Posts by Daniel Perez6

Morgan Brown4 said:Personally, I don't think Manchester fits into that category at all. As far as I recall, it’s a pretty conventional movie—easy to follow, follows a logical structure, and serves as a solid example of a well-made Hollywood drama.

The term heavy can be interpreted in a few different ways. When we're talking about cinema, "heavy" usually falls into one of two buckets.

In the first sense, which is what you're getting at, a heavy film is one that just guts you. It hits, it kills, and even when you think you've processed the impact, it comes back to pick at whatever emotional scraps you have left. That's definitely where the movie mentioned above fits.

In the second sense, a heavy film might just be difficult to sit through. These are the ones with constant flashbacks and non-linear structures that force you to stay hyper-focused. You don't necessarily get an emotional catharsis, but you end up exhausted because you're spending all your energy trying to figure out what's happening in front of you rather than feeling what's happening inside you.

You’ll actually end up spending less money at the Alamo Drafthouse. The lineup is solid, and you won't have to deal with those kids throwing popcorn from an XL bucket at you (if you catch my drift). 😉

Kyle Nelson3 said:I try to avoid hitting the theater on weekends or during prime showtimes, but work and life usually have other plans for me.
Besides, since there isn't much variety here in Cleveland, I end up at AMC Theatres mainly because it's right by the Empire State Building, making it easy to run errands nearby.
I haven't had the pleasure of sitting with grandmothers yet, though it wouldn't surprise me; unruly teenagers didn't just fall from Mars.
Prices aren't too bad if you're flying solo, but for two people in 4DX with some food, you're looking at about $67.
To be honest, going to the movies is a treat I mostly save for sci-fi spectacles with heavy effects; everything else can be found on torrent sites.

You're really struggling with the facts here! 😳

Kyle Nelson3 said:Perhaps the title should be about a lack of basic decency, but here we are.
I don't know about you all, but hitting the theater isn't just a way for me to kill two hours when I'm bored.
I only go to AMC Theatres for specific films—the ones I actually think are worth paying premium prices to see on a big screen.
Sometimes I make a mistake, sometimes I don't, but that's a risk I'm willing to take.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not expecting dead silence during a screening, but a little decorum wouldn't hurt. It seems like the issue is mostly with the younger crowd who act like they're just hanging out on their couch with friends.
They talk loudly, laugh, yell, and chat about random things, essentially disrupting the entire experience.
I almost went to see a movie in 4DX recently, and instead of being able to zone out and enjoy it, it was a disaster. Some teenager spent the whole movie narrating it like she was watching a football game. That’s just one example.
I'm not sure how everyone else feels, but it bothers me.
I try to tune it out, but it's difficult.
Am I being too demanding? Maybe times have changed, even if I'm not forty yet.
Or perhaps when a person finds the time and pays for a ticket, they have a right to expect at least a minimum level of respect and peace to enjoy the film.
What do you think?

I catch quite a few movies in theaters, and I wouldn't call the cost steep. A ticket is usually $20 or $25, or maybe $10$30
, which isn't exactly breaking the bank.
Based on what you're saying, it sounds like you're heading to AMC Theatres. Honestly, I have no idea what they could be showing that's *so* incredible that it warrants taking such a massive financial risk. 😬

When I'm at the movies, I stay quiet, I don't scroll on my phone, and I definitely don't nap!

The owl was playing with its own shadow. 🙂

Ashley Grant66 said:I’ve always thought Timothée Chalamet is incredibly convincing when he cries—he really leans into that raw, messy, tear-streaked look. It feels authentic rather than staged. 😁

Ovo.

Grace Sanchez50 said:Honestly, you should watch it just for Timothée Chalamet.

And this one too.

To be honest, the first half of the movie is way stronger than the second. It starts off with so much momentum, but then it kind of loses its footing halfway through.

I hold them very dear. WALL-E [2008] I'm sorry, it looks like your message was cut off. What can I help you with? Song of the Sea [2014].

Peter Harris80 said:Do both parents need to sign the consent form? Does any regulation actually state that both parents must agree on an elective? Or is one signature enough if it's based on the child's best interests?

