Disrespectful men quotes

So I (M24) met I'll call her Emily (F23) when I was 16 years old when we were in high school. We met because we had to do a group project together in our American Sign Language class. She was a very shy, soft spoken girl who didn't say a single word to anyone in class. We got along really well and she immediately became a good friend of mine. She had a boyfriend when the project started, but both of us knew that we started growing feelings for each other. The project we were working on was a live performance using a song and dance choreography. The song we used was "Are you gonna be my girl" by Jet (which is very fitting given what would happen later). By the time we were done with the performance, she had broken up with her boyfriend (or at least that's what she told me), and I had been single for a while. Initially, she told me that she needed some time to get over the breakup, and I was totally fine with that. I completely understood that she wasn't just going to get over a 2 year relationship overnight and be ready to date me right away. She and I had many conversations at that time about how we wanted to be together, she just needed time to recover emotionally from that.
6 months went by, and the conversation about getting into a committed relationship came up again. By this time, I had met her entire family, spent holidays with her, and bought her presents for Christmas (classic bf/gf stuff). Yet after all this time, she said that she was still not ready for a relationship. I had grown slightly impatient, but I knew that she had a hard time trusting men and "putting a label on things", so I waited. I waited another 6 months to have that conversation with her again. At this point, she and I were about to graduate college, and we both had talked extensively about what we wanted our future to look like together. I asked her to be my girlfriend, she said she wasn't ready. I asked her what was keeping her from wanting to be in a relationship with me, but she didn't have an answer. This started the first argument we ever had about what it meant to be in a relationship. I told her that we already did all of the things that anyone else would do in a relationship (besides sex), and it didn't make sense why she was so resistant to making the small adjustment. She wanted nothing to do with the conversation, so I dropped it. Another 6 months went by, and the same thing happened. A year and a half had gone by at this point, and she still insisted that she wasn't ready for a relationship. I asked her "do you just not want to be in a relationship with me?", and she replied "I just don't want to be in a relationship until I know that I'm ready". Every time I asked her how long she thought it would take for her to be ready, she'd say "I don't know" and try to move on to talking about something else.
Flash forward to when we are 19. We both already graduated, and she's in her first year of college. I had dropped out of college at this point, and I was just working odd jobs until I could figure out what I wanted to do with my life. Throughout this year, she would subtilty bring up what kinds of dogs she wanted to get when we moved in together, and what wedding venues she wanted to pick for our wedding. At a certain point I asked her "Why are you talking about us getting married if you don't even want to date me right now?". She would shrug her shoulders and say that it was fun to think about that kind of thing. Regardless of what I said to her, she would adamantly refuse to have a conversation about us "being official", and her actually being my girlfriend. We would kiss, hold hands, say "I love you", everything that you'd expect from a relationship. The only difference is that she'd always say that I was her friend when she'd introduce me to her friends or family. I really wanted to just give up at this point. I had no idea what to do, or what I could possibly change about myself to make it so I would be good enough for her. She knew that I wasn't seeing anyone else, and she wasn't either, or at least that's what she was telling me. I had convinced myself that if I didn't make it work with her, then I wouldn't be able to find anyone else. She kept reassuring me "If you just wait, I promise we'll be together", which I believed wholeheartedly. I just had no idea what would need to happen for that to actually be true. She had convinced me that I was the problem, "I have a hard time trusting you" she'd say to me. I had done nothing to make her lose trust in me. I had always been by her side, and I never was disrespectful to her. I knew that she had problems that she was going through, but I never held that against her. I had done nothing but be supportive to her and take care of her, but it seemed like it wasn't enough. She subtly would tell me things that I should change about myself to make her happier, which I was okay with at first. She would tell me that I shouldn't wear certain things or act a certain way around her, which I listened to. I thought that if I listened to her, then that would mean I would be able to change things. All I could do now is either wait or leave, and I chose to wait. She made it sound like I didn't have to wait long for something to finally change, but I was very wrong.
4 years later, I was coming up on my 23rd birthday. 6 years had passed since we first started talking, and nothing had changed. She was still giving me no indication that she was willing to change anything. By this point I was fed up. I had no idea what I could possibly do that would make any difference in what we were. I started to feel like I was walking on eggshells when I talked to her. She made me feel like I was one move away from messing everything up. I couldn't figure out what she wanted me to do. Every time I would talk about anything remotely romantic or "lovey dovey", she would just brush it off and not even acknowledge it. She stopped kissing me one day, and I didn't even realize it. She started slowly backing away from me without me even knowing. I still have no idea what I did. I thought I had to have done something to deserve the way that she had been treating me. I had no idea what was going on anymore.
The last conversation that we had about being together she told me "I thought you were over it by now, I haven't felt that way about you for a long time". I was crushed. She gave me no indication that she felt that way. She never told me that she wasn't wanting to pursue a relationship anymore. I didn't think that her backing away was because she didn't love me anymore. She started working a lot more, and seeing me less. She got really busy with work, and I thought that was taking up a lot of her time and energy. None of the things that she said were gonna happen ever happened. I look back at those conversations that we had about us having a happy life together, and my heart breaks. She made it sound like she wanted to spend the rest of her life with me, but now it seemed like she wanted nothing to do with me anymore. I still have no idea what happened, even as I'm writing this.
I know that I'll never get to see all of the things that she promised that I would, but it's okay. I feel like this has been me going through the stages of grief with this whole situation, so thank you for reading.
TL:DR: I chased after a girl for 6 years and never was actually in a relationship with her. I still have a hard time moving on. What should I do?

After looking through this post, https://www.reddit.com/byzantium/comments/1d2bzdp/sick\_and\_tired\_of\_people\_calling\_byzantine/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button
I have some small critique to this video in particular, I'm in no way attacking the video of this content creator but i feel some of his video style can be rather incoherent in its narrating style and I hope to give critique.
A rather dramatic title imo that implied the Roman Empire was \"dying\" for 1000 years.
The video seems to be incoherent in its narrative style. It jumps from from various time periods and emperors without much structure and context. When learning history its important to learn to go from step 1 - 10. You can't just skip the narrative from step 1 - 3 then skip to step 8 -10. As seen here, several emperors are covered throughout the Western Roman Empire and then to the Eastern Roman Empire with only some Eastern Roman Emperors being covered. This leaves a lot of gaps in between time periods that can leave viewers confused and are left with more questions than answers.
Seen in the video description, the video creator's narrative goes through mostly the WRE with some references to ERE throughout the 4th-5th centuries before focusing on the 6th with Justinian then bizarrely skips to Constantine VI to Constantine XI Palaiologos.
The story goes through its content in a dramatic style and only seems to focus on specific events such as Valen's defeat in 378 against the Greuthungi and Tervingi goths. The creator also seems to highlight Emperor Theodosius I's treaty with the goths on a settlement that was supposedly signed on 382(even though there is little evidence this treaty existed.) and seems to give a negative connotation implying it might not be a good thing. Usually the settlement of the goths into Roman territory was in many ways a peaceful process that was not as bad as people assume as the policy had been successful many times before that are not mentioned in the sources. Because sources only mention the policy as a bad thing when it failed, not when it succeeded. In other words, sources have agendas and cannot be 100% trusted.
The good old reference of Edward Gibbon. At least the video creator didn't start spouting about how Christians were the cause of the destruction of the Roman Empire. Though he called it a \"masterpiece\". I most certainly do not consider Edward Gibbon's book a masterpiece considering there are far more accurate historians such as Bryan Ward Perkins, Peter Heather, Guy Halsall and Peter Brown.
The content creator seems to largely focus on the west than the east and the content is almost 70% WRE, 10% ERE. Feels like the ERE is sidelined for the most part by the creator here.
I'm also not a fan of his narrating style. His narrative structure seems dramatic and over the top and often skipping key events.
The Video creator says that Justinian was the last roman emperor that spoke latin as a first language. It seems History Time is trying to imply that only Justinian was somehow the last Eastern Roman that was only worthy of being roman because LaTiN!1!. He also states Justinian is considered by \"some as the last roman\" but does not specify who.
Another dramatic statement, \"Belisarius was the secret super weapon of the emperor\" and \"Justinian likely would not have achieved anything at all without him.\"
Now I don't consider Belisarius to be a bad general. He was considered, "ok" at best for his time and his victories at Dara was nullified by his defeat at Callinicum which was by all accounts a terrible defeat against the Sassanians. Procopius was biased towards Belisarius and had tried to downplay the scale of the defeat by saying it was a Pyrrhic victory for the Persians. Procopius also makes controversial statements such as suggesting Persian archery was inferior to the Romans. Both Romans and Persians utilized similar archery tactics from the Huns and from each other. So its a strange statement to make since both used similar styles of archery. The Sassanians also were more exposed to nomadic archery compared to the Romans.
The battle was by all accounts Belisarius's fault and why he was fired from his rank Magister Militum Per Orientum. Procopius tries to play this up as Justinian needing Belisarius for the Vandal campaign but the campaign was launched 2 years after he returned to Constantinople and only started on late June 533CE, so this statement is rather unconvincing. It is also the reason why he was there to quell the nika riots. Belisarius was waiting there alongside the general Mundus who helped Belisarius. It wasn't Belisarius only who quelled the riots.
The final part of the battle saw Roman infantry fighting with their backs against the Euphrates river. Procopius claims that Belisarius escaped with the Roman infantry after fending off repeated cavalry charges and inflicting severe caasualties but Psuedo Zachariah contradicts Procopius by saying that the roman infantry alongside the archers fled and tried to swim across the river. John Malalas also says Belisarius has fled the field with his cavalry.
So no, Belisarius was not as quoted by HistoryTime, a "secret super weapon of the emperor", nor was he indispensable because, "Justinian likely would not have achieved anything without him".
Belisarius during his invasion of Southern italy also was not as small as some would suggest as while he invaded southern italy with 7,000 men, Mundus assisted him by invading from dalmatia with 20,000 men. So no, Belisarius was not some Julius Caesar like general that conquered Italy single-handedly.
Last but not least, History time more or less skipped past many emperors all the way to Constantine VI and then to Constantine XI Palaiologos. This is awful as this is at least 3 CENTURIES after Justinian I. I cannot say this video overall is very satisfactory as its very western focused and little time is spared on the ERE. I personally prefer if the video followed a coherent timeline rather than this jumbled narrative. Here are some history channels that cover it more in depth on the ERE.

1. http://www.youtube.com/@EasternRomanHistory
   
2. Yalecourses playlist 9. The Reign Of Justinian
   
3. Thersites the historian
   

Youtube channels to specifically avoid
Maiorianus. Maiorianus has a biased nature and seems to have a anti-christian bias and i personally finds his statements nonsensical and without reliable facts.
Kings and Generals. Kings and Generals has a mixed reputation as they do not put their sources on the video description. So we have no idea where they get their knowledge from. The videos they make can be somewhat correct but there can also be a lot of mistakes.
Extra credits. It pains me a little to put them here as their videos did pique my interest as its quite interesting, they do make quite a bit of mistakes such as portraying Justinian as this “dreamer” who wanted to bring back the empire though historians such as Peter Heather thinks it was more propaganda than actually a genuine desire to bring these territories back considering his failed war with Persia and the Nika riots which soured his popularity.

