rhetorical flourish, then it is certainly good advice. it simply means that we must live our lives for ourselves and not to please others. encouraging introspection is admirable as people being aware of themselves and what makes them feel alive can help them to take steps towards a life that feels fulfilling.

• however, if we take it at face value it is unfair to suggest certain people's lives are not worth living because they do not think enough. something can always be better in our lives, we will never be satisfied if we keep chasing perfection. i am not saying ignorance is blissful, but overthinking everything we do or say is equally damaging to not thinking at all. we should examine our lives in moderation.

• life without reflecting means no growth or change and that is deeply unfulfilling. perhaps socrates was referring to not making any conscious effort to improve. complaining about life feeling unfulfilling without asking why may mean we stay stagnant and things don't ever change. maybe what makes it worth living is using the time we have wisely, which would mean balancing our thoughts and actions so they align.

your needs are more important than other people's wants

• self love is fine, but hurting others for your own gain makes your morals questionable at best. it is okay to be selfish, because you are all you have. it is said that we are inherently selfish for survival reasons, but i believe we have evolved past the primitive need to survive and nothing morem as babies we have not developed the skills to think of others and are egotistical, but we soon learn these skills and those who don't may be unnecessarily selfish due to environmental and psychological factors.

• putting others first has its limits. you need to have something inside to give. wanting to help others while being burned out hurts all involved. it soon becomes draining and leads to resentment and means you cannot give the best of yourself. you can't pour from an empty cup, so sometimes the most selfless thing you can do is to be selfish. having boundaries and caring for yourself is only inconvenient to those who benefited from there being none.

• being selfish can have repercussions in other people's lives - there is a fine line. like anything, selfishness in excess is dangerous. there is a difference between showing yourself compassion before extending a hand to others and being straight up inconsiderate. being caught up in yourself to the point where you don't consider anyone else is when you start to become the common factor in your relationships declining since you swing far out and only ever think abour your needs and desires. we occupy this planet alongside others and we should be mindful of how we affect their quality of life.

social media is a neutral tool that people shape into what it is.

• a huge advantage of social media is the sheer number of people that we can interact with as a result of it. people who we may never have come into contact with due to geographic location are now accessible to talk to and learn from. it has improved communication by expanding the pool of people we are able to communicate with and making it more convenient to communicate easily from the comfort of our own homes.

• another perk is that it opens us up to knowledge and resources. petitions can grow at rapid speeds and people can be in contact with those who are in similar difficult situations. it is so expansive and has such range that you can very easily access unlimited options. you can reunite with old friends virtually (which has been especially potent during the pandemic) or you can consume content when you have time off and wish to unwind.

• however, it comes with its own dangers. some worry it may be threatening traditional, face-to-face interactions. it may provide introverts a more autonomous way to recharge while also connecting with people who they enjoy speaking with, but for many people it can become addictive and all consuming to the extent where real life conversations take a backseat.

• it has opened society up to a whole host of new problems. now predators can easily access victims, pictures can be shared without consent with minimal effort, cyberbullying is on the rise because it is all too easy to hurt people without having to do it face to face. safety concerns due to leaked personal information and the amount of permissions apps require have become a focal point of discussions. it is safe to say that social media is far from perfect and that regulating all of these instances is incredibly difficult since it is rapidly becoming bigger than we know.

• overall, social media has pros and cons. the tools themselves are simply a means of communication and neutral - neither immoral nor immoral. however, the people who use them and the people behind them make it what it is. in the wrong hands, it can be destructive but for the average user it is an escape and a chance at making things happen that were never possible before. perhaps it is our future, whether we like it or not. it provides many a safe space to be themselves and access opportunities, but is our responsibilities as individuals to ensure we are kind to one another.

ultimately, it is up to the individual to decide how much they are willing to overlook.

• i believe we have to ask ourselves why we insist on making bad people famous, and if our enjoyment of their work makes suffering worth it. it is hypocrisy to call out their behaviour and simultaneously lining their pockets and essentially funding what we hate. it also hurts in the long run, since it encourages more of the same to appear in future.

• it can be argued that by supporting an artist’s work, you are supporting the artist themself. how can we ever know where they end and their art begins? the two are intrinsically linked. who they are is contained within their art.

• if the artist has since passed and/or does not gain anything from streams (e.g. illegal downloads etc,) perhaps things may be different since they are not directly benefitting from the sales which is a pressing issue. if someone wishes to support the art of an artist they dislike, perhaps their ability to gain a tangible benefit from the purchase is an important one to take into consideration.

• we are all flawed and no one is suggesting that every artist must be perfect, but there is a difference between honest mistakes and abuse or blatant hatred and discrimination for example. these things should be taken seriously and a ruined career is better than allowing a known vile person to keep destroying lives without any consequences.

