#this generation

Anti- Feminists: Kate Baker is an 18-year-old TikTok influencer who also hosts a podcast. In one of her videos, she states that she does not identify as a feminist, all while wearing pants and expressing her own opinions. Millions of women have fought for our rights, allowing us to voice our thoughts and dress, act, and live as we choose. In fact, only 14 countries around the world fully support women's rights.

In Afghanistan, women have been forced to wear burqas, which completely cover their faces and prevent them from seeing clearly through a lace screen. This can lead to situations where you cannot even recognize whether you are speaking to your mother, sister, father, cousin, or uncle.

To illustrate this point, an anonymous band in Afghanistan released a song titled "Blue," or something similar. You can look it up for more information.

And about Kate Baker again, when she was confronted about it, she "apologised" saying that she did not know what the word feminist meant...

Mind you, an 18-year-old, not knowing what feminism means.

Despite everything that she has been told about her statement, she uses her statement to express her views to get more money.

Number 2

The Dehumanization of Children and the Humanization of Pets: There are numerous posts on TikTok about pets being abused and mistreated, accompanied by comments like, "Why would anyone ever abuse or hate a pet? They are precious beings! :))" In contrast, one commenter expressed, "I wish people showed the same empathy for children as they do for pets."

Why would someone make this statement? Let me explain further. People have started banning babies from public spaces because of their noise, while pets such as dogs and cats are welcomed due to their quieter nature. Pets are often compared to babies in this context. And on another post telling about this same concern, some commentators said that "Babies are noisy and annoying whilst pets are quieter." Although babies are noisy, it is the most natural thing a baby can do. And to contrast it pets also make abnoxious noises like any other pet.

Instead of dehumanizing children, we should treat them like actual humans and take care of them properly. hence not banning them because they are noisy or annoying. And about pets, we should also treat them with the same care; no pet should face abuse or hate. Both children and pets should be equal.

Number 3

Feminism is losing its meaning. It seems that almost everyone on TikTok identifies as a feminist and discusses issues like misogyny and misandry. However, not all who claim to be feminists truly embrace these values; some exhibit misandrist attitudes instead. This is concerning because, rather than supporting men who face challenges similar to those encountered by women, they often express disdain. For example, when someone posts, "Me when men open their mouths to talk about something," it’s usually accompanied by rolling eyes gifs and mean comments. If the roles were reversed, we would also be upset about such a post. Clearly, both situations are wrong. A man is not superior nor inferior to a woman, and vice versa. We are equal and should continue to uphold that equality.

Number 4

Food is a basic human right; everyone should be able to eat food for free and without anything expected of them because food is a natural resource that we need in order to live. In fact, this was voted in the United Nations that food is a basic human right. But there were 2 votes that it isn't, who were the 2 countries that voted no? America and Israel.

Not that I am hating on people that are americans or anything BUT The argument that food should be a basic human right is built on the simple truth that human life cannot exist without it. If we agree that every person has an inherent right to live, then they must also have a right to the resources required to sustain that life. Treating food as a market commodity rather than a fundamental necessity creates a system where survival is tied to wealth, leaving millions to suffer from malnutrition and hunger despite the world producing more than enough food to feed everyone. Recognizing food as a right would shift the global focus from profit-driven distribution to a moral and legal obligation to ensure no one goes hungry. By making food a guaranteed right, societies would be forced to address the root causes of poverty and inequality, ensuring that access to nourishment is never a privilege reserved for those who can afford it, but a universal standard of dignity for every human being.

Number 5

Children/teens not knowing how to read/comprehend/ understand basic story complex and vice versa;

The core of the issue is that many kids have been taught to "guess" words based on pictures or the shape of the sentence rather than actually "decoding" the letters. When you combine this "guesswork" education with a digital diet of captions and slang, children lose the phonetic foundation needed to sound out unfamiliar words. They might recognize a word they see on a screen every day, but if you put that same word in a book or ask them to say it out loud, they freeze because they don’t actually know how the letters work together to create sounds. This leads to a generation that can skim for "vibes" but can’t accurately read or pronounce the language they are using.

To fix this, we have to get back to the Science of Reading, which means strictly teaching systematic phonics—forcing the brain to sound out every letter and syllable rather than guessing. Parents and teachers need to prioritize reading aloud to kids and having kids read aloud back to them, which creates a physical link between the sight of a word and its sound. We also need to implement "digital fasts" where teens are required to engage with long-form, printed text that doesn't have a "comment section" or an AI voice to explain it for them. By treating reading as an active skill that requires practice—like a sport or an instrument—rather than a passive activity, we can rebuild the neural pathways that "brainrot" content has allowed to go weak.

Number 6

Oversexualizing. The constant claims of oversexualization in every comment section often say more about the viewer’s perspective than the performers themselves. If a girl group or boy group is wearing a certain outfit or performing a specific choreography, the label of "oversexualized" is frequently a projection of the observer’s own biases and internal associations. No outfit is inherently sexual; it is a collection of fabric and design. No person is inherently sexualized simply by existing or moving; they are human beings expressing a concept or a style.

