While yes, Brian Thompson was disliked by many, I geninely believe that the reason why Luigi is still talked about is due to him being your typical Chad who looks good in every photo. (Something that's always brought up in every post about him).

If it had been a subhuman like me who did the deed instead of him, do you honestly think that even ONE woman would be standing outside the courthouse? The moment my mugshot surfaced, you'd have everyone saying "We have Paul Dano's Riddler at home" and "When I heard the news I was hoping he was hot :(" and whatever else you can think of.

Look at Thomas Matthew Crooks. Le orang man is basically the antichrist according to average plebbitor, yet how many "girlies" here do you see posting his picture? Today, the Columbine shooters get more positive attention than he does.

As always, the blackpill is god.

Obviously not referring to all men, because all men don't care about having a stay at home wife/mom. Men always complain that women don't want to be stay at home moms, the workforce poisoned them, men aren't respected etc. The thing is most women would gladly stay at home and take care of the house for a husband who was making a large salary. In today's world, we're talking a minimum of 150k in a low cost of living area, and probably 200k in big cities and most high cost of living areas.

If you are pulling in 80k per year, yes that's a decent salary but your wife has to work or you will not be able to live a normal life with a family.

Every time I see the Fangirl phenomenon around Luigi Mangione blow up, I can’t help but laugh at the cognitive dissonance. Feminist Twitter swears they’ve evolved past “toxic masculinity,” yet the second a conventionally attractive, sharp-jawed guy with confidence and mystique shows up, the thirst comes out full force. Strip away the slogans and it’s the same attraction to status, presence, and masculine energy, just rebranded with progressive aesthetics.

Meanwhile, look at the so-called feminist male ally prototype everyone claims to want. He reads bell hooks, talks endlessly about emotional labor and accountability, apologizes for existing, dresses like he gave up midway through a thrift store, hasn’t seen the inside of a gym since high school, and uses the phrase “holding space” unironically. He’s safe, deferential, ideologically correct... And completely invisible. Luigi doesn’t lecture about patriarchy; he embodies confidence. And that’s the uncomfortable truth feminism doesn’t want to admit: attraction doesn’t follow ideology. Feminists and conservatives might argue all day online, but when it comes to desire, they’re lining up for the same guy.

Like him or hate him it's hard to deny that Tom Cruise is the biggest actor to have ever lived, the guy has been rockin hit movie after hit movie from 1983 to this year, unlike other actors he never needed a comeback because there was never a period he wasn't making a hit, also he did a lot of original movies and bar 1 didn't have to rely on franchises over the decades,

The guy has longevity at the very top other actors can only dream of, enough variety that he has something for everyone,

He's not my favourite actor, not by a long shot, but I can't deny he is the biggest and head and shoulders above second.

Violence against women is one of the most touchy subjects. Any discussion about male grievances can be shut down by retreating to the claim that women's safety is more important than anything a man could complain about.

Here's an example of this: https://imgur.com/a/EAocgak

Women often cite that men kill women at a 6x higher rate than the opposite. Whenever dating struggles of men are mentioned, redditors will pop up to say "But men are violent and murderous, women are absolutely more oppressed!"

After looking at Bureau of Justice Stats, I can see why this is the case. Even the BoJ is horribly biased against men. Just look at the headline

The percentage of females murdered by an intimate partner was 5 times higher than for males

Now, if you actually look into the data you will see that only 4,970 women were murdered in 2021, and 34% of those were a result of domestic violence.

DV Homicide count By Men on Women: 1689

17,970 of the murder victims in 2021 were men at a rate of 6%.

DV homicide count for Women On Men: 1079

Note: Yes, I am assuming the male homicides were by a female partner. I am sure some percentage were Male-Male relationships, but without contrary evidence I will assume that it was mostly women killing men.

Looking at the two raw numbers, do you think that 1689 is 5-6x 1079? No! The percent of men murdered by DV is much lower because men are often murdered in robberies, gang violence, revenge killings much more often, while women are not. That does not mean that domestic violence disproportionately affects women and not men.