• however, we all must choose how much we are willing to see past. wherever you draw that line, you have to live with it.

suffering is just pain, the character building comes from within.

this is often a line used by abusers to make their victims feel as though the abuse was a favour. it can be internalised by victims who later repeat it after hearing it all their lives. it is seen as a silver lining that they endured so much and seemingly got stronger as a result. in reality, no one deserves to suffer needlessly. trauma doesn't make you good, you were always good. it just causes pain. no one should have to go through any unpleasant, distasteful activities in the first place.

everyone is different, so sometimes it actually destroys your character. how a person copes with suffering depends on their temperament and resilience factors. different personalities will perceive and react according to their own nature, and some people handle stress well while others don't. suffering can break your character and leave you with only counter-intuitive responses to future suffering. the trauma responses people develop don't exist in a vaccum and can stick with you, some maybe even after therapy.

many of us are led to believe this due to media we consume. when the trope is done right, it can prove that someone can grow and mature once they've suffered enough to move themselves in a more positive direction. this puts a spin on the narrative that abusive people help you grow rather than diminish your soul. it empowers people to believe that they can build themselves up after being beaten down. in this instance, yes suffering can build character but that's because you choose to build yourself up. healing is messy and you do not need to forgive or forget, but choosing to never become the person who hurt you and embarking on a journey of recovery is a chance at rebuilding the life that was stolen from you. the pain doesn't make you stronger, being brave enough to rediscover your strength in the aftermath of it does.

there is a fine line between appreciating and appropriating culture.

• sharing cultures is wonderful and welcome for those who are respectful. however, there is a huge difference between deciding to wear a bindi because it's "exotic" and treating it as just an accessory, and attending a south asian wedding in traditional dress and trying the cuisine. cultures are beautiful and aspects of them should absolutely be shared, but when the owners of something set a boundary and you disrespect that then you are stealing and not sharing anymore. it is insensitive and entitled to take advantage of the generosity of the community willing to welcome you. rinsing their culture for your own personal aesthetic, while ignoring their requests for basic respect.

• if you can't take a moment to learn about the significance of something like the bindi, you don't want to appreciate it. you are essentially a culture vulture who is blatantly appropriating. some may claim they do it because they want to share and consider disagreeing "gatekeeping," when in reality, it is a perfectly reasonable request to say "don't use our culture as a prop in your music videos that you can wear and discard at will, but feel free to learn about it and take part in respectful ways." appropriation will remain a problem for as long as white people are praised for the same things that are looked down upon in people of colour. the difference between that and appreciation matters.

• you can't pick and choose parts of POC life that you want and ignore the rest. bindis are more than some fashion trend. you don't get to ignore the meanings of the things you steal from people who are willing to let you in on their lives and customs. it is an advantage to be able to pick and choose without being chastised, made fun of, bullied, harassed or even beaten. there is a misconception that POC are hostile towards white people taking part in their cultures, when in actual fact it is embraced with glee when done in a manner that does not overstep.

• the simple solution? ask questions and listen. enjoy the food and music and clothing and traditions. just don't forget their meaning. good intentions and genuine love of the vibrance of our culture is truly appreciated, but stealing is never okay in any situation.

therapy works when there are boundaries in place.

• sometimes it is easier to talk to a stranger than to relatives or friends. therapy can be really useful to get an objective view on your issues and to talk to someone without fear of judgement. it is the one time that everything is about you and you can make progress to improve your situation.

• there are different kinds of therapy based on your interests. if someone is artistic, they may express themselves best by creating a piece that uses colours to explore feelings. sometimes music can be cathartic and a way of creating something special from the hardships you endured that you never deserved.

• there are a lot of unrealistic expectations/myths about therapy. people expect to be given the answers to their problems and told what to do. sometimes they expect to strike a huge epiphany, but therapy is more like a series of small breakthroughs.

• however, this does not negate some people's negative experiences. like in every career, there are therapists who are not a suitable fit fit for the profession. they can be so ineffective that it leaves clients unwilling to try again. therapy works when both clients are comfortable and sometimes people do not want to keep trying until they find a good fit, since they don't believe there is one or they do not want to repeat their traumas to be rejected again.

• therapy gives you tools to fix your problem, it is not a magic solution. it works if you put effort in and are willing to evaluate your situation. great things can come from it when  the client and therapist click.

• everyone's needs are different, so talk therapy won't "work" if you want a prescription since that isn't the service provided. it won't "work" if you are trying to find healing in the same place you were hurt.

pretty isn't the price you pay to exist in this world, you deserve respect regardless..

• bodies don't need to be beautiful. i believe body neutrality is a more productive way of expressing that our bodies are perfect how they are even if they don't adhere to standards of beauty. however, even the idea of them needing to function "properly" implies we must be productive or useful to be worth something. i feel it's a step in the right direction, but we are a far cry from learning to love our bodies for what they are outside of what they can provide for others.

• we cannot ignore the standards of beauty since they are worth examining. they are proof that we have created a world in which we are categorised as attractive or not based on some standards which are ever-changing. this dictates how we are treated, so to ignore that people are treated differently for how they look is to sugar coat the reality rather than confronting it.

• ugliness is associated with evil and prettiness with good, as seen even just in every disney movie. in reality, appearance means nothing in terms of someone's character. it should not be a taboo to not care about being "pretty" and if you do then it shouldn't be assumed to be for anyone but you. the standards are objective, but beauty really is in the eye of the beholder and subjective. this means people should focus on being beautiful to themselves and the people who really matter because making everyone happy is impossible and tiring.

lying should be avoided, but it's not always black and white.

• lying for the safety of you or others is justified and understandable. there are situations, for example, where abusers may demand to know the locations of or information about their victims. it is perfectly appropriate to lie in this situation since someone's wellbeing depends on it.

• honesty genuinely is the best policy but there are exceptions. lies themselves are a complicated thing to define, because there are lies that are lies by omission and only classify as being fake because they leave out part of the truth.

• we all do it in so many different ways, some more harmful than others. sometimes sparing someone's feelings is more important since self proclaimed "brutally honest" people are more brutal than they are honest.

maybe it's a habit we need to shake. we lie on a small scale all the time, evidenced by how we've all said we feel okay when we don't for example. this begs the question of if people would be more honest if we gave them the space to be.

humour is great and very important, but far from everything in a partner.