The father claims that for religious education, both parents must agree. Especially if they are divorced.
He is strictly against it, while I would prefer the child to attend. What am I supposed to do in front of the school? I'd rather not involve the local police unless absolutely necessary. And I definitely don't want the school forcing my hand.

Saying "I'd like it to go through" isn't exactly a heavy-hitting argument, especially since the guarantor likely has several points that carry more weight than yours.

Do you attend church regularly? Is prayer a part of your life? How much does any of this actually matter to you personally? You don't need to answer here—just ask yourself. If you’re only participating in religious sacraments because everyone else is, and you want your kid to follow suit just to stay in line, then in my opinion, you're making the wrong call. 😬

Peter Harris80 said:My ex insists that this particular school requires signatures from both parents for elective subjects. I have no idea where he's getting that from. It would be pointless to poll the parents at preschool, especially since everyone there is married and likely wouldn't have this issue anyway.

They say all classes are handled by one teacher, except for the first period, which is when the main teacher is free to skip. Apparently, for first graders, they don't schedule religion or foreign language during the first hour so everyone starts the day with the primary teacher. I don't know if that's a standing school rule or just a yearly thing. If it is a rule, we won't have a scheduling conflict in first grade, but we definitely will in the later years.
Kids can't perform in shows without consent, and I have zero interest in having my child sidelined from the group. I can't wrap my head around the idea of a kid sitting alone in the library while the rest of the class is performing. I don't see how anyone finds that acceptable.

We are discussing the possibilities, but we can't reach an agreement.

You don't even need to interrogate other parents. The school has a phone number; just call them anonymously and ask. It’s a one-minute task.

Peter Harris80 said:My ex insists that this particular school requires signatures from both parents for elective subjects. I have no idea where he's getting that from. It would be pointless to poll the parents at preschool, especially since everyone there is married and likely wouldn't have this issue anyway.

They say all classes are handled by one teacher, except for the first period, which is when the main teacher is free to skip. Apparently, for first graders, they don't schedule religion or foreign language during the first hour so everyone starts the day with the primary teacher. I don't know if that's a standing school rule or just a yearly thing. If it is a rule, we won't have a scheduling conflict in first grade, but we definitely will in the later years.
Kids can't perform in shows without consent, and I have zero interest in having my child sidelined from the group. I can't wrap my head around the idea of a kid sitting alone in the library while the rest of the class is performing. I don't see how anyone finds that acceptable.

We are discussing the possibilities, but we can't reach an agreement.

That really depends on the specific school district.

Peter Harris80 said:My ex insists that this particular school requires signatures from both parents for elective subjects. I have no idea where he's getting that from. It would be pointless to poll the parents at preschool, especially since everyone there is married and likely wouldn't have this issue anyway.

They say all classes are handled by one teacher, except for the first period, which is when the main teacher is free to skip. Apparently, for first graders, they don't schedule religion or foreign language during the first hour so everyone starts the day with the primary teacher. I don't know if that's a standing school rule or just a yearly thing. If it is a rule, we won't have a scheduling conflict in first grade, but we definitely will in the later years.
Kids can't perform in shows without consent, and I have zero interest in having my child sidelined from the group. I can't wrap my head around the idea of a kid sitting alone in the library while the rest of the class is performing. I don't see how anyone finds that acceptable.

We are discussing the possibilities, but we can't reach an agreement.

Usually, everyone is together during those school events. Mostly.

redridge13 said:Well, back at my kid's school, during Thanksgiving, they didn't ask for permission or even give parents a heads-up; they just marched every single student out to the foyer to pray and sing hymns and all that junk.
My kid isn't even religious, and when I asked her what she was doing while everyone else was praying, she just said, "I was just standing there."
Yeah, sure, nobody was pointing a gun at her head to make her join in, but let's be real—she didn't have any other choice.
The whole "performance" wasn't even held during a religion class; they did it right in the middle of the school day, forcing EVERY student to sit there and watch those religious types put on their little display.

Most of them just stand there. Believe me, they aren't the only ones. Half of them don't even bother to show respect; they’re either texting under the desk or staring at a spider crawling across the hallway during the service.