I've never posted on here, so I apologize if I don't do this correctly.
I need advice/ opinions on this situation I've been feeling frustrated with.
I(25F) have been with my boyfriend(24M) for 3 years. He's in college about to graduate and we're planning on moving next winter. He plays sports, and made friends with some of the freshman, he's usually pretty friendly with new guys on the team and tries to be welcoming. Well this one friend, let's call him Hank(18M), is very immature. He annoys the living hell out of me. Hank started coming over last fall when he joined the team, I've been annoyed by a few things and have expressed this directly to him and my boyfriend. Stuff like, talking inappropriately about every girl he sees or what stuff he did with a girl or what he plans to do. He also slept with my roommate before she moved out a few months ago and brags and has tired to tell me about it very frequently. Honestly I could give a crap what he does, but I don't want to hear about it and I've told him multiple times "can you please not talk about that stuff around me" very seriously, and that it makes me uncomfortable. I asked my boyfriend if he could say something and he said he would and that it bothers him too. I had a pretty bad first impression of Hank because he was blatantly mean to my boyfriend, he would tell him he's fucking stupid and dumb, and anything to mock or insult him. I would tell him he's mean and rude when he would speak to my boyfriend in negative ways and tell him he shouldn't talk to people like that. My boyfriend says that it never really bothers him and it's "guys being guys". Over some time these things lightened up, I was still annoyed by the frequency he would come to our house and invite himself but I tried to be open minded and understand that he's young and doesn't have many friends. Anyway, he still acted like an dick and very intitled any time he was around but I'd ignore it or hangout in annother room. A couple weeks ago his behavior was really the last straw for me. This guy does not know when to stop drinking, like a lot of young guys in college, but this time he did too much. We had gotten a ride from another player on their team to go to and from the river where a lot of other people from the team were having a BBQ. well on the way back Hank was trashed, he was yelling most of the car ride, throwing trash out the window and about three times he said the N word very clearly. Hank is white, and the guy driving is black. The guy driving does not know Hank too well nor does he hang around him. After that I decided that I really don't want to be seen hanging out with this guy, and my boyfriend understood. He didn't come to the house for about two weeks(he asked to about everyday but I said to say no) until my boyfriend said he'd be stopping by just until they left for a meeting. So they're sitting in the living room, Hank knows I'm pretty annoyed and don't really like him, so he at first tries to be very overly polite but I overall don't pay any attention to him. I'm sitting on my phone next to my boyfriend asking him about something we have planned and then I'm just scrolling through videos on instagram. I come across this video of this 9 year old boy super happy and crying about winning Fortnight, and I laugh and show my boyfriend. For context, my boyfriend plays Apex and he gets loud and mad sometimes and will curse at his teammates(he's not like this ever when he's not playing games like that, he's very non confrontational) and I give him crap because I'm like what if there's children on there and that he needs to watch his mouth. I'm serious but like also joking with him. Anyway I've seen people rage on this fortnight game too, but from my perspective it's mainly very young kids who play this game mainly and i've given my boyfriend crap for playing it a couple times with people who've tired to get him to play and told him somewhere along the lines that people should just let kids play it.( non of this is completely serious) So I show him the video and say "see! this is why only kids should play this, look how happy he is, fortnight should only be for kids, not raging men" he laughs a little and then Hank immediately says to me very very angrily, "fuck you, what the fuck are you talking about, that's a fuckign stupid thing to say" and keeps going on and basically getting extremely upset that I said the game was for kids. my boyfriend and I were both completely stunned and speechless, we looked at each other and i said something like "okay you're taking this very personally" Hank cuts me off and went on shitting on me more, calling me stupid and dumd. I honestly was not in the mood and so shocked by his behavior I got up and left the room in the middle of him talking. It was quite for a second and then I heard the front door close. My boyfriend told Hank that I wasn't talking to him and that I didn't even know he played that game and that that was super inappropriate and disrespectful. Over the last couple weeks he's been trying to come to our house and asking my boyfriend why he can't come over, my boyfriend said to me that he has told him multiple times that he "fucked up" and can't talk to me like that in our house and that Hank doesn't think he did anything wrong and that he was "defending himself". My boyfriend says he keeps trying to explain it and he's kinda just waiting for him to actually apologize but he won't. I think my boyfriend should be more upset at this guy for the way he acted towards me truthfully, I feel very disrespected by this kid but it really bothers me that my boyfriend is still playing buddy buddy with him. When I've told him how I feel he says he feels like he's caught between a rock and a hard place, that he has no choice but to be around Hank and he wants to keep the peace. But he plays video games with him and hangs out with him outside of sports still. I'm not sure if I should just try to leave it and be happy I personally don't have to be around the guy anymore, or if I should feel disrespected that my boyfriend hasn't told this guy to fuck off. It feels like my boyfriend doesn't respect our relationship or me. Am I being dramatic? I come from a very verballly and physically abusive household as a child, so I tend to shut down when people are clearly treating me poorly and then completely cut them out of my life. But my boyfriend is very forgiving of people who have disrespected him in the past, so I honestly don't know what to do here.
I'm sorry this is so long and messy, I typed it out pretty fast.

The recent landslide in Papua New Guinea is a horrendous tragedy, and I want to be respectful to those who have died and sympathise with those affected. Reading articles I cannot fully understand the scale of the tragedy, numbers of houses, people and area affected keep growing, and the scale is now mind boggling... And I have some suspicions that the disaster is being used by bad actors to cover themselves. Maybe I'm not understanding the geographical realities of this disaster which is why I'm here asking for the opinions of people with more understanding.

the acting director of Papua New Guinea’s National Disaster Center Luseta Laso Mana said the landslide “buried more than 2,000 people alive” AP link
The landslide left debris up to eight metres deep across 200 square kilometres, cutting off road access and making relief efforts difficult, CARE said. Reuters via CBC

But in contrast the area affected is quoted as being quite modest:

Debris 6 to 8 meters (20 to 26 feet) deep covering an area the size of three or four football fields (AP)

Which is about 30,000m² or 0.03km²
From the MAXAR images on the AP the debris field can be matched to Google maps and measures about 200m wide and 500m long, or 100,000m² to be generous.
At this area for 2000 people the density is 50m² per person or 20,000 people per km² roughly the same as Paris which is obviously impossible for a sparsely populated hillside. Looking at the satellite imagery from before I can only make out 8 buildings, most only 5x5m. Being generous this is 250m² of floor space, it is impossible to even fit these 2000 people standing in this space. Taking the UN's lower number of 670 and that the disaster happened at 3am so we should assume people were sleeping each building could accommodate people laying on an their side with just 1.8m by 21cm to fit them all in. It doesn't make sense, this isn't the main village, just a few substance farmers houses. Am I missing something here or does this not add up?
Tinfoil hat time, and I will happily remove this section if the mods feel necessary. There are two situations here which may provide the means and motives to exaggerate the numbers of casualties in this disaster: the mining company, the ongoing tribal wars. - There are statements about the majority of the casualties being young men drawn to the local gold mine. This village is on the only road leading to the mine which is now only accessible by helicopter. One can imagine various reasons for the mining company to use the genuine disaster to cover for a history of mining accidents or for maximising insurance payouts. A local building company sent an excavator to help the recovery but was refused access. - The area is part of the ongoing tribal wars, that the government is claiming 2000 mostly young men are feared missing could be a way to cover some dark truth of this conflict. Aid convos can only travel in daylight with armed guards. Either of these, or other theories could explain the exaggerated scale of the disaster, I include these to contextualise why I am doubting these claims and asking more about the geographical realities.

I recently responded to a male Redditor who replied, "Maybe show a little more empathy for those being manipulated and less envy for those manipulating." to my comment saying, "there are plenty of douchebag men who have no trouble attracting women".
The commenter is implying that women are inherently victims who need empathy, which reinforces a stereotype of women as passive or weak. This would be simple if not for many women agreeing with him though. Many women flock to agree with guys like this, not just on Reddit but in every discourse I've encountered.
Of course, women don't respond directly when the misogyny is that blatant, because then it'd be clear they're hypocrites, but they do respond when a man like that says something to the tune of "I've seen women date ugly because those guys were kind blah blah blah" never mind that we know that's not true, and we know where that sentiment comes from in these men.
There was also a lot of male redditors on a thread in the past few days about the man vs bear debate (that's not important please, it's just a reference to another post, let's not go there) who said and this is an actual quote from that thread "women are weaker than men and need to be protected, they need empathy even if their fears are not always realized". And to my surprise women agreed again. But let me give them the benefit of the doubt here since everyone, regardless of gender, deserves empathy and protection when they’re in situations where they’re vulnerable or at risk. Though it's obvious that's not what this dude was doing, and many women agreed with him simply because he validated them.
I acknowledge the need for empathy and protection for all vulnerable individuals, but I'm concerned about the underlying stereotypes and the validation of these views.