• it is important for the sake of developing chemistry and comfort around someone. it helps to gel with each other and continue to enjoy each other throughout the time you spend together. it is considered a very attractive trait for a reason. no one should be expected to be a comedian automatically, it's about finding what’s funny in the everyday and enjoying it together

• it is arguably not the most important trait, since in a relationship other essential things like trust and respect matter more and build the foundation for humour to make the relationship fun as well as fulfilling. these provide the foundation for a healthy relationship with anyone while humour is what makes it enjoyable.

• however, humour and intelligence can be related meaning it may even tie into other important traits. humour indicates wittiness and quick thinking that can translate into other areas of life.

• not all life partners are romantic. humour is great, but for a deeper connection there needs to be more. some relationships can be purely for fun, but for a more sincere connection you should also be able to have more serious conversations about feelings without sarcasm or jokes.

perhaps the issue is its premium status and the wording.

• a perk is that it saves people with social anxiety from having to tell their driver they aren't comfy talking. it is a scary thing to do sometimes, especially for solo women who often feel threatened in cabs. thus, it is less about the driver and more about the rider's situation. riders are people too with different personalities and lives, so if some people don't wanna chat this doesn't mean the drivers will miss out on conversation with someone else if they feel isolated. it's personal preference.

• sometimes drivers themselves don't want to talk, but feel pressured to for ratings which is also dehumanising if anything. like they're having to sell themselves and put on a show so they can be successful when they likely just want to do their job and get money to enjoy their free time. perhaps there is a flaw in the system that is deeper than this one feature.

• however, there is an argument to be made that it seems as though the aim is to control drivers as if they were merely extensions of the car. with a job like working in uber, some people will be severely lacking in empathy and social skills to the point where they will be rude and see their driver as less than human. particularly those who may, consciously or not, feel above talking to the uber driver who they deem as less than them due to classism which is a criticism that has been made a lot.

• perhaps the real risk is that it promotes escaping conversations with people outside of our bubbles, which may be helpful short term but in the long haul makes these interactions more painful than they need to be. however, this would assume the feature itself was available to all users, so it is understandable why paying extra not to talk to someone who is providing a service may leave many with a bad taste in their mouths.

not only is she the GOAT, but she has redefined what a GOAT is.

• in making the choice she did, she has taught many a valuable lesson about how mental health is as important as physical health. she bravely opened up about feeling [the weight of the world on [her] shoulders at times.] (https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/07/27/sport/simone-biles-tokyo-olympics-withdrawal-spt-trnd/index.html) which is a relatable feeling to those who feel such pressure to perform that they forget to take care of themselves. if someone as talented as simone can feel like this, it will remind everyone that it is okay to feel overwhelmed and doesn't mean you aren't worthy of your success.

• the situation is also a reminder of the pitfalls of idolising people, which is dehumanising in a way don't think of since it is supposed to be flattering. simone may be incredibly talented, but to discredit her past achievements because she chose to put herself first shows we have an all or nothing mentality. people can be insensitive and forget about the humans behind the impressive stunts they see performed. putting her on a pedestal goes deeper than admiring her incredible skills and puts her in a position where she must struggle to maintain the image that is forced on her at the cost of her mental health.

• people also forget that she was not only choosing her mental health, but her physical health and potentially her life. it is easy to call someone lazy when you can't achieve a fraction of what they have. she makes it look effortless, but that doesn't mean it is. twisties can be fatal and incredibly dangerous. she should not and does not have to put herself in danger to prove anything to anyone. that is an unreasonable and impossible ask. she will have a long life after gymnastics, and she needs to protect it.

I believe that the biological argument is used as a justification for being a cheater, when in fact regardless of desires it is a choice to be unfaithful to a partner. It unfairly paints boys and men as hypersexual and animalistic or incapable of controlling their desires. It is harmful to instill in them the toxic idea that they must "want it" in order for their expression of masculinity to be normal.

This is especially true since it ties in with the same narrative peddled onto men who are assaulted they are inherently sexual and primitive and they should be grateful since it is in their nature to want to sleep with women. Consent in men matters just as much as it does in women and to imply men are inherently sexual does them a disservice. This idea does not exist in a vaccum and has lasting implications.

Furthermore, cheating is common and increasingly so in the digital age. Everyone's ideas of what constitutes as cheating will differ since their boundaries are nuanced and tailored to the individual. It is easy to do and happens for many reasons and people of all genders can do it if they so wish. Thus, while it may be common in men it is also worth debating how we even determine what cheating is outside of the physical element.

If it was nature, men could choose to have multiple partners without cheating but instead choose to betray their partners. Often for the thrill of it or to feel desirable which are selfish reasons proving it may be to do with factors surrounding their self esteem or psychology.

Overall, it is not just men who cheat and cheating itself is complicated to define. It also certainly isn't "natural" and to say so would be to call faithfulness unnatural.

thank you, i appreciate that.

perhaps there is a new opium of the people.

• this take was proposed 170 years ago and things have changed since. the concept is equally relevant, though it is worth questioning whether religion is still the opium of the people.

• it is worth exploring why marx made this statement. the comparison to opium evidently refers to its effects being to dissuade people from revolting by giving them a false sense of contentment and peace. it causes. isely why Marx chose it as a metaphor for religion. like opium, religion may be source of hope, a way of curing an illness, a sigh for a better world; but it is also a result of world out of kilter, and may even be a source of harm in its own right.