Peter Harris80 said:Basically, you're right. I don't want her to stand out, and I don't want to cause a scene during enrollment. Not to mention the logistical headache of dropping her off when religion class is first thing in the morning, since there’s no organized childcare at that hour.
I’m not a devout practitioner, but faith is part of my life. My daughter knows the basic prayers, she’s been baptized, and I’d like her to receive the other sacraments. We’ve been to church a few times, but she’s too young to sit through a full Mass, so we don't go often. She’s heard of the concepts mentioned; we read Bible picture books together. She won't be deprived of the basics, but I truly would prefer she attends.
Her father is dead set against signing the consent form because, in his view, agreeing means he’s endorsing having religious instruction in public schools, which he thinks doesn't belong there. I get where he's coming from, though I don't think it's right to let his political stance dictate our child's experience. He isn't fundamentally against religious upbringing, but he opposes the way the Church interacts with the state and religious classes in schools. For him, putting his name on that form would be inconsistent with his principles. He insists that the school I chose requires both parents to sign if they are divorced, and he’s sticking to his guns.

I haven't asked the child anything yet. I thought it was smarter for us to reach a consensus first. Sometimes I think about just giving in to his stubbornness, but then there are still permissions needed for things like holiday programs or community events, and he won't sign those either because he refuses to support the chaplaincy. That's a bigger headache, because that's exactly when you end up standing out if the kid isn't participating.
I want to avoid going through family mediation.

Thanks for the input.

So, you're planning on enrolling her in Religion class? 😬

She’ll stand out anyway the moment she mentions a song is boring or casually remarks that multiplication tables are easy. Signing a kid up for Religion class just so they can blend into the crowd is a mistake.

Peter Harris80 said:Basically, you're right. I don't want her to stand out, and I don't want to cause a scene during enrollment. Not to mention the logistical headache of dropping her off when religion class is first thing in the morning, since there’s no organized childcare at that hour.
I’m not a devout practitioner, but faith is part of my life. My daughter knows the basic prayers, she’s been baptized, and I’d like her to receive the other sacraments. We’ve been to church a few times, but she’s too young to sit through a full Mass, so we don't go often. She’s heard of the concepts mentioned; we read Bible picture books together. She won't be deprived of the basics, but I truly would prefer she attends.
Her father is dead set against signing the consent form because, in his view, agreeing means he’s endorsing having religious instruction in public schools, which he thinks doesn't belong there. I get where he's coming from, though I don't think it's right to let his political stance dictate our child's experience. He isn't fundamentally against religious upbringing, but he opposes the way the Church interacts with the state and religious classes in schools. For him, putting his name on that form would be inconsistent with his principles. He insists that the school I chose requires both parents to sign if they are divorced, and he’s sticking to his guns.

I haven't asked the child anything yet. I thought it was smarter for us to reach a consensus first. Sometimes I think about just giving in to his stubbornness, but then there are still permissions needed for things like holiday programs or community events, and he won't sign those either because he refuses to support the chaplaincy. That's a bigger headache, because that's exactly when you end up standing out if the kid isn't participating.
I want to avoid going through family mediation.

Thanks for the input.

What about the library? Or after-school programs?

Christian Wilson28 said:Look, teenagers love them—I loved them too. It’s pure teenage angst fuel, honestly.

Salinger is fine since he's actually readable. Flaubert was pretty big back in the day, and things like Nora or the Russians were accepted in a "whatever" kind of way, I guess.

It’s sad to say, but the biggest issue with our American school reading lists is all those old classics about settlers and pioneers.

And the plays? They're often taught so poorly—it wasn't until college that I actually figured out how to read Shakespeare without wanting to die. But hey, better late than never.

I actually have to disagree with you on this one.

Take these favorites, for example:
Raymond Chandler: Three in Brooklyn
unknown: The Long Run
unknown: Fear on Maple Street
unknown: The Hero.