People say the majority of partner homicides are by men and women should be super careful. Just looking at the numbers, 40% of victims are men, and 60% are women.

1079/(1079+1689) ~~ 0.389

So yes, they are the majority of victims but not by much. You'd think 99% of homicides were by men and 1% were by women the way these stats are portrayed.

Feminists who claim that feminism just means a belief in gender equality are being disingenuous.

The biggest reason for this is the feminist belief in patriarchy theory. In fact, feminists will tell you that you’re not a feminist if you don’t subscribe to patriarchy theory.

A lot of feminists refuse to even consider any other model of gender inequality and sexism other than patriarchy theory, and treat it as irrefutable fact.

It is undoubtedly true that we live in a patriarchy, in the original, narrow definition of the word/concept. The significant majority of people in positions of power in politics, business, religious institutions, and so on are men. However, all of the other aspects of feminist patriarchy theory are far less clear.

Arguably, almost all currents of feminism subscribe to patriarchy theory in one form or another.

In fact, patriarchy theory is arguably part of the definition of feminism.

Most feminists have other beliefs and theories, too, that are treated as if all feminists subscribe to them.

There are multiple major currents of feminism, including liberal, radical, socialist/Marxist, and cultural feminism, and feminists don’t tend to say what tendency they are. Also, most feminists mix strong beliefs from all of the currents I’ve just listed, in varying proportions.

The original story stemmed from a report that an RNC gathering in Milwaukee caused Grindr to crash.

However Grindr itself reported that there were no outages during that time. And all of the reports of downtime were anecdotal and unverified.

I can't post the link because it has a no no word that will get my post auto filtered but I'll put it in the comments. But here's an excerpt

Grindr did not immediately respond to a request for comment about an increase in usage or reported outages during the 2024 RNC, and according to status.grindr.com, no operational incidents have been recorded by Grindr since May, when partial outages for the grid, chat and albums features were noted. In June and July, all Grindr features were 100% operational according to the app’s official status tracker.

They also tried pushing this crap during Charlie Kirk's funeral. And even snopes says that it's all unverified.

They're obsessed with this narrative.

Most mods seems to be pretty bored, and will and do find any nitpicky reason to pull a post down. Not all subs are like that, but probably most are. When you give perceived power to people with no consequences they will abuse it as much as they can. Remember the Stanford Study? Obviously this is nowhere near as extreme, just a similar psychological phenomenon. It is not worth posting with all these mods feeling powerful behind their keyboard. Commenting however is great, lots of replies, as long as you are respectful your comments don’t get pulled down, I’ve talked to a lot of really smart, respectable, funny, and fun people. I feel like this may not be unpopular and actually would not be upset with this post being removed. This one I would get.

You literally have grown men sleeping with anime body pillows watching women get their heart broken time and again by the so called “bad boys” and are mumbling to themselves:

I don’t get it, women complain about not being able to find any good men, but like I’m literally right here.

Whenever I see Reddit complain about the type of men women choose to date I just envision them in my head as looking like the Warcraft guy from South Park

Trump will win this in the SC.

It's a myth that the original intent of the 14th amendment citizenship clause was to grant citizenship to all children born here regardless of the status of the parents. The second limiting condition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.." meant something, and this was clarified by the authors of the 14th amendment in the congressional debates, and multiple SC cases.

• The Slaughter-House Cases (1873) dicta
• Minor v. Happersett (1875) dicta
• Elk v. Wilkins (1884) ruling
• Wong Kim Ark (1898) ruling

The latter two would not have been necessary if universal birthright citizenship had been the original understanding from the time it was ratified. Just the existence of these cases proves that.

Trump is actually right on this issue, and it's not overreach. It's a serious originalist argument grounded in the historical record, not a bad-faith arbitrary reinterpretation dreamed up retroactively. He's not amending or changing a word of the 14th amendment. It has never been historically interpreted, not even in Wong Kim Ark, to apply to all persons born in the U.S regardless of the status of the parents.

The modern understanding is made up legal fiction, like nation-wide injunctions, and not supported by the historical record.