• as much as this has truth to it, today's world is far different. perhaps our opium is money or celebrity culture, social media even. people collectively numb their problems in many different ways that depend on the kind of society they reside in. in an increasingly secular world, it may not bode well to suggest religion is still our opium or even that we only have one method of achieving the state in which we are blinded and too docile to revolt.

ghosts don't exist like they do on TV, but this does not mean we should rule out the possibility.

• the idea of ghosts has become so prevalent that it has made them real in a sense. whether there is truth to their existence or not, they have come to symbolise more than a white sheet drawn on with sharpies. they can bring comfort to those who are afraid of what comes after life and those who wish to believe they are still able to reunite with loved ones.

• nearly one-in-five U.S. adults (18%) say they’ve seen or been in the presence of a ghost. it can be easy to dismiss every single experience as a coincidence or easily explained away, but after a point it does become intriguing how so many different experiences have taken place where at least one must have had some truth to it.

• different cultures will also have different takes on the phenomenon, meaning ghosts are not pictured the same way universally. this makes it even harder to actually prove if they exist or not, since what a ghost actually is can vary. thus, everyone should believe what they want since it harms no one to have a different take on the matter. no one can possibly be right or wrong on the situation as there is no way to tell.

• similarly to aliens, it would be arrogant to assume we are all there is in this world and the best that it can do. they may exist in a completely different form than we believe they do. the universe is full of endless possibilities and we can never fully know it or explore it in its entirety.

coincidences exist, they just aren't as profoundly meaningful as we would like them to be.

• statisticians “know” that randomness explains them, coincidences are nothing but strange yet expect-able events that we remember because they are surprising to us. they are not coincidences, just random events. coincidences occur daily and are often baffling and almost eerie, but almost always easily explained. thus, as harmless as it is to believe they are signs, their existence is easy to account for.

• psychoanalyst carl jung revelled in paranormal ideas such as telepathy, collective unconscious and extra sensory perception, and coined the term “synchronicity” as a kind of mystical “acausal connecting principle” that not only explains physical coincidences but also` premonitions. thus, coincidences objectively exist and there are billions of anecdotal examples to support this. that does not mean they are a sign or fate, which is a conclusion some may draw, rather that something which seemed unlikely but could happen theoretically ended up happening after all.

we create our own destiny and that means sometimes we don't fulfill it.

• we choose our destiny as we get to know ourselves. the choices we make are what guide us there, not a higher power or some forces that control us. this means some people never get a chance to figure out their destiny. some give up. some never fulfill it despite their best efforts, and sometimes we decide there's a more meaningful goal to work towards so it changes. destiny is as complex as the individual who decides it and that means we can still have one even if we don't know it, or refuse to actively take steps towards it. destiny may exist in a completely way than which we imagine it. a more autonomous way too, since we have more say in it than we realise.

• each and every path that one person takes is a path that is contributing to a limitless amount of footprints that will be left on this earth. destiny may be bigger than we realise and defined by the mark we leave. we can change the course of an outcome we are not even involved with, big or small, so our purpose as individuals may remain unknown. this doesn't mean it isn't there.

• life doesn’t know what it will become until we step into it. Life is neutral until we decide to act. we are all born blank slates (tabula rasa) and our experiences colour our world view. thus, we are not here to fulfill a purpose. rather we take what is neutral and make it mean something. to some people, destiny is a source of hope that what is theirs will find them and that should be respected even if their interpretation of it differs to our own.

no one should be anything they don't want to be, but people can conform if they so wish.

• women are often taught to reject the concept of femininity entirely, since male interests are usually deemed more socially acceptable whereas things like boybands or makeup are deemed frivolous and insignificant. this leads to internalised misogyny while growing up for many women who later unlearn it and thrive in their femininity as they realise they do enjoy these things they were told they shouldn't.

• no woman should be caged and left without options. good feminism is about choice and traditional femininity is a viable option for the women who choose that path for themselves. the problem is when the choice is taken away, and not everyone has to follow suit and live the same life. it is not one size fits all as it is merely the product of socialisation, so some women will resonate with certain elements of femininity while others will have a different experience and that is okay.

• both masculinity and femininity are okay.
  there is nothing inherently wrong with wanting to take on the characteristics of either, since by their nature they are social constructs and thus optional. if an individual chooses to adopt elements of them that is a preference and choice which should be respected. it should never be a case of an individual feeling like they should behave a certain why, rather that they would like to.

• in truth, no one can fit entirely into one box as we are all human, and that means we are in possession of both traits. it is down to us to strike a balance that feels right, so yes, women should be feminine and men should be masculine but also vice versa. they both should complement one another and no one should be ashamed to express either side.

we judge victims for seeing themselves as such, but then glorify pain and trauma.

• people are celebrating the beauty of the identities they are victimised for, not victimhood itself. if anything they are refusing to be labelled victims. after being made to hate existing as minorities for countless years, people are embracing these parts of themselves in their entirety and that involves learning about the ways in which they have been oppressed and victimised and rallying for systemic change. this is in fact quite the opposite of celebrating being a victim and allowing it to continue.

• the victim label suggests that people whose personal or family or ethnic or socio-economic backgrounds are marked by continual and frequently violent subjugation should just "get over it." the idea that people love to be victims is insensitive and used often to dismiss real suffering. it is easier to claim someone is purposefully holding themselves back and enjoying complaining than to accept that they have less advantages. no one celebrates being a victim, they make the best of a bad situation instead by loving themselves when the world refuses to.