Those were just some random examples, but I wouldn't go so far as to say people don't appreciate American literature.
Back in high school, we read Without the Third (by Milan Begović), and honestly, everyone loved it. We spent hours debating it in class. I later picked up his novel about Giga Barićev which is excellent. 😍

I've been following this thread for days now, and my take remains the same: the problem isn't really the reading list itself, it's how the material is actually taught in the classroom.😁

urbantinker8 said:Wait a second now...
I think you’d get the exact same "result" if you asked kids about math.
About 99.9% of students wouldn't say math is just boring; they'd tell you it's a nightmare.
And just as much as people love to drone on about how STEM is this incredibly vital field essential to every single aspect of life on Earth, I guess the post-industrial reality of the US tends to contradict those claims a bit.
I mean, most people don't actually need to master quadratic equations, trigonometry, or imaginary numbers.
Most people don't need them, if I'm being honest—actually, hardly anyone does.😁
But nowadays, it seems quite fashionable to babble about STEM as if it's absolutely essential, and within those subjects, there's plenty of filler, tedious stuff, and nonsense that the average person is never going to touch in their lifetime.

I wonder why there isn't a thread here titled What's the point of vectors?
Maybe it's because, unlike literature where you can at least argue your own opinion, there's no practical application for it in daily life?
Yeah, right.☕

...music, art, chemistry, biology, cycling, skiing, you name it. You'll get the same identical answer every single time.

The biggest issue here is that they have a smartphone in their hand (which is fine enough) while simultaneously believing that WhatsApp is some kind of massive social media platform. 🙂

Richard Perez3 said:Honestly, what a joke. 😢

I don't feel bad for them at all. No.

Everything’s gonna be a chore.
Life is a drag.
Work is a drag.
Getting up in the morning is a drag.
Paying the bills is a drag.
Dealing with work stuff and personal responsibilities is a drag.

So what?
Just lie there, curl up, and do absolutely nothing because you can't be bothered.

Look, I get it—nobody’s forcing you to read some classic assigned book if you're feeling lazy, provided you’re cool with the fallout. You don't read it, you fail the assignment, whatever, you live your life. But you can't have it both ways. You can't expect an A and still spend all your time being lazy. It doesn't work like that.

I'm with you on this one.

wanderingbadger44 said:Is anyone actually following what Richard Perez3 is posting here?

Look, if you can't be bothered to slog through the required reading, then don't—it’s your life. Just pick through every second or third book, scrape together enough points to pass the assignment, and call it a day. You still have five other grading components in your American literature class to make up for, so as long as you nail those, you'll be fine. Honestly, skipping a few books isn't going to stop you from winning a Nobel Prize if you're truly destined for greatness.

Besides, who really cares if the material feels dull? It's just like how some people find math or history incredibly tedious. You either put in the work to master those subjects and get the grades, or you don't and you fail. It’s the exact same deal with these classics. They aren't included in the curriculum just to keep you entertained, for heaven's sake.

I agree, though you have to admit that some people basically boil the entire book down to:
Where was the character born?
What’s the setting?
Name three characters. 😳

urbantinker8 said:how exactly—if at all—are they planning to grade or evaluate this student "free choice"?
are there even any guidelines provided for the students?
or did the higher-ups just throw around the word "free" without actually thinking through the logistics?
so, a teacher could potentially end up with twenty-five trivial assignments to grade per class, (since kids, let's face it, rarely pick something with actual literary merit—which I guess is the whole reason people complain about required reading in the first place)🍿 and if the goal is to actually talk about the book, the teacher actually has to read it.
which means if someone is teaching 4th or 5th grade, they’re looking at maybe a hundred "books" a year that are theoretically completely irrelevant or, frankly, just plain bad.
if a girl decides she wants to read some random blog post by someone like Nick, is that supposed to count?

🤦

or is the teacher just expected to sit there, listen to a brief summary and a student's opinion on something they haven't even read themselves? (I mean, a kid could just tell their parents at home; why waste precious classroom time?)
by the time twenty-five students have shared their views on some "work," five hours will have passed, and the students won't get any real feedback unless the teacher can actually weigh in on whether the character dynamics or the characterizations were even remotely accurate.

so we're back to the same point—it's supposed to be about discussion, not writing.
that's an interesting thesis, considering you basically have to write a decent essay here on Walgreens to be heard. How are they going to learn that? By excluding school assignments? I highly doubt it...