Im sick of hearing "primacy but not supremacy" its the same thing primacy is defined as "the fact of being primary, preeminent, or more important." and is even used in 1960s Catholic theology books. Affirming papal primacy doesn't go with eastern orthodox theology. Also eastern orthodox can cope with "First among equal!" or "Extra honor but no extra authority!" that's completely wrong to the early church and first among equals isnt a good term, if i were always first at something i would be more supreme then another. In regards to the early church Heres some references, Quoted in “Athanasius Quoted works” page 110 Pope Julius Letter to the eusebians at Antioch “And why is nothing said to us (The Apostolic see) concerning the Alexandrians in particular, are you ignorant that the custom has been for word to be written first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place” so he is saying in the matter of disputes matter should be brought to the see of Rome as to make a judgment and this is the east he is speaking to not just his patriarchal territories. Then he goes on and says “I beseech you readily bare with me what i write is for the common good, for what we have received from the Blessed apostle Peter that i signify unto you and i should have not written this as deeming that these things should be manifest unto all men had not these proceedings so disturbed us”
some might say this is peter syndrome where we get all giddy and excited when peter is mentioned and Rome is mentioned but i would like to say Pope Julius said he has received something from the Blessed apostle Peter that disputes in the east should be brought to his judgment to be settled.
Now from the writings of the early Church Historian sozomen source: Volume 2 of the nicene and post nicene fathers second series. Book 3 Chapter 10. Heres what he says about this whole affair of Pope Julius writing to the antiochians and what he ment in that segment “the bishops of Egypt having sent the declaration in writing, that these allegations were false and julius having been apprised (to give information to someone) that Athanasius was far from being in safety in egypt send for him to his own city he replied at the same time to the letter of the bishops who were convened at antioch (convened: to bring together a group of people for a meeting, or to meet for a meeting) for just then he happened to receive the epistle and accused them of having planned clandestinely(in a secretive and illicit way.) introduced innovations Contrary to the nicene dogmas and of having violated the laws of the church by neglecting to invite him to join their synod for he alleged that is a sacral Canon which declares that whatever is enacted contrary to the bishop of Rome is null."
Now from Nicea II Pope Hadrians Letter
‘Stand firm; for if you abide with perseverance in the orthodox Faith in which you have begun and so through you the sacred and venerable images are restored in those regions to their former state—just as the lord and emperor Constantine of pious memory and blessed Helena, who promulgated the orthodox Faith, raised up the holy, catholic, and apostolic church of Rome as your spiritual mother, and with the other orthodox emperors venerated it as the head of all the churches...'"
"...of all the churches... If, moreover, following the traditions of the orthodox faith, you embrace the judgment of the church of the blessed Peter prince of the apostles and, as the holy emperors your predecessors did of old, so you too venerate it with honor and love his vicar from the depths of your hearts, or rather if your rule granted by God follows their orthodox faith in accordance with our holy Roman church, the prince of the apostles, to whom was given by the Lord God the power to bind and to loose sins in heaven and on earth."https://orthodoxchurchfathers.com/fathers/npnf214/npnf2258.html
the blessed Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, says: "That we may remain members of our apostolic head, the throne of the Roman Pontiffs, of whom it is our duty to seek what we are to believe and what we are to hold, venerating him, beseeching him above others; for his it is to reprove, to correct, to appoint, to loose, and to bind in place of Him Who set up that very throne, and Who gave the fulness of His own to no other, but to him alone, to whom by divine right all bow the head, and the primates of the world are obedient as to our Lord Jesus Christ Himself.
St. Damasus, Pope of Rome (A.D. 304-384)
“Although the catholic churches diffused throughout the world are one bridal chamber of Christ, yet the holy Roman church has been preferred to all other churches, not by any synodical decrees, but has obtained the primacy by the voice of our Lord and Savior in the gospel, saying: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church, and the gates of hell will never prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven…..Therefore, the first see of Peter the Apostles is that of the Roman church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing” (Decree of Damasus, Roman Synod 382. Patrologia Latina 13.374; Jalland, T.G. (1944). Church and Papacy. London: Morehouse-Gorham Co. p. 255-57)
“For in view of our office there is no freedom for us, on whom a zeal for the Christian religion is incumbent greater than on all others, to dissimulate or to be silent. We bear the burdens of all who are oppressed, or rather the blessed apostle Peter, who in all things protects and preserves us, the heirs, as we trust, of his administration, bears them in us…[proceeds to list a number of errors being promoted in Tarragona (Spain)]… it is also inappropriate henceforth for you to deviate from that path, if you do not wish to be separated from our company by synodal sentence….Enough error on this matter! All priests who do not wish to be torn from the solidity of the apostolic rock, upon which Christ built the universal Church, should now hold the aforementioned rule…[lists more errors]…let them know that they have been expelled by the authority of the apostolic see from every ecclesiastical office, which they used unworthily…[lists more errors]… there is freedom for no priest of the Lord to be ignorant of the statutes of the apostolic see and the venerable decrees of the canons…” (Pope Siricius to Bishop Himerius of Tarragona 385 AD, Epistle 1, Directa Ad Decessorem. Patrologia Latina 13.1132; Ed. Pierre Coustant, Epistolae Romanorum pontificum (Paris, 1721; reprint Farnborough, 1967), 623-638.)
St. Innocent, Pope of Rome (401-417)
The reply of Pope St. Innocent in 417 to the Africans concerning their appeal on the controversy of Pelagius/Celestius goes like this:
“In making inquiry with respect to those things that should be treated with all solicitude by bishops, and especially by a true and just and Catholic Council, by preserving, as you have done, the example of ancient tradition, and by being mindful of ecclesiastical discipline, you have truly strengthened the vigour of our Faith, no less now in consulting us than before in passing sentence. For you decided that it was proper to refer to our judgement, knowing what is due to the Apostolic See, since all we who are set in this place, desire to follow the Apostle (Peter) from whom the very episcopate and whole authority of this name is derived. Following in his steps, we know how to condemn the evil and to approve the good. So also, you have by your sacerdotal office preserved the customs of the Fathers, and have not spurned that which they decreed by a divine and not human sentence, that whatsoever is done, even though it be in distant provinces, should not be ended without being brought to the knowledge of this See, [39] that by its authority the whole just pronouncement should be strengthened, and that from it all other Churches (like waters flowing from their natal source and flowing through the different regions of the world, the pure streams of one incorrupt head), should receive what they ought to enjoin, whom they ought to wash, and whom that water, worthy of pure bodies, should avoid as defiled with uncleansable filth. I congratulate you, therefore, dearest brethren, that you have directed letters to us by our brother and fellow-bishop Julius, and that, while caring for the Churches which you rule, you also show your solicitude for the well-being of all, and that you ask for a decree that shall profit all the Churches of the world at once; [40] so that the Church being established in her rules and confirmed by this decree of just pronouncement against such errors, may be unable to fear those men, etc.” (Pope Innocent I, Epistle 29, to the Council of Carthage (In requirendis). Jan 27, 417 AD. Patrologia Latina 33.780)
Pope St. Zosimus (AD 417)
Innocent’s successor, Pope Zosimus, continued to write letters to Africa concerning the same Pelagian issue:
“Although the tradition of the Fathers has attributed such great authority to the Apostolic See that no one would dare to disagree wholly with its judgment, and it has always preserved this [judgment] by canons and rules, and current ecclesiastical discipline up to this time by its laws pays the reverence which is due to the name of Peter, from whom it has itself descended …; since therefore Peter the head is of such great authority and he has confirmed the subsequent endeavors of all our ancestors, so that the Roman Church is fortified … by human as well as by divine laws, and it does not escape you that we rule its place and also hold power of the name itself, nevertheless you know, dearest brethren, and as priests you ought to know, although we have such great authority that no one can dare to retract from our decision, yet we have done nothing which we have not voluntarily referred to your notice by letters … not because we did not know what ought to be done, or would do anything which by going against the advantage of the Church, would be displeasing.…(From the epistle (12) “Quamvis Patrum traditio” to the African bishops, March 21, 418. Patrologia Latina 20. 676; Denzinger, H., & Rahner, K. (Eds.). (1954). The sources of Catholic dogma. (R. J. Deferrari, Trans.) (p. 47). St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co.)
MG 54.743. Jerome: "I keep the unity in communion with your Beatitude, that is, with Peter's chair. I know that the Church has been built upon that rock." (Epist. 15.1, to Pope Damasus, ML 22.355).
The Roman See is the "Apostolic Chair" or the "Apostolic See." Augustine: "The sovereignty of the Apostolic Chair was always in the Roman Church" (Epist. 43, ML 33.163); "Apostolic See" (Serm. 131.10, ML 38.734).
The Roman Church presides as a sovereign over all the other churches. Gregory of Nazianzus: "It presides over all" (Poems, 2.1.12, MG 37.1068); Theodoret of Cyrus: "That most holy see holds in many ways the sovereignty over the churches of the entire world, especially because it kept immune of heretical corruption, and never a dissenter sat in it, but everyone
The Roman See is the source of all rights in the Church. Ambrose: "From that See derive into all the rights of the venerable communion." (Epist. 11.4, ML 16.986).
"Rome has spoken, the case is closed" ("Roma locuta est, causa finita est"). This famous axiom derives from Augustine saying about the debate on Pelagian heresy: "Concerning this question two conciliar decisions have been sent to the Apostolic See: also rescripts came from there, hence the trial is over." (Serm. 131.10, ML 38.734).
The Roman Pontiffs themselves constantly asserted their primacy, as is shown in the following summary of their doctrine.
They apply to themselves Christ's words to Peter, Matt 16.18 ff.: "Thou art Peter..." and John 21.15-17: "Feed My lambs..." Thus Siricius, Boniface I, the "Decree of Gelasius," Hormisdas, Pelagius I, Nicholas I (Denz. 184, 234, 350, 383, 446, 640).
Sure, here is the transcription of the text from the third image:
The Roman Pontiff is Peter's moral person. Siricius: "[The Roman Pontiff is] the apostolic rock." (Denz. 184). Innocent I: "Whenever a question of faith is dealt with, all must refer only to Peter, that is, to the one who bears his name and his honor." (Denz. 218). Leo I: "The blessed Peter did not leave the government which he received... In his See [that is, the Roman] his power is alive and his authority is visible." (Serm. 32 f., ML 54.145 f.).
Peter remains in his successors. See Leo I, just quoted. Philip, apostolic legate to the Council of Ephesus: Peter "is always living in his successors." (Denz. 3056).
The Roman Pontiff is "Peter's heir" (Siricius, Denz. 181) and has "Peter's See" (Leo I, quoted above; Gelasius, quoted below).
The Roman Pontiff has "the care of all the churches." (Innocent I, Denz. 218; Leo I, Serm. 5.2 ML 54.153). He is "the head of all the churches" (Boniface I, Denz. 233; "Decree of Gelasius," Denz. 350; Pelagius I, Denz. 446, 640).
The honor of writing the last Latin manual of Scholastic theology truly belongs to Emmanuel Doronzo (1903-1976), the eminent sacramental theologian of Catholic University of America (Washington, D.C.) in the mid-to-late 20th Century. He wrote a complete, traditional Scholastic, dogmatic manual in 1966, a year after the closing of Vatican II
The Science of Sacred Theology by Doronzo Emmanuel.
https://obrascatolicas.com/livros/Teologia/Doronzo%20The%20Science%20of%20Sacred%20Theology%20for%20Teacers%20Bk%204.pdf
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2018/02/papal-participation-in-the-first-seven-ecumenical-councils.html since i was reasearching constantinople I i had came across this: "This council also was convoked by an emperor, Theodosius I. [Ibid.] The language of his decree suggests he regarded the Roman see as a yardstick of Christian orthodoxy."
Pope Vigilius came to become Pope amid much turmoil in 537, as his predecessor, St Silverius, had been accused of treason, defrocked, and exiled by Belisarius, the general under Empress Theodora. Silverius had refused to re-instate the monophysite patriarch of Constantinople, whom Pope Agapetus had deposed — even here, a recognition of the canonical authority of Rome to depose and judge the other most prominent and important Sees of Christendom was something the Popes fought bitterly to maintain against the emperors.
Where was this canonical authority established? In fact, it was as old as the Church itself. When Athanasius had been exiled by a judgment of the Alexandrian Church, Pope Julius had written on his behalf (341): “Judgment ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. It behoved you all to write us so that the justice of it might be seen as emanating from all.” Again: “Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]?” For Pope St Julius, the judgment of Athanasius which had not sought approval from Rome was a canonical novelty: “not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice.” However, the reference of judgment to the Apostolic See was something taught by the Apostle Peter: “For what we have heard from the Apostle Peter, these things I signify to you.”
Cope.

Since I was a kid I had the compulsion to “touch wood/knock on wood” whenever I had a negative or intrusive thought as a way to neutralise it. In my mind this would prevent me from attracting those thoughts into fruition from thinking about it. It could be absolutely anything negative from thinking “I hope it doesn’t rain tomorrow” to thinking about cancer or disturbing situations. Like it was erasing the thought.
I was diagnosed with OCD by a therapist about 3 years ago but due to anxiety I was experiencing in a relationship. After explaining the issues I was facing she told me that my partner is a very toxic person and recommended I leave the relationship. But I couldn’t. I was absolutely obsessed with him and wanted it to so badly work out. He used to make me feel crazy for being upset with certain behaviours he did that I found disrespectful and made it hard to trust him.
I stayed for another 3 years and by the end of it I was absolutely broken. I felt like a shell of myself because I still loved him so much but I had experienced so much hurt, confusion, mind games and gaslighting as well as some incredible feelings of happiness with him.
When I decided to leave he tried everything to convince me he would change and that he didn’t want to lose me. My therapist and family and friends told me not to stay and that he would never change.
But in the past 5 months of us being officially over I moved country in an attempt to start over (but I’m still very much not healed) while he has met someone else and seems so happy and seems to have made all the changes he told me he would.
I am experiencing constant intrusive thoughts like the following: -I’ve made a mistake -I over reacted to the things that upset me -I over exaggerated to therapist/friends/family and if I didn’t then they would have told me to give him a chance -I was the toxic one -he wasn’t a bad person and he was capable of change -He acted that way because I wasn’t enough. -I will never meet someone I felt like that about again because I never did before him -his new relationship is everything he needed me to be and if I was more successful/ more active/ more ambitious/ smarter he would have appreciated the relationship -he’s going to marry this girl and I’m going to be alone -This girl is going to have the life with him that I always dreamed of having because he learned from our relationship how to be good but other men won’t take me seriously / respect me because they haven’t so far since the breakup
I don’t know how much longer I can take of these thoughts and people saying “just don’t compare yourself” or “just focus on your own journey”. That’s like asking me to see the sky as purple.
I can’t stop reading old texts/ looking at their social media / searching for reassurance. I’m on lexapro, so is it even OCD? How do I treat this if my mind is so convinced it’s true ? I feel like the only cure for these thoughts to stop would be for him to feel just as miserable as me or still be portraying toxic traits he had when with me

I was reading a post about this girl who went on a date with the Lithuanian guy and this comment was left:
"probably because you tricked a straight guy into kissing you. Imagine how he feels"
Why is it that we as trans women have to be the ones empathetic and considerate while they get to disregard our emotions and feelings?
This ISN'T about disclosing, but how the majority demands us to respect them while disrespecting us.
I've seen this so often as a black person: having white people dictate to me how to act so they're comfortable. It's the same treatment as a trans person
We have to not offend them. We have to walk on eggshells around them. We have to talk this way. Do this. Do that. Be placating. Blah, blah,blah. Or else.
Because they are the majority, they can dictate terms and never expect to compromise or see our side of things. Well, to hell with that!!!
I am not giving cis men more empathy or understanding than they give me (or women in general for that matter). Either they try to understand me or else they get what they give.