• however, trauma is starting to become glamorised and sensationalised. people do not treat it as it needs to be treated. people are made to think having an illness or some form of trauma can make them special. they are told trauma makes people stronger and sometimes funnier. it is often portrayed in the media as beautiful and a way to gain attention and sympathy. the reality is that it is extremely damaging to perpetuate these myths. it makes trauma seem desirable which is easy to think until it happens to you.

• overall, no one celebrates living in a world that holds them back just for being who they are. acknowledging you are a victim and trying to change that, while learning to accept what others don't about you, is quite the opposite of dwelling on your victimhood. despite this, we do have a problem with pain olympics in which we make people feel they must suffer for their negative feelings to matter, while simultaneously shaming them for not suffering enough.

fate is a comforting lie we put too much trust in.

• this line of thinking is a result of an external locus of control whereby individuals blame misfortune or life circumstances on outside factors and assume they have no control.

• we control more than we think we do, our thoughts drive our actions and our actions are what make us who we are and get us to the place in life we're at.

• life isn't about passively waiting to find yourself because nothing is destined or certain, you create your reality and create yourself. you have to be an active participant in your life, not rely on fate.

• this thought process rids the individual of autonomy as they may feel like despite their best efforts they cannot prevent or change bad situations. it can drain someone and make them feel powerless to think they cannot shape their own life when in reality we are the ones who steer ourselves onto the path we aspire to.

• fate is what puts opportunities in front of us but our destiny is ultimately determined by our decisions.

often, cishet men speak over women and attempt to appear feminist while their actions are contradictory.

• there have been instances of predatory men using the female gaze to their advantage especially online. they present themselves as safe for women by painting their nails etc while not actually being interested in these activities and only wanting to attract women. while of course some men genuinely embrace their femininity, there are those who have used this to their advantage.

• benevolent sexism is often confused for respecting women. some men believe they are being feminist and "looking out for women" by telling them how they must accommodate to be safe around men rather than checking the men they know on their behaviour.

• in a time where many people are chronically online it can be hard to see outside of the echo chamber we create unconsciously. members of this generation often feel like it is more progressive than it is due to the online presence they create when really there is much work to do. this is often a result of cishet men continuing to thrive in a flawed system.

• when it comes to understanding how sex and gender function, we still need a man to explain it to us. it seems that no matter how hard women work for liberation a man will still tell them how to do it and this is evidence of cishet feminist "allies" speaking over the marginalused rather than uplifting them.

• in addition, It is easier for a man to add his voice to the feminist narrative than to give up privilege for the upliftment of women.

sexuality is complicated and every experience is different.

• some people are so aware of this that they identify as sexually fluid. however, some people are sure of their specific label and to imply it could change is highly problematic and dismisses their struggle for acceptance in a heteronormative world. it almost implies there is a chance they could be attracted to a sex they know they could never be happy with.

• sometimes labels change and that's okay. it can take time to find one and a lot of exploration. people can try on labels as their feelings change until they find one that fits them if they so desire.

• everyone has an underlying orientation — asexual, pansexual, or heterosexual, for example. Yet there's room for it to expand a little, based on your experiences and current
  current situation. people may find themselves outgrowing a label and realising it no longer fits when in a new situation and that is valid. no one should feel made to limit themselves for someone else's convenience.

• people are born with a sexual orientation and also with a degree of sexual flexibility, and they appear to work together. people often consider different labels during their journey to self-discovery. it is okay to question and explore and experiment.

power is an aphrodisiac in men but looked down upon in women and can change someone entirely..

• power is more like a drug, hence why the statement absolute power corrupts absolutely holds weight, power can be misused in the wrong hands and change a person entirely. power acts to lower inhibitions, much the same as alcohol does.

• it is often a large part of the exploration and dynamics in sexual relationships so the two are in some ways intertwined. sex and power are difficult to separate and have a unique relationship.

• it's more accurate to say, "male power is an aphrodisiac" because "women in power have often had a much different experience. the impact of power on perceived attractiveness is undeniably biased when it comes to gender. in men it is considered attractive and in women it may be seen as threatening and she may be seen as needing to be humbled.

women are allowed to and do enjoy sex as much as men.

• the idea that women don't enjoy sex in the same way as men is rooted in misogyny. they are shamed for enjoying it and judged if they don't, while no one questions why men happily engage in it with a partner who isn't as inerested.

• this statement feeds into the idea that women are passive and should focus on their partner/that sex is something done to them that they only enjoy for the man's sake.

• it fails to take into consideration aromantic allosexual women. these women are not as interested in romance but enjoy sex and are proof that different women will have different experiences.

• paints men as inherently sexual and not valuing love as much which sets the standard and upholds the status quo. it normalises men feeling pressured to live up to the sex-crazed and apathetic standards society has set for them.

• it is merely a myth and widespread assumption that women's lust is inextricably bound up with emotional connection.

• some men use excuses related to biology to guilt and pressure partners into satisfying their needs by claiming it is painful for them, which is an example of the harm this mentality does and how it is taken advantage of.

• most of what we’ve been taught by science about female sexuality is untrue, starting with the idea that men have a stronger libido than women.

the idea that male aggression is natural is a myth that we perpetuate to justify the problem rather than address it.

• men are socialised to believe that masculinity is aggression. whether this means they must be sexual aggressors and pursue women or that they must be aggressive in the more literal sense.