I get the feeling, once again, that this is being driven by people who haven't stepped foot in a classroom in ages. They're just giving the public exactly what they want to hear, without much regard for how it'll actually play out in reality.

It's bad, just bad.☕

A grade doesn't always have to be tied to a verbal discussion about what they read. You could just have the student write ten questions instead. Honestly, those questions usually give you a pretty clear idea of whether they actually finished the book or if they're just winging it.

urbantinker8 said:how exactly—if at all—are they planning to grade or evaluate this student "free choice"?
are there even any guidelines provided for the students?
or did the higher-ups just throw around the word "free" without actually thinking through the logistics?
so, a teacher could potentially end up with twenty-five trivial assignments to grade per class, (since kids, let's face it, rarely pick something with actual literary merit—which I guess is the whole reason people complain about required reading in the first place)🍿 and if the goal is to actually talk about the book, the teacher actually has to read it.
which means if someone is teaching 4th or 5th grade, they’re looking at maybe a hundred "books" a year that are theoretically completely irrelevant or, frankly, just plain bad.
if a girl decides she wants to read some random blog post by someone like Nick, is that supposed to count?

🤦

or is the teacher just expected to sit there, listen to a brief summary and a student's opinion on something they haven't even read themselves? (I mean, a kid could just tell their parents at home; why waste precious classroom time?)
by the time twenty-five students have shared their views on some "work," five hours will have passed, and the students won't get any real feedback unless the teacher can actually weigh in on whether the character dynamics or the characterizations were even remotely accurate.

so we're back to the same point—it's supposed to be about discussion, not writing.
that's an interesting thesis, considering you basically have to write a decent essay here on Walgreens to be heard. How are they going to learn that? By excluding school assignments? I highly doubt it...

I get the feeling, once again, that this is being driven by people who haven't stepped foot in a classroom in ages. They're just giving the public exactly what they want to hear, without much regard for how it'll actually play out in reality.

It's bad, just bad.☕

I'm with you on that. 😁
I don't mind at all if the kid reads it.

Peter Doyle2 said:I can give you a great example from back in the late '90s and early 2000s; back in 8th grade, our teacher actually gave us two different books to choose from! We still had to write about them, of course. I even remember which ones I picked—Empress and Ujevic.
Throughout high school, we spent all four years discussing literature during seminar blocks. Sometimes we’d get an essay for homework, and one of the prompts would almost always be tied to a book we read.
So, it’s definitely doable—certainly nothing groundbreaking.
And honestly, what's the harm in analyzing something written by someone like Nick? In my senior year, we were allowed to pick any song by a domestic artist we liked and analyze it for an assignment. I still remember analyzing Gibbon's "Secret Skill." Teaching kids critical thinking and how to build an argument based on things they actually relate to—how is that such a bad thing? It doesn't mean the entire curriculum will be garbage or that everything else gets tossed out.

Signed!

urbantinker8 said:I suppose it’s just because most of them either don't bother reading at all or they're busy consuming total garbage. I don't have anything against them doing that in their own free time, but it really shouldn't be happening during American literature class.
They ought to try developing some sort of critical perspective toward works that actually hold some semblance of value. They should argue their points and tear those classics apart if they must—by all means, go ahead.
But turning a lesson into a session where they just gossip about somewannabe Instagram influencers? No, that's not it.
People can do that on forums or social media instead.
And I'll say it again—there’s no point in having a debate if neither person involved actually knows the subject matter. And honestly, I don't see why people are getting so worked up at the teachers over this kind of nonsense... I guess I just don't get it.

I’m with you on that. You hit the nail on the head. The real headache starts when you’re stuck with a classroom where most of the kids have actually finished a novel, yet they still can't seem to move the plot forward. 🤣

Chris Grant3 said:Honestly, we could probably even use our trash as a teaching tool—a way to show kids what actually counts as waste and how to spot it in their daily lives.