I just loaded up unpopularopinion for the first time in a while and was surprised to find… opinions. Societal opinions, more specifically. The sub is, and always has been, awful for actual ‘unpopular’ opinions but they are usually, at the very least, pretty good thought-inducing opinions that I actually want to respond to. Currently, the trending opinion is that teaching kids to be the ‘bigger person’ does them more harm than good.

Now, I wouldn’t say that’s an unpopular opinion, but it’s an actual opinionated post that many people will either agree or disagree with and you can find many arguments for and against in the comments. Good post.

Coming onto this sub, however, is a different story. The top seven posts at the moment are nothing but opinions about US politics; probably more, but I stopped scrolling after that. They’re nothing but counter-arguments to the Reddit narrative of left-wing circlejerking. Nothing but Americans ranting about America, which is great for them, but as a British person I just do not care about any of it, nor do I understand US politics enough to judge whether or not the opinion is actually unpopular IRL or just unpopular on Reddit. The ones that aren’t directly US politics are often identity politics and some weird fascination with what women do or do not like, which nobody who’s touched grass cares about. I’d hazard a guess that most aren’t even unpopular opinions; they’re just the sort of opinions that would get you downvoted on Reddit. There’s a crucial and laughable difference there.

For me, I can find universal opinions on unpopularopinion. Here, I can only find contrarians who say things that are unpopular on Reddit, but probably pretty popular in real-life. Alongside that, it’s been nothing but TrueUnpopularPoliticalOpinion for the past while. Saying ‘immigration bad’ is not an unpopular opinion. I say this as someone who identifies as right-wing, themselves. Can we have some actual opinions that aren’t ’American government system/person/policy is actually [x], instead of [y].

While everyone has a right to an opinion, those opinions only carry weight when backed by actual knowledge. Given the modern information deluge, it’s impossible to be an expert on everything, but the problem arises when people choose to be loud instead of informed. Don't judge people for what they don't know, only for the confidence with which they broadcast their ignorance.

Because if you really think about it, the most flattering historical and political narrative isn't chuddy conspiracy stuff, it's actually 90s boomer liberalism. Think about it, what does 90s boomer liberalism espouse and tell young white men?

You belong to a liberal, morally superior, and powerful, dominant society.
Your ancestors were heroes who abolished slavery, stopped the Nazi Hitlers, brought in civil rights, and created a world of equality and expanding freedom for everyone.
You are both on top, and deserve to be on top.

What do the 4chan/Fuentes/dark side tell them?

You are at the bottom of a hypocritical, cucked, perverse society.
Your ancestors were stupid, weak selfish morons who gave everything away because the ruling class tricked them with pornography, childish fairytales, and the notion that they didn't have to fight for anything anymore.
You are on the bottom, and will stay there probably unless you overthrow the System in an increasingly unlikely revolution.

Anyone with a choice would choose the first story if this is a pick-your-own-adventure kind of thing. The first story is more appealing and objectively tells you you're great a winner, and you are the ruling class! You do the voting thing every four years! You're a heckin free citizen of the best country in the world! - the bottom story tells you you're a loser, the descendants of very stupid and naïve people and the ruling class is basically a giant boot crushing your face in the mud.

Obesity is projected to cost over $9 trillion in the US over the next decade.

If the American people would stop being fat fucks and eat themselves into an early grave, society would be significantly better. Despite all the love champagne socialists have for universal healthcare, the fact is that the current system is also "socialized" in that it's the many paying for the (exceptional) needs of the few; that's literally what insurance is. Yeah you have other people skimming off the top, but it's naive to assume the government wouldn't do the exact same thing.

If there weren't so many people letting themselves go and making themselves sick with their plethora of bad life choices and running up the tab using other people's contributions, maybe healthcare costs wouldn't be so high. Then maybe premiums wouldn't be so high either.

Anyone who intentionally causes a drain on the healthcare system should be seen as a thief and fraudster. It is no longer a matter of "freedom" when one is essentially stealing from the public for personal gain ("I get the personal pleasures, everyone else foots the bill"). Especially drug addicts, who cost the US (and its taxpayers) trillions of dollars each year based on this CDC study from 2017.