I can't believe I'm writing this. But I need some insight cause I find myself getting angry and confused. This is my first reddit post. Please excuse my redditor literacy.
This is the most convoluted story. It is long. But it's a ride.
You've been warned.
(Fake names obviously)
I (20f) have a best friend, Karl (20m) of 4 years. Now I see what you might assume. No. We're close but I'm mainly into women, I currently have a partner and have had a partner 90% of the time they where dating.
Now Karl got with Regina(19f) late 2022, the relationship started off rocky as she said "I only want you" but then kissed her ex, and then couldn't decide who she wanted. But still insisted once she chose Karl, she wanted to stay friends with her ex. Posted pictures when they'd "hang out" where it looked like she was sitting on his lap. But she swore she wasn't. Constantly blocked him after things would happen, then unblocked him, lied, then cried when Karl would find out.
Yes. Infuriating. But here you go. That's how Regina was introduced to our lives.
It took a while but eventually I tried to look past this. I care about Karl, if this was who he loved. We accepted it. Infact made it a point to invite her out to gatherings, made sure to offer her food, offer her drinks, chatting. Making sure she's involved. Gassing her up. Girlie things. (God I'm so desperate for everyone to love me it's a problem.)
Then her friends, ex boyfriend began to follow me, I had hoped this was because of how well I'd done to make friends. But this waa short lived.
Originally I'd just hoped it was banter. I'd chat to them, often sending pictures with Regina in her classes and joking with me.
Unfortunately I have social impairments, Slowly it became clear they where just laughing at me, calling me names but with cutesy emojis. Remember the girls in highschool? The ones thatd pretend to be your friend in class because it was funny? Like that.
So i stopped paying attention, often ignoring them. Unfortunately it only got worse. It got to a point I'd be spammed and have my instagram story replies with slurrs, calling me a pdf. File??? (I was talking to someone 6 years older than me?) Weird references, calling me cringe (I know. I know, worst thing ever right.), picking on my hair, my eyes(strabismus), my clothing. So I folded. Told Karl I wouldn't be dealing with it anymore. I'd blocked them, and asked karl To ask Regina to ask her friends to stop contacting me, I was doing my finishing project in college (uk) to get into university and it was getting to point I couldn't focus. I told him what had been happening, that I didn't know what her problem was. But I am a adult woman and this was bizarre.
Now, that alone. I forgave and in time, forgot. She had allegedly appologized "for them" and didn't know any of that was happening and had no I'll intent and hoped we could still be friends. Okay, sure.
Weird semi important point: she confessed in a groupchat that she used to be a 'chav' I said " you do look like someone who'd have bullied me" Banter. She then posted on her Instagram story (Paraphrased by memory) "When someone says you look like someone who'd have bullied them- but your friend died" I can't remember, but it was along the lines of that kind of 'what the fuck does that even mean'
Upon a later night of drinking, regina was talking to Karl about the ex, Mike. I brang up the fact her ex boyfriend kept liking my photos and was following me Hoping to bond over the fact this guy was weird, common girly bonding
"You know he only follows you so he could make fun of you and how cringe your posts are". She laughs.
The group goes quiet and holy shit I'm embarrassed. I just internalise that and change the subject.
Later I repost a reel of a guy saying something vaugely corresponding to this convosation. Basic premise when someone tells you their friend talks shit about you, then obviously you ask "why do they do that to you" (I know childish but at this point I was starting to really dislike her. My friend had sent it to me, It was late.) When i say She launched, "if you've got a problem talk to me instead of being weird and I'd tell you I was so scared of Mike and he held such a power over me and I just let him chat shit" I'd love to just mention this is after the 2nd time she'd unblocked him to talk to him behind Karl's back. I put up with it. Karl is at this point family. And if this is who he loves. We have to love her too.
This is all important to the point I swear.
Anyway.
My partners (now ex) friend Frank (22) and us fell out. Unimportant to this story but he let me know, Regina and an old very close friend had a groupchat to say very unpleasant things about me in, despite this old friend I never stopped speaking well of. Hoping we'd find eachother again. He'd been scouted when we had fallen out. But respected me enough to tell me. Another confrontation where she is so misunderstood and I'm making a big deal out of nothing and she's never ever had a problem with me.
Okay. Talked to Karl again. He is shocked but takes her word. As I'd kinda expect. Its his girlfriend. He took her to London over my birthday, he didn't want to ruin it. So he gave it up.
Karl throughout this is withdrawing from us. When he's with us it's like the light is gone from his eyes. He's distracted, quiet, doesn't laugh as much. Often tries to slip out of meetups because he'll "only bring you guys down". He's constantly picking up his phone. Constantly messaging. Cancelling plans. He won't talk to us. We where all worried.
Karl few months later calls me for advice. Turns out she kept getting caught in lies about her ex and general behaviours. Ignoring him for days again, threatening to game quit if she doesn't get the attention she wants. It'd all gotten so tiring that he didn't have any attraction to her anymore. He had no sex drive. He dreaded seeing her. But had to constantly message her. He's been feeling like this for months. Karl didn't want to leave her just before her birthday, he felt it cruel. But then it was the anniversary coming up. He didn't want to be responsible. He'd tried gifts, trips, anything just to make her happy. No matter what he did he still felt like nothing was enough. I managed to talk him through. About threatening suicide if someone wants to leave, is indeed abuse. He wasn't himself. How we felt and how we where worried. He got choked up. Not realizing anyone cared. He asked if he should leave. I asked if he was happy. "I can't imagine not having her there." Okay no. Not what I asked. Eventually he confessed He'd never felt lower. I said. Can you see yourself marrying her? No. Infact he said the thourght freaked him out. I said. Well. Why are you with her. Eventually it got to a point He left her. She said she'd been thinking about it. Yay? No 12 hours later he calls me saying its all fixed. Its all okay. How He's a horrible person for doing this to her. How it's him that needs to change. How he will spend a long time making this up to her. You know. I'm a domestic abuse survivor. But I never realized how much hearing that killed abit of my sould. Trying to convince Karl that he's worth anything is like trying to convince a deaf non signing American Conservative that the gays aren't trying to make him gay too.
They do eventually a few months later split. She says she wants to breakup as he "doesn't love her the way she wants him to" he is hurt but says okay. She then obviously realizes hey, he isn't gonna start begging on his knees. You can only hurt someone so much. She then asks "breakup sex" directly after and to this day its our favourite quote. But he says no, she asks for one more night, he says no you just broke up with me? Leave? She complains about not being able to get to the train station. Now. Karl didn't have his licence till a few weeks later. So queue the weirdest car ride with his DAD you've ever heard of. She cried. Hugged him. Begged him to reconsider. Karl officially has realized how disconnected he's become. Nah.
Queue a weird amount of messages ranging between "I'm sorry baby" to "I CANT BELIEVE YOURE GIVING UP ON US" and sexually charged messages, After karl finally blocks her. She begins to call him from various different numbers. Tries to get with his friends. Fails. Still calls him crying for the next 6 months. In which these events happen.
Frank from before. Now it turns out. While we don't have full timeline but either weirdly around the time they broke up they got /very/ close. To the point despite Frank having a partner. She was begging him to sleep with her. But Being weird with it. One minute she wants him. Next she doesn't. Basically, she loves the idea that she could have him. But doesn't want to keep any of them. Frank had a girlfriend. Goddess of a lady. Daisy. Regina proceeded to pick on every little thing to Frank about daisy she could. Always. Physical appearance.
Then. Now I am simply not making this up. after Frank separates himself from this situation. Regina begins to harrass Daisy, With telling Daisy about how much Frank's missing out on not shagging her instead.
And making 6 different instagram accounts to harrass them, and this is where I come in further.
Regina now, after the hate group chooses some last straws she can pull to drag him back. She makes a fake account. Goes to message Frank. With the opener of gossip about me and my partners sex life. I talked to Regina less times than I can Count on one hand.
The main one I'm aware of is "Did you know my partner drinks my names piss" Which I'm not here to kink shame; but this does not happen unfortunately but i still find it beautiful of a statement.
I one day due to some more harassment and more attention than I'm used to.
Decide to private my instagram. It was only for 24 hours in full so I could change some settings and archive some things. Within 15. An account. David, requests to follow. Strange. Cause my account is shadow banned and cannot be shown to non followers. I click. Heavens foretold dear friends. Regina's new boo. Id like to clarify. 2 weeks before Karl was still getting snotty teary calls telling him she misses him. Karl's friends where sending screenshots of Regina trying it on with them then getting snotty when she was rightfully laughed at.
I ask "hi??"
"Hi me and my girlfriend just wanted to stalk how cringe your posts are" I wish I could have been funny and not caught off guard. And shamed them. Oh god. I wish I had. Basically I told him, the gym is waiting. She will chew you up. Idk what I did but I'm sorry. Godamn. Leave me be. And they said "It's not that deep lighten up" I am indeed embarrassed.
But they kept mentioning my workplace. I am a bartender, and one day she did come in with a man, they seems very loved up but then again. It certainly wasn't this guy. then said bad things about me infront of a coworker. It was a little satisfying seeing her face fall and hit the table from shame as I was carrying an ice bucket past her. She was already cut off at this point for her antics.
David's best friends memepage now follows me. But has been the first out of 5 accounts not to say anything. I'm sure they think I don't know. David claimed I was lying in my encounter. I do wonder if I could flip the table entirely.
but I also wonder if she's just very mentally unwell. But it's been 1.5 years of this and I'm just abit knackered and pissed off.
I'm 20 feeling like a highschooler. But I'm working for a bipolar diagnosis and I have ADHD, the paranoia. Is driving me up the wall man. Like this woman knows enough of my details and she's spread where I work. She's been to my house. She has clearly gotten multiple people involves historically and despite me trying to apologise, it makes no difference.
If I knew what the issue was, I'd gauge it. But it's not knowing and not being told. But it's reassuring it's not just me. With daisy, I'm wondering if this is historic. Might be vanity? She (used to?) Post alot of ...suggestive photography and always wears a lingerie corset and heavy makeup, filters. Nothing wrong with that of course but she's a very sexually orientated person, and given the contexts to that behaviour. I wonder if its to cover some in depth issues. But that's just a theory. Part of feels hey, if she needs men to tell her that I am ugly, cringe and worth nothing. Then she van have that. The other half makes me want vengeance for the boy, prove that I'm not whatever she'd been making me out to be and make her realize she needs to change. But that's. abit pathetic innit.
Anyway I doubt anyones made it this far and if you have. Thank you for reading my story and the weirdness of it. I hope it hasn't been too shit. Just needed to get it off my chest. And maybe if anyone has anything to say.
TLDR: my best friends ex has always had an issue despite my efforts. Getting various people to harrass and bully me, She tried to get with his friends, other guys we knew and harrassing us all. All while still crying she misses him. Her new bf thinks I'm lying and is joining in, his best friend now follows me too. My partner allegedly drinks my piss <3