I’m with you on this one! 👍

hiddendriver34 said:Sometimes I assign my students optional reading—just stuff from the standard curriculum, nothing extra. On average, maybe three kids actually pick them up. Their assignment? They have to pitch the book to a specific group of classmates, regardless of their reading level or interests. Honestly, the marketing campaigns they come up with are incredibly creative and original; they really dive deep into the psychology of their target audience to make it sell.

If they choose some incredibly shallow, mindless romance novel for their elective, they better be able to convince me. Or, they can take a more sarcastic, ironic approach to presenting it. Anything goes. 😉 I also grade them on their communication skills. I’m definitely not going to sit through every single piece of garbage they pick just to check if they did a good job analyzing the characters.

😍😍

I'm not entirely sure if I've landed in the right thread, so if I'm off base, please feel free to move this.

I need to get an ultrasound on my thyroid. Since I haven't lived in Washington, D.C. for a while now, could anyone point me toward a hospital where I can schedule an appointment?

Thanks! 🙂

wanderingbadger44 said:And did you consider that most of these kids didn't actually choose these career paths—except for a rare few—but rather ended up there because, much like what you said about history professors, they didn't have many other options. It’s hard to imagine how much they actually enjoy the work.

If a boss wants to actually get some value out of them instead of just causing more headaches, he might just send them over to Žnidaršić to grab a coffee or run an errand.

Does anyone honestly believe these kids are putting in real hours when they should be studying history? Just hand them a broom or have them fetch drinks.

If you talk to any vocational instructors at those three-year high schools, they'll tell you the truth: students end up making things up in their internship logs just to list tasks they never actually performed, simply because they weren't doing anything related to their trade. Some don't even show up for the internship; the boss just signs off on the paperwork and stamps it. Why would he bother complaining?

But hey, if you want to keep believing that these students are eager workers and these tradespeople are eager mentors while they're all too busy avoiding biology homework, go right ahead.

👍

wanderingbadger44 said:And did you consider that most of these kids didn't actually choose these career paths—except for a rare few—but rather ended up there because, much like what you said about history professors, they didn't have many other options. It’s hard to imagine how much they actually enjoy the work.

If a boss wants to actually get some value out of them instead of just causing more headaches, he might just send them over to Žnidaršić to grab a coffee or run an errand.

Does anyone honestly believe these kids are putting in real hours when they should be studying history? Just hand them a broom or have them fetch drinks.

If you talk to any vocational instructors at those three-year high schools, they'll tell you the truth: students end up making things up in their internship logs just to list tasks they never actually performed, simply because they weren't doing anything related to their trade. Some don't even show up for the internship; the boss just signs off on the paperwork and stamps it. Why would he bother complaining?

But hey, if you want to keep believing that these students are eager workers and these tradespeople are eager mentors while they're all too busy avoiding biology homework, go right ahead.

I’ve only heard rumors about this, but after seeing it firsthand this summer, I know it’s true.

Susan James said:How did you go from being a history teacher to focusing on language studies? 🤔
From what I've been reading, they aren't planning on cutting those programs anytime soon. 🥳

I know you can finish a four-year program and move from retail to commerce, or go from a cook to a tourism technician, or a baker to a food tech specialist—there are all sorts of combinations. But that still doesn't justify keeping subjects around that could easily be covered within the standard middle school curriculum.

By the way, I hear very clear and unmistakable chatter from various circles regarding the different working conditions between three-year vocational schools and four-year ones, not to mention traditional high schools. Specifically, regarding the quality of instruction and what the kids "actually learn."
Let’s not kid ourselves; do you really think someone who visits houses twice a year to inspect chimneys cares about history? What would a chimney sweep or a glazier need to discuss with a homeowner about Napoleon or Matthias Corvinus while they're doing their job? 😕

Did it ever cross your mind that kids in those vocational schools are actually working at ages 14 or 15? Their training happens in the real world with real people, clocking in actual hours. The goal is to teach them how to work with their hands and earn a living through honest labor, not to sit around debating the past or memorizing piles of useless trivia. Or are we supposed to keep churning out contrarians who will argue about civil wars and political movements just because someone from a three-year program might decide to go to college one day?