The issue lies in a mindset that has been conditioned to instantly link certain levels of skin or types of movement to a sexual context, rather than seeing it as fashion, performance art, or even just comfort. When someone claims a minor or an idol is being exploited based solely on a wardrobe choice, they are often the ones introducing a sexual lens to a situation that was meant to be about talent or aesthetics. By shifting the blame onto the clothes or the person, people avoid questioning why their own comprehension of a human body is so limited to a sexual frame. To fix this, we need to deconstruct these rigid social filters and realize that "oversexualization" is often a choice made by the eye of the beholder, not the person on the stage.

This same mindset is what fuels restrictive school dress codes, where rules against showing shoulders or midriffs are justified by claiming these styles are "distracting." By labeling a student’s body as a distraction, the responsibility for focus is shifted away from the person who can’t keep their eyes on their work and onto the person simply getting an education. It reinforces the idea that a person’s outfit has the power to control someone else's behavior, which is a fundamental misunderstanding of personal accountability.

No shoulder or outfit is "distracting" by nature; it only becomes a distraction because the observer has been taught to view that specific part of the body through a sexualized lens. When schools enforce these rules, they are essentially validating a skewed mindset that prioritizes the comfort of the observer over the autonomy of the student. To fix this, we need to stop teaching people that certain clothes are "problems" and start teaching individuals how to manage their own focus and respect others' boundaries regardless of what they are wearing. Education should be about developing the maturity to see a peer as a human being, not a collection of forbidden "distractions."

Number 7

Whats wrong with women who cater to the male?

Credits to @theaawalker

Number 8

Dark romance books are disgusting. Let me start with grape, Hunting Adeline is a story by H.D. Carlton, is a dark, suspenseful romance focusing on Adeline Reilly, an author who moves into her deceased grandmother's secluded mansion and attracts the attention of Zade Meadows, a dangerous, possessive stalker. The plot follows their toxic "cat and mouse" relationship, blending intense stalking, obsession, and erotic scenes.

In chapter 40, Zade suspects that Adeline was drinking and presses against her. They have sex, and Zade chases adeline across the house, finally landing in the sunroom where zade initially Graped adeline. They continue to have sex in the sunroom.

Now you would think that maybe almost all of the readers of the book would totally hate the book because of the graphic romantization of grape right? Well, you'd be wrong again.

Instead of universal condemnation, you find massive online communities, particularly on platforms like TikTok, where readers openly "stan" characters like Zade and defend the story as a fantasy. This reaction highlights a massive failure in how people consume and process media today; the line between a horrific crime and "romantic tension" has been so blurred by repetitive tropes that many readers have become desensitized to the actual gravity of what they are reading. By framing a stalker and an abuser as a "protective alpha" or a "dark hero," the writing manipulates the reader’s emotions to view a violation of consent as a peak expression of passion.

This lack of critical distance is a direct result of the same comprehension issues we see in other media, where the "vibe" of a dark, brooding aesthetic overrides the actual logic and morality of the plot. When people defend these stories, they often argue that "it’s just a book," but they ignore how the constant consumption of "grape" as a plot device conditions the brain to view toxic and non-consensual behavior as a desirable form of obsession. To fix this, we need to stop treating these themes as "edgy" entertainment and start re-learning how to analyze text for what it actually says—identifying that an act of violence is still violence, no matter how much atmospheric prose or "romance" a writer tries to wrap it in.

Number 9

Insensitive and disrespectful jokes about true horrific crime stories

The desensitization caused by "brainrot" culture has reached a point where horrific true crimes are treated like internet punchlines, turning real human suffering into "lore" or "content." When people make jokes about Jeffrey Epstein or use nonsensical "brainrot" figures like victms of epstein to meme-ify tragedy, they are engaging in a flattening of reality where the actual horror of the event is buried under layers of irony. This is incredibly dangerous because it replaces empathy with amusement, making it harder for the public to feel genuine outrage or push for systemic accountability. To make matters worse, those who participate in this often defend themselves by using "dark humor" or "coping mechanisms" as a shield, claiming that people who are offended are simply "overreacting" or "don't get the joke". They use this "ironic stance" to absolve themselves of responsibility, arguing that they aren't actually supporting the crime, but just engaging in digital culture. However, this defense is fundamentally flawed; when humor is used to punch down at victims or trivialize systemic abuse, it doesn't process trauma—it diffuses it, making the violence feel distant and less urgent while normalizing the idea that powerful people can commit atrocities and still just be reduced to a meme. To fix this, we have to stop accepting "it’s just a joke" as a valid excuse for dehumanization and start re-centering the victims by refusing to engage with content that treats their pain as entertainment. We need to actively call out "irony" when it’s used to mask harm and rebuild our ability to sit with the weight of a story without looking for a way to make it "funny" for an algorithm.