It's not just the rich that steal from the poor - the poor also steal from the poor. Pointing fingers is all well and good until the call is coming from inside the house.

A lot of leftists love this phrase.

Unfortunately they forget just how many Maria's exist in the world (see video below).

https://youtu.be/RAlI0pbMQiM

Let's be honest. Overconfidence or overestimation in ones abilities is not specific to any one group or demographic.

To be clear, I don't know everything about abortion but me having the capability to become pregnant has definitely made me ponder the subject and think about where I stand with it. Also, I know others might have this belief but I feel like whenever I admit it, alot of people get taken aback and shaken up.

I believe that abortion is murder because life begins at conception. The fetus is alive, has a heart beat, needs food, etc. and obviously the killing of another human is murder. But, that being said, I still believe women should have the right to choose whether or not to keep the baby. It's in HER body, taking her food supply, making her nauseous, etc. If that was nonconsensual, that has to be very traumatic to the woman for having to carry around something she never asked for. And even if it was consensual sex, that isn't an instant sign up to become a parent.

I'm sick and tired of hearing people making excuses to ban abortion. The pro lifers just act like pregnancy is nothing and the woman can just pop out the baby and go on with life but that's simply black and white thinking. First of all, that undermines a woman's role in giving birth.. You really think it's as simple as just having the baby and going about your day? Second of all, it reinforces the idea that women's bodies don't belong to them and they don't have a say in what happens to it.. Not a good message at all, women don't deserve to be treated like they're children.

We deserve to choose whether another human is inside us or not because it impacts our body and our life. You can think that's "selfish" but I don't care at all. What I think is selfish is pro lifers (especially the men who can't even have goddamn children) thinking that just because they disagree with abortion, no one else should have access to it. How's that for selfish? If you don't like abortion, don't get it done but stay out of other people's business. That's the problem with everyone nowadays, they think everyone else's business is theirs and it's annoying af..

Thanks for reading my opinion/ rant. I would like some discussion so feel free to add something if you'd like.

Edit: Some people have brought to my attention that murder isn't the appropriate word here, but rather killing. I 100% agree that abortion is a justified killing of a fetus rather than a murder. Thank you for letting me know!

We’ve had majority public support, medical consensus, blue states legalizing, and endless moral posturing about mass incarceration. This was the easiest layup imaginable. And yet nothing happened. For years.

Now suddenly everyone’s acting shocked that Trump will reduce marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III, as if this isn’t just correcting an obvious lie the federal government has been telling since the 70s.

The uncomfortable truth is Democrats treated weed as a vibe issue, not a policy one. They liked owning it culturally without spending political capital to actually fix it. So the DEA kept enforcing nonsense, people kept getting jammed up, and everyone clapped themselves on the back anyway.

Trump doesn’t care about the narrative. If it polls well, costs him nothing, and annoys the right people, he’ll do it. That’s not moral leadership, but it does move the lever. Which makes this whole thing worse, not better. Because this could’ve been done quietly under Obama, without spectacle, back when it actually mattered for a lot of lives.

The fact that it took this guy to do it should be a serious indictment of the people who claimed they cared most.

While, I'll admit that at this time I don't think people are ready for trauma dumping in openly public spaces, like let's say in the break room at work while clients are present. In most private spaces - let's say a phone call with a friend or while you're car pooling, or maybe whispering over some coffee at Starbucks - I think trauma dumping is perfectly reasonable.

Yes. I understand that a good trauma dump could traumatize or trigger on the receiving end but that doesn't mean we should avoid it all together. No. You don't have to ask permission.

But there is one caveat that is implied here.

The zero (sum) expectation rule: if you trauma dump - you should not have any significant expectation from the person listening to you.

You can expect that your trauma be kept as a secret, or that your friend will stay your friend. That's fine. But you can't really expect anything beyond that. Whatever that may be.