We should be making these jobs accessible and interesting to these kids by focusing on practical skills, rather than forcing them to cram heaps of useless data at the end of the school year—especially when most tradespeople are already swamped with actual work.

I can't believe you're buying into this. People graduate from four-year universities with no idea what their degree is actually for, yet you're out here believing in some fairy tale where teenagers fresh out of trade school are somehow skilled AND still have the motivation to work. 🤣

Donna White50 said:Nah, you've got it wrong...
My grandma knew Grandpa loved her, and he felt the exact same way. You know why? Every single morning, she’d have his coffee ready the second he got up, would heat the water for him to wash his face and shave... and in return, he’d make sure her bed was warm at night, working from dawn till dusk just so she and the kids always had enough to eat... That’s real love, man—it comes from wanting things for each other and meeting those needs, which creates this deep bond. They never sat around asking if they loved each other or measuring how much... my grandma still put her husband first even when they were 70, treating him like the only man in her world, and he respected her more than anyone on the planet.
Nowadays, nobody gives a damn about anyone else. People stay together just to take pictures of themselves on their phones; neither side wants kids, mortgages, or actual responsibilities. And when people ask "who loves who," it isn't about affection—it's pure ego. Everyone wants to be adored, but nobody actually wants to put in the work to love someone else...

If you handed a shovel to any guy today, he’d probably look at you like you're crazy—people are just so soft now, looking at love and life in general.
And that's the brutal truth...

In my family, my grandma actually remarried in her fifties because my grandpa was lazy and cheated whenever he got the chance. Even with a kid to think about, she refused to stay stuck in a marriage like that.

Failed marriages and messy breakups aren't a new phenomenon; they always existed. The people who refuse to put effort into their partners today would have been living the exact same way a hundred years ago. Personally, I think comparing modern relationships to the past is a bit pointless. At the end of the day, it’s all about spotting manipulation early enough to get out with your sanity intact.

Tyler Ruiz502 said:By the third grade, there’s this inevitable overlap between what they learn in religious education class and everything happening at church—the confession, the mass, how much the family actually shows up. It’s all one big interconnected loop where one thing basically dictates the other.
In the earlier grades, sure, you might have kids attending religion class who aren't even baptized or come from atheist households, but by third grade? I feel like it’s practically impossible to sit through those classes without eventually moving toward First Communion. Technically, you could opt out, but let's be honest—it would feel completely out of sync with everything else going on.

That’s actually not true. They aren't mutually exclusive. I've seen plenty of cases where kids skip the religious classes at school but still show up for the services at church. There are exceptions, obviously, but it happens.

Just because a family signs their kid up for religious education in the school system doesn't mean they're required to participate in communion or confirmation.

I’m not playing dumb; it would actually be helpful if you took the time to read everything here and look at the explanation your colleague provided. Claiming someone's ex is a slut is something only that individual can say—it’s not up to a moderator, you, or me to decide. Blood Dim already weighed in and clarified that it's allowed since this is just a chat and she isn't a member of Reddit (which he certainly wouldn't know).

As for what you said about me acting stupid, save those personal jabs for your family, not for me.

Adios!

northernpilot2 said:Calling someone a slut would be an insult if it were directed at any woman on this site. Is this little insult aimed at a registered user on Reddit? If so, please drop a link to her profile.

I don't really care who got banned or what they did, but I am interested in your logic here. So, you're saying I could tell someone: Your mom is a slut. and I wouldn't get flagged because I highly doubt some random user's mother actually has a profile on Reddit. 😳

Am I following you correctly?

goldencanyon89 said:I submitted a formal request to change my username to my official email address over a month ago, and yet, I’ve seen absolutely zero movement—not even a polite automated response to let me know they received it. I made sure to draft the email following their instructions to the letter, so I'm honestly at a bit of a loss here as to why it's just sitting in some digital void.

Just post the specific change you're looking for here, and we can figure out if it's actually doable.

Sean Phillips76 said:May isn't really my thing, I just preferred the male leads 😁

😍

For me, Buck was definitely the best. 🙂
🙂