• this is a weak justification of a serious issue which needs to be talked about. it offers an excuse to aggressive men that justifies their behaviour as natural and women often internalise it. it places blame on women for not doing enough to accommodate the aggressiveness.

• [we must challenge the idea that men don’t have control over the way they act.] (https://www.google.com/amp/s/qz.com/1124602/science-proves-theres-nothing-natural-about-male-aggression-toward-women/amp/) it is infantilising, regressive and benefits no one.

• this contributes to the belief that men must be coddled and are not responsible for their behaviour, which negatively affects the women who take on the emotional burden and labour of acting as his caretaker rather than equal.

• some men hold onto a narrow view of what it means to be manly,. when this is challenged - such as when a partner doesn’t wish to play the role of a housewife — it can lead to feelings of intense anger, ultimately resulting in violence.

this is a lie people tell themselves so they don't have to confront the reality of gender based discrimination.

• according to this guardian article 63% of women believe that there continue to be major obstacles for women to get ahead, only 41% of men feel similarly. according to pew research centre.

• the stat i mentioned prior is proof that misogyny is so ingrained in society that men feel they can decide whether or not women's oppression is an ongoing issue, neglecting to realise they benefit from not having to think about it.

• as sjones1 mentions, the oversexualisation of women from a young age is prevalent. their sexual assaults are often ignored and dismissed, often leading to them being blamed for how they dress as though that could ever be an excuse.

• furthermore, people ignore intersectionality and how different women will have experiences that doubly hard since they have other marginalised identities which intertwine and oppress them in complex and overlapping ways. for example, being trans and/or a woman of colour impacts the experience of misogyny faced by these women who are still overlooked, a testament to how misogyny is alive.

• everything from double standards and harassment in the streets to literal murders, in the name of honour or at the hands of an abuser, is proof that existing as a woman in this world comes with its own set of dangers.

• men often dismiss women by centering themselves in the conservation, without acknowledging how patriarchy affects them and how the plights they experience are rooted in misogyny. gender discrimination exists in ways we may even be unable to see and derailing from this conversation does not make that less true.

presenting the sexes as polar opposites who may as well come from other planets contributes to sexism..

• the idea that men and women are inherently different is more often than not used to justify sexism, claiming that men are naturally aggressive while women are submissive by nature for example. there is no real basis to it as socialisation plays just as big a role, if not a bigger one in determining our characteristics/personalities.

• this article explains it best by stating 'these sexist, one-size-fits-all assumptions are the reasons why men and women grow up to have such different personalities even though we are born the same.'

• this idea promotes a misunderstanding of the other sex for either side by implying we are too different to even bother trying to know one another on a deeper level than assumptions.

it is possible and necessary to teach younger people about sex in an appropriate and healthy way.

• people can be against this because of a fundamental misunderstanding of what sex ed for younger people would entail. as explained here 'If people could see what’s going on in the best classrooms, they would be reassured rather than alarmed.'

• there are age appropriate ways to address issues surrounding the topic with kids, and the earlier we begin to bring it up the better their understanding will be growing up. it forms the basis for more in-depth conversations as they grow up. issues of consent are relevant in all aspects of life, for example, not just sex. however, this knowledge would organically bleed into that aspect of their life in adulthood if it is hammered into their minds young.

• children are vulnerable and susceptible to abuse due to their inability to understand what is happening to them or how to talk about it. healthy, productive and age appropriate conversations can give them the autonomy to speak up about abuse. knowing the terminology can help them in court should the need arise too, since it will allow them to clearly describe what occurred without being dismissed or misunderstood for being unclear.

womanhood is a journey, different for everyone who embarks on it.

• not all women were assigned female at birth. the journey to accepting and embracing womanhood will be different for trans women but equally valid and important. this statement affirms and validates the fact that trans women are women, being born and assigned female does not mean you are a woman.

• socialisation plays a large role in how women are assumed to behave, since women are not one entity. every woman is different and no woman is born liking things, rather she discovers who she is throughout the course of her life. these ideas are in part shaped by society and its expectations, meaning that womanhood is defined by each woman for herself based on her experience as well as the construct of gender we are all prescribed.

• this article poignantly explains that 'it is not nature that defines women, rather she defines herself by dealing with nature on her own account in emotional life.'

non-binary people do not owe cis people a certain look.

• to demand a certain look of non-binary people defeats the purpose of existing outside of the binary. we cannot risk reducing it to a "third gender" and ignoring the complexity of the non-binary identity.

• the cishet perception of gender and obsession with maintaining gender roles causes the belief that there is a male/female way to dress. in reality, anyone can dress in an androgynous style or wear clothing which is typically gendered and not have it reflect their identity.

• some claim they believe non-binary people should make their appearance ambiguous to avoid being misgendered. however, the issue is not innocent mistakes and assumptions we are all conditioned to make. the problem is actually being disrespectful even once you are corrected. they should be able to dress how they like without worrying about the perception of others since those who care will be open to understanding and being respectful.

• you can actively choose not to misgender anyone by not assuming their appearance correlates to their identity in the first place. referring to people as they/them until specified otherwise saves everyone the trouble. this way, people can dress to fit the binary or in an entirely androgynous way and not fear being wrongly perceived.

• this medium article says it best when they state that 'nonbinary folks don’t owe you justifications for their validity.' they don't have to explain that they are valid no matter how they dress.

• non-binary people are from all walks of life and have different styles. they are not defined by one style, that is rather the point. they are entitled to dress how they like and have different relationships to gender. presentation and pronouns are not equal to gender.

no one can decide who you are but you.

