Handicapped parking spaces should be reserved only for those who require an assistive device that necessities additional room around their vehicle for unloading and loading.

In a hypothetical world in which protected handicap parking didn’t exist, these people would be burdened by needing to always find parking spaces with an additional empty space next to them, and hoping that space remained empty when they return. Too high a burden.

So we rightfully have built into our civic and building codes the requirement that a certain number of protected handicap parking spaces be available. At least in my jurisdiction if you look at protected handicap parking, you’ll see that every space has an additional half space next to it to allow for egress of assistive devices. Without these protective half spaces built into every handicap parking space, people requiring such devices would face the undue burden I mentioned above; these handicap spaces give people equal access.

My controversial take is that only people requiring such devices should be granted access to these spaces. Yes, I know that there are many people that have a more difficult time walking and can benefit from closer proximity to their destination, but in my opinion, these requirements shouldn’t be for the “benefit” of anyone, but only the equal treatment for those facing the aforementioned undue burden.

In my opinion, for every one person needing an assistive device, and every two people who would simply benefit from close proximity, there are numerous people who use handicap parking for convenience. I’ve seen motorcycles with handicapped parking placards for goodness sake.

Most conservatives, however deeply red, are not intentionally hateful and are usually open to rational discussion. People just don’t know how to have rational discussions nowadays and the few times they do, they don’t know how to think like somebody else and put things in a way they can understand.

People nowadays think because a point convinced them, it should convince everybody else and anybody who’s not convinced by it is just being willfully ignorant. The truth is we all process things differently and some people need to hear totally different arguments to understand, often put in ways that wouldn’t convince you if you heard it.

It’s hard to understand other people and I feel like the majority of people have given up trying in favor of assuming everybody who disagrees with you knows their wrong and refuses to admit it.

Dogs were hardwired by selective breeding to worship their owners. Not long ago they at least were loyal companions. You got one off the streets, fed it leftovers, washed it with a hose, it lived in the yard, and it was VERY happy and proud of doing its job. Some breeds now were bred into painful disabling deformities just to look “cute”, and they became hysterical neurotic yapping fashion accessories. Useless high maintenance toys people store in small cages (“oh, but my child loves his cage”) when they don’t need hardwired unconditional lopsided “love” to feed their narcissism.

Pansexual, polysexual, and omnisexual are all microlabels and are all subsets of bisexual. You don’t need more labels than gay, straight, and bi.

Edit: I forgot about asexuals. But I specifically only care about bi subsets. They’re dumb, and you only need bi

Fuck ALL advertisements. Yes, even “unobtrusive” ones, especially yours. If I want your shit, I will find you. If I appreciate your shit, I’ll pay you for your time. If you want to connect, I’m all ears. Otherwise, fuck off capitalists, fuck off advertisers, and fuck off useful idiots who want to waste my finite lifespan in this miserable universe showing me ads.

We don’t need more pronouns. We need less of them.

In my native language there is no even he/she pronouns. The word is “hän” and it’s gender neutral. You can be male, female, FTM, MTF, non-binary or what ever and you’re still called “hän”. You can identify as anything you like and “hän” already includes you.

The rise of feminism has seen the steady devaluation of the contribution of men in those areas of society where they should be most active. Rather than celebrate and recognise what’s right, the focus is on attacking what’s wrong.

The majority of men are lonely, isolated and uncared for. Many feel unvalued, unsafe and vulnerable. There is less community support for men than there has been in the past, less institutional support, and a continued decline in the tolerance of men being in shared places. The minimisation of value in societal roles is yet another way that men are cut off.

This seems to escape the vision of feminism. There is always claim of ideological alignment, where the empowerment of women directly benefits men, but when it comes to any form of concrete action that helps men that need help, or celebrates men that contribute - it’s nowhere to be seen.

Men kill themselves. They kill themselves. In their thousands. Leaving cratered families, trauma, guilt from the survivors, many of whom are female. Because they feel valueless, helpless and can’t see a purpose to going on.

Accountability goes both ways. In demanding support from men, feminism must support men.