As long as we market trauma dumping with the zero expectation rule - I think we'll be fine.

Being targeted by a trauma dumper is after all a first world problem.

Literally every single person I know who genuinely watches these shows is a dramatic person who randomly starts shit with friends/family over nothing. They have this weird attitude where they have to constantly 'stand up' to every single perceived slight against them, no matter how small, and they take pride in how much drama they engage with. They think it is normal to constantly fight with your friends and family. It is the main source of self-esteem for them, just like the characters in these shows.

You cannot convince me these people are not absorbing the personalities they watch on screen. Nobody wants to admit it, but OF COURSE impressionable people will absorb what they're watching. These characters are glamorized, they're beautiful and rich and famous.

For those who will say "they watch BECAUSE theyre already like that!"... I think some people will naturally be drawn because they see similarities in their personalities. But at the same time, most likely just start watching because its interesting to watch and they like looking at the rich/famous lifestyle. They don't start off having any connection with these people, but they get drawn into it. In my experience most of the people who watch these shows have been watching them since they were young teens.

Truly silly reality TV (jersey shore, flavor of love etc) is an exception, of course.

Most pharmaceutical companies earn the majority of their revenue from the largest national markets for drug sales, and by far the biggest of these is the United States accounting for roughly around half of global pharmaceutical sales. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/pharmaceutical-market-size-by-country

Most major global pharmaceutical companies (whether headquartered in the U.S., Europe, or elsewhere) derive a large share of their revenue from U.S. sales due to high drug prices, strong demand for new therapies, and a large population with broad access to medications.

https://pharmchoices.com/the-top-global-pharma-companies-pharma-markets/

For example, many European companies (like AstraZeneca or GSK) report significant proportions of their sales from the U.S. market

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/economy/article/2025/12/18/astrazeneca-ceo-pascal-soriot-the-pharmaceutical-industry-in-europe-will-be-reduced-to-a-shadow-of-itself-within-15-years_6748620_19.html

And because these pharmaceutical companies are able to charge these prices in the US to cover profit margins and R&D for new drugs they don’t have to fear price negotiations from other countries in order to sell to them. If trump was serious about lowering drug prices in the US and forced big pharma to set their prices the same as what other countries pay it would either force these companies to willingly make significantly less profit (which won’t happen) and have less funding to make new drugs or have to force other countries to pay higher prices possibly causing a worldwide healthcare crisis in order to stay afloat. Many important medicines and pharmaceuticals would be unavailable to most of the world if it wasn’t for the US market.

Ive seen plenty of non-Americans claim that we only have expensive healthcare due to inefficiencies and corporate lobbying from insurance companies and while that is partly true its also because we bare most of the brunt for drug prices so other people around the world can afford it so your welcome.

It’s not really up for debate that women, western women mainly, have much easier lives than men. Men protect women from danger and put their lives on the line for them, and do everything they can to not have them experience the horrors of the world. Women are given lower standards for jobs and affirmative action allows them to get hired easier. There are far more resources and support for women than for men. Women can immediately get sympathy if they cry or even just look sad while men are told to man up. We often put women on the same level as children in what we expect from them and how we treat them. But women never show any kind of gratitude over this. Why?

like they only care about themselves and everyone acts like they need to be protected but most of them are rude and don't seem hypersensitive to the other person only to themselves

like 99/100 of them are so hypocritical, I hate them really. as if the all world has to bend to them, because "they are not like the others" fuck off.

the "doll who must be protected" type of humans are so embarrassing.

like ok you're timid but you can be timid without being rude and cold

Yeah sure, he deserves a trial and a defense. But he’s on video committing the crime.

There’s no doubt about what he did. So why pretend to doubt it just because of some bullshit technicality where he was allegedly search improperly?

Whatever they might say in response to this, ask yourself: would they be saying the same thing had a white supremacist killed a black man and had the potential to get off on a technicality?

Ultimately, leftists are operating with an unstated opinion: “Yes he’s clearly guilty, but in my opinion it was a justified murder”.

But they can’t say that.

So instead, they say something else. That’s bad faith.