• it is arrogant for cisgender people to believe they dictate how others do or should identify.

• it benefits no-one to disrespect someone's identity and costs nothing to be considerate.

• the cost of purposefully invalidating someone's identity or misgendering them etc can be their life. it is simply not worth possibly triggering someone's dysphoria and making them feel hopeless just to declare your bigotry to the world.

• the trevor project back up the fact that an individual has the right to declare how they identify by stating "you don’t have to go through all of these things to be “officially” transgender, or to have your gender identity be valid. It’s all up to you, and what feels safe and comfortable."

Some prejudices are unconscious and do not reflect who we are, we are conditioned to have those thoughts. They are our brain's way of filling in gaps when we don't know something and we can't possibly know everyone and everything so we generalise. It is internalised, sometimes even towards ourselves. Most people work to unlearn this and correct themselves quickly and are curious to learn more and indulge in different perspectives and cultures within reason. These people can still be completely content.

One can certainly also still be blissfully ignorant and hateful. However, this begs the question of what true happiness is and if you can truly be happy while you are closed off towards so many people and experiences out of sheer ignorance and hatred. A narrow view of the world you never have to question due to privelleges makes your life easier but it hinders you from progressing and enriching it. It makes enemies and people will resent you for it.

Even unintentional prejudice shuts doors and opportunities for growth. It holds you back from your potential and a key factor in happiness is personal/individual growth that requires taking the time to see more of the world around you and expand your bubble.

Thus, you can be happy and prejudiced in any capacity from unintentionally biased to straight up unapologetically a terrible person. However, this happiness is fleeting and temporary. It is hollow and unfulfilling. An open mind and heart will make you happy in the long run. It is helpful to unlearn your prejudices, but by no means necessary because happiness is happiness even if it is skin deep.

Not talking about sex is harmful for a multitude of reasons. It can lead to shame if an individual feels their experience differs from the perceived standard. It can mean people only learn about it from porn and have unrealistic ideas that are detrimental to them and their partners. It can be isolating to wonder if something is normal, lead to recklessness at the hands of ignorance and thus more unwanted pregnancies and diseases that could have been preventable. It makes it harder to open up about being violated and children may be unable to describe what happened to them as there is a shame around the terminology due to the stigma. Asexual people may feel pressure to conform to the mould and never realise they feel differently about it and in a sex-obsessed world to not talk about it in a healthy and productive way is simply dangerous and foolish. It is not only the duty of parents, who often do not explore the topic effectively, but sex education should be mandatory and handled with care.

Toxic positivity is a real phenomenon which relies on invalidating people's real pain and raw emotions with platitudes and dismissal. It is often a projection of someone's own discomfort with another's hurt so they try to make it go away in order to console themselves while ignoring the other person and making it worse. It can be heard in phrases like "man up" or "big boys don't cry" for example which is proof that exposure to this way of thinking can influence an entire group of people to dismiss any emotions of theirs that are deemed unacceptable.

People often feel pressure to do something and take action to prevent someone from feeling pain, when really to simply be there and extend your support is more meaningful than offering empty and cold phrases which encourage the sufferer to shrug off their feelings or turn them off like a switch. This can lead to burn out and is helpful to no-one at all. Feelings are okay no matter what they are and should be validated, it is how we respond to them that matters.

I believe that in some ways we are too protective of children and adolescents. Denying them privacy and losing their trust from a young age is becoming increasingly normal in today's world by parents and being overbearing leaves them with emotional scars and an inability to function. As they become more curious they should be able to explore with appropriate limits and boundaries for their wellbeing and development.

However, on a wider scale, there are different dangers in today's world particularly online that should be highlighted. Grooming and child pornography being two prevalent examples. Being exposed to explicit material that is so easily accessed and the suicide rates of the youth who are bullied and targetted demonstrate areas in which not enough is being done to keep young people safe as they grow and try new things.

Overall, curiosity should be nurtured and young people should be allowed to take risks and make mistakes. Thus sometimes not allowing them to grow up can be harmful and overprotectiveness structurally and in families is a huge issue. However, we should refrain from swinging in the opposite direction and forcing them to grow up so fast. We should foster environments where they can ask questions and receive guidance so that they don't suffer silently due to being unaware of consequences and dangers.

Echoing what user georgiebeddows stated, POC often grow up wishing they could change their skin tone and feeling a sense of shame surrounding it and all it connotes. In spite of the beauty of their features and culture, they are mocked and shamed and subjected to cruelty for it. While there is no issue with wishing to emulate the glow of laying in the sun, this is not everyone's intention and to parade around in a skin tone darker than certain POC is to be completely insensitive and blackfish, sometimes even veering into blackface territory. It is easy to wash it off once you are done being brown, but it is just life and natural for people who were born with that skin tone who do not have the luxury of merely changing their skin tone whenever it suits them. Furthermore, it has caused an uprising in people deciding to label other POC "white-passing," when the reality is that these self-proclaimed "tanners" (blackfishers) are blurring the lines and making it hard to discern what whiteness looks like since so many white people are attempting to look ethnically ambiguous.

It is rare that ultra conservative people and seemingly "progressive" people agree, but this is one of the times they do. This belief is often a result of either Islamaphobia or feminism which entirely lacks intersectionality.

It is simply another way of expressing xenophobia and intolerance of other cultures and religions as well as being a way of controlling women's bodies. It strips them, figuratively and literally, of choice and comfort.