The defense and the prosecution today made their closing statements in the New York criminal case against Trump for falsifying business records to hide a $130,000 payment to adult film actress Stephanie Clifford, also known as Stormy Daniels. The payment was intended to stop her account of her sexual encounter with Trump from becoming public in the days before the 2016 election, when the Trump campaign was already reeling from the Access Hollywood tape showing Trump boasting of sexual assault.
The Biden-Harris campaign showed up at the trial today with veteran actor Robert DeNiro and former police officers Michael Fanone and Harry Dunn, who protected the U.S. Capitol and members of Congress from rioters on January 6, 2021. In words seemingly calculated to get under Trump’s skin, DeNiro said, “We New Yorkers used to tolerate him when he was just another grubby real estate hustler masquerading as a big shot,” and called him a coward.
When Robert Costa of CBS News asked campaign spokesperson Michael Tyler why they had shown up at the trial, Tyler answered: “Because you all are here. You’ve been incessantly covering this day in and day out, and we want to remind the American people ahead of the…first debate on June 27 of the unique, persistent, and growing threat that Donald Trump poses to the American people and to our democracy. So since you all are here, we’re here communicating that message.”
Yesterday, in remarks at Arlington National Cemetery in observance of Memorial Day, President Joe Biden honored “the sacrifice of the hundreds of thousands of women and men who’ve given their lives for this nation. Each one…a link in the chain of honor stretching back to our founding days. Each one bound by common commitment—not to a place, not to a person, not to a President, but to an idea unlike any idea in human history: the idea of the United States of America.”
“[F]reedom has never been guaranteed,” Biden said. “Every generation has to earn it; fight for it; defend it in battle between autocracy and democracy, between the greed of a few and the rights of many…. And just as our fallen heroes have kept the ultimate faith with our country and our democracy, we must keep faith with them,” he said.
His speech at Arlington echoed the message he delivered to this year’s graduating class at the United States Military Academy at West Point, where he urged the graduates to hold fast to their oaths. “On your very first day at West Point, you raised your right hands and took an oath—not to a political party, not to a president, but to the Constitution of the United States of America—against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” he said to applause. Soldiers “have given their lives for that Constitution. They have fought to defend the freedoms that it protects: the right to vote, the right to worship, the right to raise your voice in protest. They have saved and sacrificed to ensure, as President Lincoln said, a ‘government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the Earth.’”
“[N]othing is guaranteed about our democracy in America. Every generation has an obligation to defend it, to protect it, to preserve it, to choose it,” he said. “Now, it’s your turn.” Biden spent more than an hour saluting and shaking the hand of each graduate.
In contrast, Trump ushered in Memorial Day with a post on his social media company, saying: “Happy Memorial Day to All, including the Human Scum that is working so hard to destroy our Once Great Country, & to the Radical Left, Trump Hating Federal Judge in New York that presided over, get this, TWO separate trials, that awarded a woman, who I never met before (a quick handshake at a celebrity event, 25 years ago, doesn’t count!), 91 MILLION DOLLARS for “DEFAMATION.” He then continued to attack E. Jean Carroll, the writer who successfully sued him for defamation, before turning to attack Judge Arthur Engoron, who presided over the civil case of Trump and the Trump Organization falsifying documents, and Judge Juan Merchan, who is presiding over the current criminal case in New York.
The message behind this extraordinary post was twofold: Trump can think of nothing but himself…and he appears to be terrified.
On Saturday, May 25, Trump had an experience quite different from his usual reception at rallies of hand-picked supporters. He was resoundingly booed at the national convention of the Libertarian Party in Washington, D.C., where Secret Service agents confiscated squeaky rubber chickens before his speech. Attendees jeered Trump’s order, “You have to combine with us,” even when he reminded them of his libertarian credentials—tax cuts and defunding of federal equality programs—and promised to pardon the January 6 rioters who attacked the U.S. Capitol.
Trump also promised to pardon Ross Ulbricht, who founded and from January 2011 to October 2013 ran an online criminal marketplace called Silk Road, where more than $200 million in illegal drugs and other illicit goods and services, such as computer hacking, were bought and sold. Most of the sales were of drugs, with the Silk Road home page listing nearly 13,000 options, including heroin, cocaine, ecstasy, and LSD. The wares were linked to at least six deaths from overdose around the world. In May 2015, Ulbricht was sentenced to life in prison and was ordered to forfeit more than $180 million.
Libertarians want Ulbricht released because they support drug legalization on the grounds that people should be able to make their own choices and they see Ulbricht’s sentence as government overreach. Trump has repeatedly called for the death penalty for drug dealers, making his promise to pardon Ulbricht an illustration of just how badly he thinks he needs the support of Libertarian voters. But they refused to endorse him.
Trump appeared angry, and on Sunday, as Greg Sargent reported in The New Republic, he reposted a video of a man raging at MSNBC host Joe Scarborough. In it, the man says that when Trump is reelected: “He’ll get rid of all you f*cking liberals. You liberals are gone when he f*cking wins. You f*cking blowjob liberals are done. Uncle Donnie’s gonna take this election—landslide. Landslide, you f*cking half a blowjob. Landslide. Get the f*ck out of here, you scumbag.”
Trump’s elevation of this video, Sargent notes, is a dangerous escalation of his already violent rhetoric, and yet it has gotten very little media attention.
Last November, Matt Gertz of Media Matters reported that ABC News, CBS News, and NBC News provided 18 times more coverage of 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s comment at a fundraising event that “you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables” who are “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic,” than they provided of Trump’s November 2023 promise to “root out the communist, Marxist, fascist and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country.”
CNN, the Fox News Channel, and MSNBC mentioned the “deplorables” comment nearly 9 times more than Trump’s “vermin” language. The ratio for the five highest-circulating U.S. newspapers was 29:1.
Clinton’s statement was consistent with polling, and she added that the rest of Trump’s supporters were “people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change.” She said: “Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.”
Sargent noted that news stories require context and that Trump’s elevation of the violent video should be placed alongside his many threats to prosecute his enemies. While there is often concern over disrespect toward right-wing voters, Sargent writes, there has been very little attention to the presumptive Republican presidential nominee’s posting of “a video that declares a large ideological subgroup of Americans ‘done’ and ‘gone’ if he is elected.”
Scott MacFarlane of CBS News reported yesterday that Republicans have ignored a law passed in March 2022 requiring the placement of a small plaque honoring police officers who protected the U.S. Capitol and the lawmakers and staffers there on January 6, 2021. It was supposed to be in place by March 2023 but has not gone up. A spokesperson for House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) says his office is working on it. Kayla Tausche of CNN reported today that three of the police officers at the Capitol that day—Sergeant Aquilino Gonell and Officer Harry Dunn, both retired, and Officer Daniel Hodges, who is still with the Washington, D.C., metropolitan police—will be traveling to swing states for the Biden campaign to tell voters that Trump threatens Americans’ fundamental rights.
Finally, today, Melinda French Gates, co-founder of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, announced $1 billion in new spending over the next two years “for people and organizations working on behalf of women and families around the world, including on reproductive rights in the United States.” Only 2% of charitable giving in the U.S. goes to these organizations, she wrote the New York Times, and “[f]or too long, a lack of money has forced organizations fighting for women's rights into a defensive posture while the enemies of progress play offense. I want to help even the match.”
—
Notes:
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/26/libertarians-reject-trump-rfk-chase-oliver-presidential-nominee-00160040
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/05/27/remarks-by-president-biden-at-the-156th-national-memorial-day-observance-arlington-va/
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/05/25/remarks-by-president-biden-in-commencement-address-to-the-united-states-military-academy-at-west-point-west-point-ny/
https://newrepublic.com/article/181973/trump-media-attacks-media-dangerous-turn
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/congress-fails-to-install-plaque-honoring-jan-6-police-officers/
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/28/politics/biden-campaign-january-6-officers/index.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c722qy5dzlgo
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/25/trump-commute-ross-ulbricht-sentence-libertarian-convention-00160025
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/ross-ulbricht-aka-dread-pirate-roberts-sentenced-life-federal-prison-creating
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-is-spotlighting-ross-ulbricht-silk-road-appeal-to-libertarians-2024
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4305566-trump-doubles-down-death-penalty-for-drug-dealers/
https://www.mediamatters.org/donald-trump/major-news-outlets-gave-much-less-coverage-trumps-vermin-attack-then-they-did-clintons
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4687060-donald-trump-squeaky-chicken-libertarian-controversy/
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/28/opinion/melinda-french-gates-reproductive-rights.html
The Dworkin ReportDe Niro and Jan 6 Heroes Unload on Trump Outside NY TrialRobert De Niro just showed up outside the New York City courthouse, where Trump is facing 34 felony counts. Rightwing lunatics are already trying to start conspiracy theories lying and saying that thi…Read more8 hours ago · 765 likes · 132 comments · Scott Dworkin
X:
BidenHQ/status/1795469679542100005
costareports/status/1795484830349852855
adamkinzingestatus/1795111150494826743
BidenHQ/status/1795468053993357493

Excuse if this is a little messy. I hardly use reddit, and this entire situation is stressing me out to the point of shakiness and illness. On that not, onto the story.
So, for a bit of context, I am a very, very new adult. I just graduated high school, and I've never had the best relationship with my family besides my mom and brother. I was still very distant from my mom because of some slight neglect in the past. I don't blame her for it because she's a single mom and was working a very hard job.
Extra context, my mom had also been planning a California trip. She had changed the plans every other day. Me and my fiance couldn't keep up with it, especially because he had a work venture there.
The past few months, I had been going out with my boyfriend, now fiance ( we'll call Ax ). My mom had been pretty hard on me because of this. Saying how, "I'm not home enough," and, "I need to help with (this this and this)." So, I was already getting a little fed up. I just wanted an escape from the house which is honestly not a very healthy living space due to my fairly slobbish family. Everytime I would go home she would bombard me with stuff, which I never had to do before, so it made me want out more.
I'm just going to summarize the build up by saying, there were quite a few arguments and she never seemed to listen to me. I also have a super hard time communicating my feelings and confrontation so participating in an argument is a big deal.
Now we get to the big night. The last thing we "talked" about was the California trip and how Ax's parents won't let him go if we stay at her friend's house. She got upset and stormed off. Me and Ax were upset so we went to his birth mom's ( we'll call her Cat ) house to take a break. It didn't really help. I had gotten fed up with all of the arguing and bitterness from my mom. All of the snide comments to Ax. I texted her that I was moving out and wasn't going on the California trip. ( I was moving into Cat's house. )
Now should I have texted her? Probably not, but texting helps me form my thoughts into words. I express more clearly through text, and shut down on the phone and especially in person.
She calls and I freak out and hand the phone to Ax. Mistake number 2. A bit about Ax, he is very very protective of me, especially with some of the stuff I've told him about my family and my dad. He doesn't want me to go through the same thing again. He's also a big jokester but is autistic so he doesn't really get when not to do some of his joking tones and words. They also come off as very disrespectful sometimes and he was kind of tired of her. So my mom is angry.
She tells me to come home within 5 minutes. I very shaky get in the car and we head there. We get there and she takes the keys to the car and my phone. Tells me to come inside and talk alone. Now, I get where she's coming from, but I HATE feeling cornered. I need someone else there by my side or I just shut down. It socks and makes things a lot harder with this kind of stuff. Now the rest is a but of a blur but she gets aggressive. No physical violence, but she does get in my face. I back up and she starts acussing me of telling people I'm violent though I haven't. It blurs again and suddenly I'm packing my things and leaving. My brother (15) by my side sad to see me leave this way.
The night goes by and I hear nothing from her. The next day she texts. I don't remember many of the texts, but I do remember being stressed out and not replying to things often. I tell her I need some time.
Few days go by with few texts I answer and a couple calls I don't. Then we get to church just a few days after the big night and an argument over text starts. She acusses Ax of lying, stealing, and vandalizing her car. The "lying" was a joke he made about his origins that I took seriously at first, I am a very slow person, that he had not realized I took seriously until very very later on. On the stealing, he had not stolen from some of the places acussed, but we did have a separate incident that was true. However, he's done his best to make it up and has not done anything like it since. He got punished by me and his parents. She still thinks he should've gotten worse. He's especially tried to make it up to my mom because he had lost her full trust and she was very obvious about it and still hasn't forgiven him to this day. The vandalizing was him working on the car, but not fixing it fully, because, we'll, she took the car before he could.
I talked about getting my legal documents, the entire point I was texting her in the first place, she brought up Ax herself. I misunderstood her and thought she was wanting to keep them from me so threatened legal action. I won't go deep into this because I'm not a lawyer, but ultimately it was more a threat to get my stuff. She said that I could get my stuff from the garage. Remember when I told you that my family was slobish? Yeah, I have no clue where these documents are and the garage is stacked to the sealing so it's going to take me a bit. I don't want to, but it's the only way to get my documents.
I completely give up at this point. I already said I needed a bit of time, but she continued to text. When I didn't answer email me a mental health line. The only times I would talk to her was to get my stuff. She started making facebook posts warning about toxic relationships, and how losing loved ones without making peace is terrible. This continues for a bit then stopped a couple days ago. The last thing I got, just a few hours ago, was an email. I will be quoting it word for word but changing names blah blah, you know how privacy works.
"Hi, [deadname]! I hope everything is going well for you.
I just wanted to take some time to explain some things. I wanted to tell you these things in person because it really does matter. Reading something is far different from hearing how someone says it. Arguments and misunderstandings should always be fixed in person.
First and foremost, I love you. I would do anything within my power for you. I have always been there for you and I want to continue being there. It breaks my heart that you don't want anything to do with me. I've tried to make you feel loved and supported. I've been active in your interests and activities. I even played Minecraft for you... (Haha)
I wanted to talk to you privately because we will never be able to fix things between us if someone else is involved. And honestly, it's no one else's business. I've never physically or intentionally hurt you so there is no reason to be scared to spend time with me.
What I have tried to tell you through text, is that I did not blow up because you wanted to move out. My response was that we would talk when you got home. That was not blowing up and this is why it is important to communicate in person rather than via text. I wanted to know your plans and see if I could help or add some suggestions that might help. I blew up because of the disrespect. I was being treated like I was nothing and like I've done nothing for you. I tried to explain that I wasn't mad about you wanting to move out. I'm not sure why you thought I would be since we've been talking about it for 6 months.
I apologize to you for how I handled my thoughts and feelings about [Ax]. It shouldn't have been handled that way. I'm not mad that either of you made mistakes. I was mad at the lack of taking ownership of said mistakes. I was mad that I was lied to again when I called out those mistakes.
I just want us to work through this. I love you. I will always love you. I want to help you if and when I can. I always want to be a part of your life. I am hurt that you can so easily throw away our relationship because of one argument. I am hurt that you're acting like I've done something for you to be afraid of me.
My door is always open and I'm always just a phone call away.
Love, Mom"
It makes me feel like I'm in the wrong and I'm actually unsure if I'm being to harsh on her. AITH?
TLDR; I move in with my fiancé. Arguments with mom as she acusses us of things we didn't do besides one thing. Im tired and stressed so go almost no contact. I get an email from her making me rethink my position on the matter.
Edit 1 and 2: Updates to layout of the post.

Hello,
I have a friend (let's call them X) whom I've known for more than 7 years. They have basically stuck by me throughout the years, and while we do not hang out as much anymore because of living in different areas, I talk to X frequently via text/call. I had issues with X in the beginning of our friendship, but we were fine, just not that close.
During COVID, I was struggling with a lot of mental health issues, including depression. Here comes X: we bond over similar interests and finally get to talk to each other one-on-one, away from the group, and I just really enjoyed their company. Long story short, X becomes my closest friend. When I worked in a semi-dangerous area, they were always there to comfort me over text, and in general they just understood me. We both ranted to each other and opened up about personal things.
But probably starting from last June, they started acting off. Our conversations became like before, when we weren't close and X was more passive-aggressive/moody toward me. X started with just not responding to me, and then it escalated to X making a lot of jokes about women being less than men, arguing with me over random stuff, etc. But then other times they would act completely nice and chill. They mentioned how they also had depression back when we first truly connected during COVID, so I think it might just be that they have been going through a lot of mental health struggles. And I was completely understanding and never brought it up, I just wanted to support X.
But then my breaking point was when I opened up to them a few months or so ago about me being sexually/psychologically groomed back when I was a teen and just realizing it now. X not only invalidated my trauma/experience, but they also told me to "get over it". I struggled with understanding my experiences after listening to their harsh words, and eventually I just blew up on them. I told X how I've never appreciated their mean and bland attitude, despite my attempts to just ignore their behavior. My day would be made if X just spoke to me nicely without giving me either no response or an "👍". X called me crazy, and said I might just be "sick" or something. (I'm recovering from a virus.) I feel like we've been walking on eggshells. I don't know what to do. I just can't put up with the one-sidedness and blatant disrespect, but I also just can't understand what happened since X won't open up to me and when I inquire what happened, they brush it off or just don't respond to me.

MATCH RESULTS

Winner	Loser	Match Finish	Stipulation
Michin	Tatum Paxley	Soeul Food	Women's North American Championship Qualifier
Ridge Holland	Riley Osborne w/ Chase U	Redeemer
The Good Brothers	Edris Enofe and Malik Blade w/ Brinley Reece	Magic Killer
Lola Vice	Arianna Grace	305 Backfist
Dante Chen	Lexis King	Crucifix Pin
Kelani Jordan	Wren Sinclair	Split-Legged Moonsault	Women's North American Championship Qualifier
Trick Williams and Je'von Evans w/ Sexy Red	Gallus	Trick-Shot Knee

IMPORTANT NOTES

• Kickoff with Ava in the ring welcoming us to the show. She says NXT has the greatest women's division in the world and they're about to prove why in two weeks when 6 women will compete in a ladder match for the new Women's North American Championship. She also says they have a special guest and welcomes out Sexy Red. Sexy thanks Ava for her introduction and says she has a special announcement, she will be hosting Battleground in Vegas. Ava says she also has one more special task and starts a drum roll as Sexy reveals the new Women's North American Championship. Tatum Paxley creeps into the ring and tries to steal the belt away from Red before Michin runs in and starts brawling with Tatum and their match starts.
  
• Joe Coffey is talking to Mark saying only two of them are allowed at ringside when they are approached by Meta-Four where Oro demands to know why they took out Noam last week. Joe says if they attacked Noam they'd have known it and walk off. Oro and Jackson accuse Trick of being behind the attack while Lash defends him.
  
• Lola Vice is shadow boxing when Arianna Grace walks in and says as the locker room leader, and leader of women in general, she asks if Lola is seriously going through another barbaric NXT Underground match? Lola says of course she's serious and Arianna says oh sugar. She says Shayna is dangerous and was hoping it was just Lola's temper getting the better of her. Lola calls her princessa and tells Grace she can learn how dangerous she is tonight. Grace says oh shit.
  
• After their match Ridge Holland extends a hand to Riley but Riley denies it and leaves the ring.
  
• The Good Brothers are interviewed backstage, Luke says they are done with being dodged by a team that's existed for 6 months while they had title reigns longer than that. He says the beat downs will continue until they get what they want and Karl shouts at Axiom and Frazer if they have their attention now. We cut to another camera where we see Oro Mensa has been assaulted as Lash and Jackson go to check on him along with officials.
  
• Axiom and Nathan Frazer ambush the Good Brothers after their match, drop kicking them to the outside. Nathan tells the fraudulent clowns that they are never getting near their titles and goes to call them pieces of shit but Axiom cuts him off and says they'll see the Good Brothers at Battleground.
  
• Dante Chen says he's been waiting two days to get his opportunity and the reaction he got was all worth it. While he'd love to bask in this victory forever, he is ready for another and is ready for whoever is next.
  
• Backstage Lexis King tells Dante Chen his win meant nothing and it will never happen again. Dante says he'll prove it's not a fluke and challenge to face Lexis again tonight.
  

*Trick Williams thanks Je'von for his help last week but says they need to be on their a-game tonight against Gallus. Sexy Red comes in and twerks as Trick and Je'von hype her up. She wishes them luck in their match tonight and Je'von asks her to come out with them tonight.

• Roxanne Perez makes her way to the ring. She says she is the only woman in WWE who's appreciated this championship from the very beginning, from when she first one it on 2.0, until when she won it back she saw it used by waste after waste who used to to move on to something bigger rather than relishing it. She says at 13 she started training specifically to win this championship. She never cared about Raw or Smackdown, she only cared about the NXT Women's Championship. To everyone else this title represents future greatness but to her it represents current greatness. She says it is incredibly disrespectful that she has to find out her opponent like this and the only thing her and Ava agree on is that she deserves to be treated better. She demands to know who the hell her opponent is going to be when Ava makes her way out. Ava says she never said Rox was a bad champion, but the question will be if she's still champion after Battleground. She announces her opponent for Battleground will be TNA Knockout's Champion Jordynne Grace! Grace says some of them may remember her from the Rumble earlier this year, but if they don't allow her to formally introduce herself. She says she is the TNA Knock-Outs Champion. She tells Roxanne that she built her name NXT the same way she did in TNA, but who has built the stronger foundation? Jordynne wants to find out and she is ready to leave Las Vegas a double champion.
  
• Eddy Thorpe has a return vignette, he says to his people fire has a deep spiritual connection and it is used as a form of healing. He has looked to the fire a lot these past few months and says his path is illuminated and through the fire he is reborn.
  
• Backstage Riley says Ridge can't be trusted as Chase U try to figure out what's the matter. Duke admits he sees what Riley is talking about and goes off to talk with him. Thea says she can't deal with all this with her match next week and storms off. Ridge checks with Andre who tells him it was a good match and not to worry,
  
• After her victory, Lola Vice says Shayna Bazler has one of two options, she taps out or she gets knocked out, her choice bitch. Shayna comes storming out being held back by security. She says she was born in the Underground as she fights trying to get to Lola.
  
• We get a vignette for Carlee Bright, going over her history as a Division 1 Cheerleader and says once she stepped foot in NXT wrestling became her new love and says the ray of sunshine is coming to NXT.
  
• Backstage Natalya tells Carlee she crushed it last week as Izzy comes in and tells Nattie her compliments are shallow. Karmen Petrovich tells her to get her negative energy out of here and the two start to brawl.
  
• Charlie Dempsey says ever since he lost the Heritage Cup he felt he lost a piece of himself. Damon Kemp he knows how he feels but Charlie asks if he really does. He says they need to learn from Tony's family and that they need to learn discipline and chain of command and tells Damon he's facing Tony next week.
  
• Oro is being checked out in the trainer's room and Jackara tells Lash that she's worried one of them one may next and she has to ask Trick to make sure he has nothing to do with this.
  
• Lexis King attacks Dante Chen after his victory, dragging him to the outside where he hits him with a running knee to the back of the head. Lexis pulls back the ringside mats and hits Dante with the Coronation on the concrete.
  
• Josh Briggs says he was signed in 2020 and had big dreams of breaking out on his own but his dreams were a bit big at the time so he found himself a little brother and little sister, they had success but it was time to go off on his own. He says he's bet on himself a few times but questions if it paid off and he is going to find out who Josh Briggs is. Shawn Spears is shown to be watching and says he has been down the same path as Briggs and knows it can be taunting, but he will guide the youth and be their answer.
  
• Backstage Tony tells the family their current target is the No Quarter Catch Crew and nothing matters until they deal with it since to them the Cup is part of them. Luca says he's looking into the legality of the Catch Clause. Tony says he's preparing for Damon and they're going to beat the Crew at their own game.
  
• Backstage Stevie Turner asks Ava what Jordynne has done to earn a NXT Women's Championship match and why she wasn't invited to the combine. Ava says her complaints are legitmite as Jordynne comes in and says she couldn't help but overhear so how about next week she proves why she deserves her shot and Stevie can put herself on the map.
  
• Wes Lee says he's upset he had to share his victory last week, Gallus are three pissed of Scotsmen but tells them they won't be getting all the titles because he will make sure they won't get the North American Championship. Oba Femi comes by and says it doesn't matter how many men he faces, the title remains with him. Wes says he's made a career out of proving people like him wrong.
  
• After the main event Lash Legend makes her way out to confront Trick as Sexy Red and Je'von leave. She tells Trick he has to be honest with her if he's the one who attacked Oro and Noam. Trick grabs the mic and goes to speak but the lights go out. The lights come back on and Ethan Page is here! He says he attacked Oro and Noam and attacks Trick and then nails him with a knee strike in the corner.
  

SHAMELESS PLUGS

• Live Thread
  
• New to /SquaredCircle? Check out the Wiki!
  
• Check out our Squared Circle twitter account for all sorts of AMA announcements and interaction!
  
• Curious about how the /SquaredCircle Championship and Jobber Championship works? Check out the rules!
  
• Be sure to follow @WWE on Twitter and Like WWE on Facebook! You can download the official WWE App on iTunes so Michael Cole shuts up about it!
  