Liberation comes in many different forms, for some it is revealing clothes or western items whereas some women feel liberated in a burka. They feel at ease expressing their religious freedom and being listened to without worrying about their appearance and being judged for it.

There is a double standard where women are slut shamed for wearing revealing clothes and then labelled oppressed for choosing to cover up, which is sheer ignorance.

What is always oppressive is banning women from wearing clothes they choose to wear, so this should be no different in govt/civic roles.

Microagressions are not rare, they are a real problem that occurs frequently and become a talking point in the communities affected to try and assure one another that they aren't alone in these isolating experiences. Being othered and made to feel that you can't possibly be "from here" is something that I and others have dealt with for not fitting the mould of a "British" person in spite of claims of multi-culturalism. This is one of the most insidious and common forms of microagressions that is almost universally experiences by POC and is proof that they are real. Microaggressions are the product of ignorance and show how deeply ingrained racism is in our society since for people who hold unconscious biases but have no ill will towards others, they can find themselves contributing the problem unknowingly and proving how much work there is to be done. It makes it difficult to feel comfortable anywhere as no matter how kind and considerate someone is you'll never know which stereotypes they hold about you and how their perception of you is tainted by them.

The notion itself that black lives matter is simply not racist at all. It is an objective fact. If black lives are treated as replacable and killed mercilessly at the hands of racists, often authority, then evidently they are not treated like they matter. And if they don't, then how can all lives matter? Often the arguments against it are very poorly veiled racist ideas to silence black voices from talking about their oppression which undeniably still occurs. No-one claimed that only black lives matter, it is simply a movement dedicated to the cause and there are various other movements for different issues for those who genuinely care and want to support them.

However, as Turi mentioned, this doesn't mean that the movement shouldn't be held accountable for the anti-semitic harm it has done. Being a part of or an advocate for certain communities does not mean you cannot be ignorant towards the plights of others or indeed have internalised prejudices about your own identity. These issues are complex and we should do what we can to hold those who are speaking on them with their platforms to a high standard. Two things can be true at the same time and supporting BLM is not racist at all, but this doesn't mean the organisation does not have its own problems.

Overall, I interpreted this to be about the statement rather than the movement which is inherently not racist since it aims to uplift a community and raise awareness of the senseless pain they endure and to disagree that people who are different from you do not deserve to be heard and should merely suffer since you do not wish to hear it is what is truly racist.

Dress codes are, far more often than not, misogynistic. They advocate for girls, often minors, to cover up out of fear of distracting boys or even grown adult members of staff. This perpetuates a sexist cycle and benefits predators at the expense of young women's education since they often miss class to have to change or are scolded for merely existing. This way of normalising a pedophilic and sexist culture must die as it benefits no one.

Boys are demonised and assumed to not be able to concentrate if they see so much as a girl's forearm, while the boys who may actually sexualise these unconsenting girls are let off and validated in their behaviour as she is punished instead. It teaches victim blaming to impressionable minds rather than anything productive.

Furthermore, for those students who identify outside of the gender binary, the dress code can trigger dysphoria if they are unable to dress in a way that reflects their identity. It is also generally restrictive and harmful for people who feel confined by the societal obsession with gender roles. For those who are not out at home for example, it can be a needlessly stressful situation.

Teachers may have to spend time policing uniforms rather than working to educate, parents must pay sometimes more than they can afford just for a uniform they will soon be discarding. It is more practical and generally beneficial to allow students more choice and freedom because clothes do not equate to learning. Feeling comfortable and able to express yourself without being judged and objectified for your clothes will improve student mental health and subsequently education.

The issue of trigger warnings is nuanced and should be treated with care and sensitivity. I believe that trigger warnings are necessary because they are a way of showing empathy for people who are directly impacted by content that is objectively difficult to watch for whatever reason that may be. It is an easy accomodation to make which can put the autonomy in the hands of the individual to decide if they wish to engage with content or not.

However, there is the issue of how they are displayed and its ineffectivity. For example, often they are vague or give no indiciation of the trigger and its whereabouts in the media being consumed. I believe they can seem like a display rather than having meaningful impact for the people they were designed for as they are surface level. It can be alienating for people with triggers to feel wary and on edge due to them being essentially useless, making them a reminder of the suffering but providing no real help in discerning the suitability of the content.

Furthermore, there is the question of whether it would be better to assess why certain unnecessarily brutal and often eroticised depictions of violence are normalised in the first place. Graphic scenes can be implied rather than shown on screen for the sake of entertainment, which would make viewing a more pleasant experience for all involved and reduce the need for trigger warnings. This would address the root issue which is how victims of trauma are not taken into consideration as much as they should be. The important thing would be to take their view on board and have open conversations regarding what an effective handling of triggering content would be.

I believe there is no harm in giving people the option to disengage with content which could be detrimental to their wellbeing. It offers a sense of autonomy to the individual. While it is impossible to cater to everyone's particular needs, it is important to factor in that some scenes are universally tough to witness. The impact of seeing these scenes is much harder for people who lived them.

It is certainly an individual's responsibility to do what they can to help themselves and seek support, but doing what we can to avoid unnecessarily hurting people who are healing from real experiences that are exploited for entertainment is a societal responsibility. Sometimes, such as in the case of seizures, warnings are life or death and they require minimal effort.

In conclusion, trigger warnings are necessary but they need to be reformed so they offer a better idea of what to expect, rather than being so vague they become void of meaning. I believe that the best approach is to discuss with sufferers of PTSD to decide what the most respectful and effective approach is.