• Like other wrestling promotions? Perhaps you're looking for other subreddits related to wrestling? There's a sub for that! Check out /TheDirtsheets, /luchaunderground, /njpw /TNA, /ROH, /indiewrestling, /Wrasslin and more!
  

The Canadian Armed Forces do not have a monopoly on foolish leaders, sociopaths, tyrants, or people lacking emotional intelligence. They can be found leading large companies, directing schools, heading major hospitals, and even within the church, basically wherever they can climb the ranks. The Canadian Armed Forces are not exempt from this problem of toxic leadership. I would even argue that the Canadian Armed Forces, due to their strict and highly regimented nature, provide an environment conducive to toxic leadership.
For the first time on this blog, I took the time to interview several people in order to write this article. The process was easy: everyone wants to talk about their experience under a toxic leader. Through these testimonials, I tried to better define what is meant by toxic leadership. I also wondered what causes a leader to become toxic. Finally, I attempt to provide some solutions to eliminate this scourge.
Defining Toxic Leadership
Leadership can be defined as the art of influencing human behavior. There are formal leaders (those who have received « authority ») and informal leaders (those who have charisma or a natural gift for influencing others). There are positive leaders and negative leaders.
« A positive leadership attempts to maintain a friendly and warm working climate within the team in order to bring out the best in each of its members. Negative leadership, on the other hand, influences the members of his team through judgment, negativity, opposition, or disinterest in the project. » (source: HEC).
At one end of the positive-negative leadership spectrum is the toxic leader. What distinguishes them from negative leaders? In my interpretation, a leader becomes toxic when the unhealthy influence they have on their personnel has severe impacts outside the workplace.
The Dark Triad
Psychologists have identified three traits that make up the sinister « dark triad of toxicity »: narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy.
The Narcissist
Narcissists need to see themselves as the best in everything. They don’t seek to elevate the people around them; they only seek to elevate themselves by belittling others. Despite this, they are convinced that they are good leaders, that they are humane. To convince themselves of their benevolence, they sometimes say good words to their staff. They do it because they keep what I call « the book of the perfect platoon commander » closely guarded. They have learned what they should say – « take care of yourself, seek a good work-life balance, it’s not a sprint but a marathon, you need to think about yourself too, etc. » – but they are fundamentally incapable of applying these fine principles. They are tyrants, their true nature remains. Narcissists don’t end up in therapy: they send others to therapy.
The intelligent toxic leader know that they need certain key people to achieve their goals: these are often their inner circle. To ensure their loyalty, they charm them, cajole them, they treat them like royalty. But these people can never leave the organization because they are responsible for the tyrant’s success. In the long run, they too must forget their dreams and ambitions. This is commonly called a « punishment for success ».
The Machiavellian
The Machiavellian leader – an adjective derived from Niccolò Machiavelli’s work « The Prince, » published in the 16th century – uses multiple stratagems to achieve their ends. For them, the end justifies the means entirely. They will not hesitate to regularly throw their colleagues or subordinates under the bus. Why do they target their peers and subordinates? Because they pose direct threats to their power; these are the men and women who could want to take their place or, worse, snatch away the position they covet at the higher level.
Machiavellian leaders tend to assess the people they work with very quickly. Like on the Tinder app, they quickly swipe left or right depending on whether they judge a person competent or incompetent, or rather, useful or detrimental to their goals. And they don’t spare those who swipe the wrong way. Some will even go to great lengths to ensure that those they consider weak or detrimental are not considered for promotion. They won’t hesitate to call their superiors about them to ensure they don’t have an equal chance compared to their peers. They engage in a real undermining, which is defined by actions carried out more or less secretly to destroy someone.
The Psychopath
« The personality traits associated with psychopathy include a lack of empathy or remorse, antisocial behavior, and being manipulative and unstable. It is important to note that there is a distinction between psychopathic traits and being a psychopath, commonly associated with criminal violence » (Source: MindTools). There are psychopaths in all armies, but generally, we do a pretty good job of identifying and eliminating them. Nevertheless, some leaders exhibit the personality traits mentioned above. When we think of a psychopathic leader in uniform, we generally think of a sergeant yelling in a soldier’s face, but it’s much more insidious.The toxic leader denigrates, belittles, plays on emotions, and erodes trust slowly. They don’t just shout once; they consistently rant. For those who constantly receive their insults, it’s death by a thousand cuts.
Beyond the character traits associated with the dark triad, there are other characteristics of toxic leaders. For example, some toxic leaders hide a significant lack of self-confidence under their tyrant facade. To mask their fear, they constantly yell, without realizing that yelling is losing one’s composure, a sign of weakness. They believe they are protected by a shell, but in reality, they wear a tactical vest filled with mines and grenades that sow chaos in the ranks. It’s not an armor they wear; it’s an arsenal.
In light of what we’ve seen, it appears that toxic leaders need to feel better than others, they need attention, they need to belittle, or even crush. In short, they don’t just break careers; they go as far as breaking lives.
Impact on the Organization
A toxic leader gets results quickly, which reinforces their belief that they are using the right approach. In the short term, the technique works, that’s undeniable. However, in the long run, they cause immeasurable damage, leaving behind what I call a « trail of destruction »: shattered careers, personnel in therapy, individuals completely jaded and cynical, and sometimes shattered lives. To quote a friend who is an officer, a toxic leader:

Another friend wrote to me that, during his deployment in Afghanistan, his superior « tested and broke his resilience. » These are strong words, coming from a senior officer in combat arms. We are taught everywhere to create an environment where subordinates can develop. Nevertheless, there are still leaders who seek to demolish those they deem lacking the necessary skills to lead.
Toxic leaders eventually establish an unhealthy climate within their team, a climate of « every man for himself. » This leads subordinates to experience anxiety and, sometimes, depression. Peers no longer take the time to inquire about the mental health of their teammates because there is no team spirit. Sometimes, there isn’t even a team. Like the leader who is the chief intimidator, some subordinates become bullies themselves. You quickly choose your side: the strong weigh down on the weak. Everyone says to themselves, « I won’t let myself be trampled on anymore; now I’ll be the one trampling on others. »
Why Are Toxic Leaders Sometimes Rewarded?
Why, knowing all this, are toxic leaders rewarded? Firstly, part of the blame must be attributed to the regimental system (or its equivalent in other services/environments). Regiments quickly identify their favorites, the chosen ones, those who will rise to the rank of general. These individuals are identified very early, even during training phases. Too often, those selected are the ones who speak loudly, have attitude, a big ego, in short, those considered to have « the look for the job. » Then, the regiment pushes them forward and, if necessary, sweeps their small missteps under the rug. What happens if the regiment is wrong? It still pushes forward because admitting you’re wrong is worse than pulling a candidate out of the race.
Toxic leaders are also pushed upward because they are generally effective, very effective even. With a toxic leader, you walk on eggshells. You strive to give 100% of yourself, especially at the beginning, because you want to avoid the ground suddenly disappearing from beneath you. But these leaders are not just demanding; you can be demanding without being a jerk. No, they don’t just demand; they break their personnel to a point of no return. They squeeze the fruit until the seeds and core are crushed.
In the long run, the entire organization loses out. Firstly, the toxic leader exhausts their personnel. Secondly, without necessarily rebelling openly, subordinates increasingly keep their good ideas to themselves. A good leader fosters ideas, while a bad leader believes they have a monopoly on good ideas. Over time, their staff engage in what I call « passive resistance. » Some will even go as far as sabotaging a project if they believe they can do so with impunity. The toxic leader thinks they are getting the most juice possible when, in reality, they are shooting themselves in the foot. Instead of seeing effectiveness in toxic leadership, the chain of command should realize that tyrants don’t think about common success; they only envision their own success. The institutional problem with this approach is that another leader will succeed the toxic one and inherit a completely drained and demoralized unit.
I am aware that much more is demanded of military personnel than civilians; in fact, it’s one of the few areas of employment where the ultimate sacrifice can be asked. I am also aware that troops must be toughened to prepare them for the brutality of combat, a concept called toughening. I believe strongly in toughening. It’s an essential process for creating fighters. Troops are toughened through training and exercises; the leadership model exercised during these trainings and exercises is necessarily tough, severe, and intense. But it’s possible to be very demanding without falling into abuse, denigration, and harassment. The line between severe authority and abuse is thin, but it exists, and one must always be aware of it. You can be feared and respected as a leader without being hated (for those who appreciate the teachings of Machiavelli).
How to Prevent Toxic Leadership
How can toxic leadership be prevented? Here is a non-exhaustive list:
Initially, supervisors who become aware of a toxic leader under their command must show managerial courage and take the necessary steps to restore the climate.
Conduct more psychometric assessments and 360-degree evaluations where subordinates are asked to assess leadership.
Assign caring mentors to promising officers and non-commissioned officers to help them develop suitable leadership styles.
Conduct organizational climate surveys to obtain employees’ perceptions and perspectives. These surveys address attitudes and concerns that help the organization work with employees to bring about positive changes.
Invest in personal development (soft skills) and raise awareness among leaders about emotional intelligence.
Bring in leaders from outside at various ranks (for example, a business leader becomes a lieutenant colonel), an idea from retired American General Stanley McChrystal that remains quite controversial but is worth considering.
Integrate unions into the ranks, as done by the police and some foreign armies, to prevent abuses and avoid rash decisions. Another controversial but certainly effective proposal.
Conclusion
When I went through my infantry officer training, I was instilled with this simple phrase: Mission First, Men Second. Toxic leaders only apply the first half of this motto. Fortunately, mindsets have changed over time. We now say Mission First, People Always. One of the undisputed « truths » of special forces is that « humans are more important than equipment. » We realized that humans were central to the enterprise and that they could break like a piece of equipment.
Once, narcissism was sometimes confused with efficiency and arrogance with leadership. Fortunately, times are changing. Trainings on diversity, harassment, and concerns about integrating LGBTQ+ members, for example, are being provided. In recent years, people have also become more outspoken. There is less hesitation to escalate abuses of toxic leaders to higher levels of command.
The more these leaders are eliminated, at all levels, the fewer bad role models are offered to junior officers and non-commissioned officers. There is hope.

I'm deviating away from my usual; instead of music inspiring my writing, this time, it's now theatrical representation.
I've been enjoying multiple times the short-lived Sex/Life on Netflix. I could write a book on the many lessons that I'm still learning from the show. For this piece, this is focused on the title Unattached (written by the show's character Sasha Snow). Though, in the show, this adjective was describing people in terms of their relationship status, for myself, this also refers to my current energy status.
Unattached in regard to the past means that my energy is not tied up in someone who was once a part of my life but has now gone. I'm not wishing back for an ex. I'm not pining away for someone who's already moved on with his life. I'm not wanting to rewrite history and make it like any missed opportunities, or anything gone wrong with any guy from my past was made right and that we should be together. Even more, I'm not chasing "the one who got away" ... I have been in the game of love long enough to know that there is no such thing. All men who have told me "Bye, Felicia", with their words or with their feet, were never the one to begin with.
Unattached in regard to the present moment means that my energy is not tied up in someone unavailable. I'm not spending my evenings home from work, constantly checking my phone and wondering why he's not texting. My mind is not wrapped up in why he would rather choose to text instead of call. I'm not trying to figure out way to make someone who is not interested in me ... interested. I'm not performing all sorts of gymnastics, trying to reformulate myself into what he wants or thinks I should be just to keep him from walking away. I'm not going out of my way to beg for someone to stay when I was never meant to keep him anyway. And, no, I've written off any equity from dating apps. Time wasted in endless swapping on profiles doesn't justify the cost, and I've long since learned that the men on there cannot afford the intellectual price of carrying on a simple, civil and decent conversation besides, "Hey". And for the ones that do, they're so hard up that they turn a brief conversation ~ regardless of how neutral the topic ~ into something sexual. No, thanks.
Unattached in regard to the future is an inverse of the past. My energy is not tied up into building a fantasy of someone in my mind, crafting who this unrealistic person is, and then going into the real world to see if there is any guy who can live up to it. I'm not throwing myself at any guy who gives me the bare minimum effort, basic human kindness in conversation, and letting my imagination run off into the sunset as I somehow treat this guy as if he's this manifestation of the perfect image of the perfect guy I had crafted in my mind (a part of me wonders if I have a future career working for Crown Media Productions ~ the actual team of professionals behind those cheesy Hallmark made-for-TV movies). This has saved me countless moments of unnecessary heartbreak and disappointment when I'd strike up a good conversation with a guy, believing that we're really connecting, and we don't end up connecting beyond it for whatever reason.
Now, here comes the best part ... The Power of Choice. For once in my adult life, I recognize that I have full veto power over the future partner I may welcome into my life.
Regarding the past, I execute my power of choice by refusing to allow my broken history with men and all failed relationships from the past dictate my present behavior. I'm no longer looking for "the ghosts of boyfriends past" in someone else. I'm not using any connections I may form with other guys to heal or soothe the pain left behind from guys that I can't have for whatever reason. I'm not drawn to or magnetized to certain men because they remind me of someone I used to love, or wanted, but I can't have anymore (or that I never did).
Regarding the past, I execute my power of choice by paying more careful attention to the kind of men that I attract and the behaviors from them which I choose (or not) to accept. I understand that, out of billions of guys on this planet, not every guy is going to make the cut. I may have to sort through 1,548,326 bad ones to get to the decent 274 that are out there. Out of those 274, I might be able to connect with possibly 36. And out of those 36, 13 of them make it through. And over time, that 13 dwindles down to 11, then 8, then 5, then 3, and finally, 2. And between those two, the one that's chosen should be obvious. At least, from my experience, my learning what I want with the right partner and the type of relationship I'm willing to pursue comes from learning and understanding what I don't want. And all this can be done efficiently while I'm actively not looking.
I may have already mentioned it, but the universe did send to me a very amazing message when I was getting into work this morning. There was a very well-dressed businessman who had just parked his car and was waiting for his client with a box of freshly picked donuts outside the office door. I had noticed this guy while I was parking, and I had my eye on him while I was walking from the parking lot to the front door. I did my best to play it cool, trying very hard not to stare at him, but he grabbed my attention with his "Good morning". I responded in kind. When I waited for the elevator to pick me up, I looked back at him, and he was looking right back at me. The universe could have brought this guy back my way (where I would have definitely chatted him up and possibly gotten his number if the vibe was right), but that whole interaction conveyed a much better message. When the time is right for the right guy, I will know. There won't be any mysteries to "figure out". I won't have to go out of my way to get his attention. He will be present and available for me. Our communication is thorough, clear, and we're both on the same page. Our energies will not be tied up in the past and our present will be stable and functional to where we will be able to prioritize each other. The universe knows the proper time, as well as the man involved, in which to place us together, so there is no need to hypothesize or construct any type of unrealistic scenario in my mind. When it happens, I will know.
Now going back to Sasha Snow ...
Because her book was an artistic prop in the story, she did present some good points. While I won't go into those final details here, I will close with a very fitting quote that she had shared during her presentation (and I will admit that, at the moment, the original author of the following quote is unknown to me): "I am the master of my fate, the captain of my soul." And so, I set sail, at the helm, and explore new waters and navigate unchartered territory ... Unattached.
That is all.

We all know by now that Mineta does get treated badly in stories all the time and while there are stories that either torture him, get him expelled or turn him into a full-blown rapist. Then there are the stories that bash Mineta but also make him OOC. As in Mineta acts like a pervert, but how he does it is a lot worse than in canon. I'm talking about the Homophobic Mineta who will go out of his way to harass and insult any LGBT person/couple. There was one where he hates Kaminari and tries to get him trouble because he's gay in the story. The fanfics that will have Mineta just start insulting and making fun of certain characters for no reason. Mineta might not have a filter at times and might do a little teasing, but he never flat out insults them. I've read fanfics where Izuku and Jirou get together and Mineta insults Jirou for being flat chested and insults Izuku for 'going with a girl with no tits.'. Or a fanfic where Izuku gets with Momo. Mineta demands Momo to have sex with him to prove that he is the 'better man'. There is just one story where Mineta starts a sexist rant saying 'Women are only good for kitchen and sex and are inferior to men in every way'. Just out of nowhere. Like okay Mineta lusts over girls, but he has never once said their inferior or been outright sexist towards them.
I know Mineta is a massive pervert, but these stories are just adding jerk traits to Mineta. Usually so Izuku can beat him up for daring to 'disrespect' whoever Izuku is dating in the story. I really don't think Mineta would go out of his way to try to sabotage anyone either. He would be insanely jealous of guys like Izuku getting girls, but never try to interfere with the relationship. Despite his lust, Mineta definitely has a 'Pals before Gals' unlike some other anime perverts students who constantly get angry and jealous of whenever a girl shows interest in the MC. I'm mostly referring to the 'friends' of the MC in High School DXD and My girlfriend is a Gal. I can know that if Mineta would see how they treated their 'friend' Mineta would be disappointed about how 'uncool' they are.

Hello Everyone.
My name is Courtney. I am 27 years old and I live in Florida.
I hope that everyone had a happy Memorial Day weekend. Unfortunately I was at home sick with Covid.
My favorite color is pink. I love listening to all kinds of music. Though my main preference is rock and metal. My favorite band is Ghost. If you end up with me you will have to deal with my addiction. (The band, not drugs or alcohol.)
I am a plus size woman, I would say that I am on the smaller end of that spectrum. I know that I may not be everyone’s cup of tea, so please just don’t be disrespectful is all. I have been working on improving both my physical and mental health. It’s always a constant battle.
I would prefer a long term and genuine relationship. My age preference in men is 30+. I am looking for my best friend, my partner in crime, my Mickey to my Minnie. I am looking for someone that is genuine and loyal. Someone that isn’t afraid to be goofy and silly.
I eventually would like to settle down. I am only looking for something monogamous. I eventually would like to have children one day as well. I’m not necessarily looking for someone that is local. I am okay with some distance, at least in the beginning anyway.
I love going to theme parks, I love traveling, I love trying new things, I love to watch movies, and listen to music. I love Disney, Marvel, Harry Potter, and much more.
If you would be interested in getting to know me, don’t be afraid to reach out. I look forward to hearing from you.
https://imgur.com/a/9LKERv4

Usually, Muslims, anti-trinitarians or anyone that do not believe in the deity of Jesus will make these arguments. They will quote something like Acts 2:22
Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a MAN attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know
As a trinitarian, verses that talk about Jesus being a man does nothing to our position. Any informed trinitarian believes that Jesus is 100% man and 100% God. So, giving me a verse about his human nature I say Amen. If you keep on reading the rest of Peter's sermon, you will see that not only did Peter believe Jesus is a man, but also God even though he is not the Father.
1st the key points to the prophecy Peter quotes in Acts 2:17-21

• Yahweh/Jehovah will pour out his Spirit. v12-18
• Everyone that calls on Yahweh/Jehovah name will be saved. v21

Peter is going to start with points they (the unbelieving Jews) could agree upon.

• Jesus is a man. v22-23
• "you nailed to the cross" v22
• He performed miracles and wonders and signs in your midst v22

Peter then gets to the meat of the matter by applying the prophesy he quoted from Joel, which is about Yahweh/Jehovah, to Jesus.
Jesus pours out the spirit Acts 2:32-33 This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. ³³ Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, HE HAS POURED OUT this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing.
Just like the name of Yahweh/Jehovah, calling on the name of Jesus will save you
Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you IN THE NAME of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
This is one of the reasons why I am a trinitarian. Hopefully when I have time, I can show that not only is the Holy Spirit a person but also God as well. Just to clarify, I don't mean a person like us who has flesh and blood and is bound to time and space. I mean like a person that has a mind, is aware, has cognition, can speak and be spoken to, has divine emotions and will.

Gender relations are bleak, my friends. Like, "former Yugoslav states in the early 90's"-level bleak.
Necessary context: I went bald very young. I had the hairline of an overstressed, 50-year-old accountant just a couple years into puberty, and was completely bereft of hair by the time I was old enough to drink.
Premature baldness is almost always caused by heavier-than-average prenatal exposure to testosterone. This is one of God's cruelest jokes, because the condition tends to make men significantly hornier than average even as their appearance renders them unattractive to a large majority of younger women. It might seem like a joke to those who haven't gone through it, but the psychological toll from a combination of losing your hair and still wanting girls to like you is immense. I was deeply insecure throughout most of high school and didn't develop basic social skills until I was probably 16 or so.
But there was an upside: once I accepted my fate, I knew that in order to ever have a chance with women, I needed to take care of my body and cultivate a likeable personality. I had to work relatively hard to achieve some things that came much easier to more genetically gifted men. That was just the way it was: I could either deal with it or give up.
And so I worked. And worked. And, shit, working worked! I realize it's difficult for a heterosexual man to talk about romance-type stuff without coming off like a creep so please forgive me, but I've had a healthy sex life and am now married to a pretty and successful woman.
Okay, so the weekend before last, my wife and I attended a house party where were didn't know the vast majority of the people there. I'm not a social goon, but I am in my 40s and married, and, like nearly everyone else my age, I just haven't done much socializing with strangers since the pandemic. Still, the party went well. Got some laughs and some phone numbers (networking, not for sex stuff), didn't say anything that offended anyone, made sure not to talk about the Hasid tunnels in Brooklyn, etc etc.
Around midnight (that's late if you're old), a guy in his 30s comes up to me. He's balding. He is the kind of guy who, unlike me, most likely had a relatively easy time getting girls in high school and college and he doesn't know how to proceed now that effort is required. He is drunk and very open. He tells me he has no idea what to do, he was in a long term relationship that just ended six months ago and now he's worried he's never gonna find another woman who will accept his touch. He asked what I did to cope.
I responded honestly: at your age, 40-50% of women are gonna consider baldness a no-go, and you just have to accept that. Don't ruminate. Don't be bitter. Another 40-50% aren't gonna care much either way, but you're still gonna be at a bit of disadvantage so you need to work on the areas of your personality and appearance you can control. And then there's a solid 10% of women who are into it for various reasons, which is pretty cool. I stressed that fatalism leads to fatalities, that women find whininess unattractive, and suggested he start hitting the gym harder, paying more attention his wardrobe, and learning that sometimes you're just not gonna succeed but that doesn't mean you'll never succeed. Even 4-5 hours of effort per week will pay off.
It went wonderfully. I am terminally Irish American and so I can tell when a severely drunk man actually understands what you're saying to him and whether or not it's having a positive effect.
But, oh... oh no it did not go wonderfully, apparently. Because a woman in her twenties was off in my periphery while I was talking to the guy, doing the sort of movements that are not quite gesticulations that young women do when they want you to realize they're upset but don't want to directly let you know they're upset. I had noticed her. But I did not know her, and I assumed she was upset about the sort of thing young people get upset about at parties--lord knows what it was, but it was none of my business.
Well, no. She was a coworker of the guy to whom I was talking. She was listening to everything we were saying to one another and recorded some of it. I just found out today, through a friend of a friend, that she reported the man to HR for, quote, "receiving 'incel' advice." He doesn't think it will go anywhere because the conversation was heavily reviewed and the powers that be found that nothing offensive was said (because, indeed, nothing offensive was said). But, holy shit. Holy fuck. How in the name of our lord is a man--a man, mind you, who has sex--giving positive, pro-social advice to another man automatically register as a cancel-worth Incel Offense in the mind of a college-educated young woman?
This revelation has made me so angry and paranoid I feel the need to stress a few things: I said nothing that could reasonably be construed as PUA-ish or incel-adjacent. I did not tell him to neg women. I did not suggest that he wear a pair of Steampunk goggles. I did not launch into a diatribe about the evils of birth control or feminism. I just told him to try to stay positive, to not give up hope.
I have Larry David-type shit happen to me more often than anyone else I know, but this is seriously one of the most dispiriting events of the last few years of my life. I don't know how to proceed from here.