Anonymous wrote:Tay-Tay is as vanilla as it gets.

Angelina Jolie is bad bodied and is/was only attractive cuz she had the good sense to get a nose job.

Amal is not that attractive and the best thing going for her looks is her hair.

Except for a few songs, the Beatles suck.

She looked better when she was heavier but even then she didn't have a proportional shape.

Anonymous wrote:I think Michelle Williams was terrible as Marilyn Monroe, I'm shocked she got so much praise for that performance.

I'm shocked she gets so much praise for everything she does.

Taylor Swift's entire career, notably the last 5 years, is emblematic of private equity financiers bleeding people (her fans) dry.

I think Michelle Williams was terrible as Marilyn Monroe, I'm shocked she got so much praise for that performance.

Melania is not attractive at all - squinty eyes

Tay-Tay is as vanilla as it gets.

Angelina Jolie is bad bodied and is/was only attractive cuz she had the good sense to get a nose job.

Amal is not that attractive and the best thing going for her looks is her hair.

Except for a few songs, the Beatles suck.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:most celebrities are tiny and short in person most of hollywood is short people.

I wish I could remember who it was that I saw recently at some event that the tv cameras were covering, but the guy was much taller than I thought. I looked at the screen and thought “dang, he’s very tall”

It will come to me later. But it took me by surprise.

Jacob Elordi? Bo Burnham?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't like Tom Hanks and I don't think he's a good actor.

Brad Pitt is not attractive or talented and never was.

Friends was garbage.

The Beatles sound like hicks.

Tom Hanks looks like he has jelly on his upper lip and needs to use a napkin.

You can tell Maryl Streep is acting so it's not believable.

There is no creativity left. The remakes upon remakes upon remakes are embarassing to anyone involved in them.

We need more opinions like this one on here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:most celebrities are tiny and short in person most of hollywood is short people.

I wish I could remember who it was that I saw recently at some event that the tv cameras were covering, but the guy was much taller than I thought. I looked at the screen and thought “dang, he’s very tall”

It will come to me later. But it took me by surprise.

Did you watch Game of Thrones? I noticed a lot of semi-awkward blocking and scene setups in the later seasons when Sophie Turner turned out to be like, 5’10” after starting out as a child actress. Also Cousin Greg on Succession, although that’s also kind of part of the character.

Anonymous wrote:most celebrities are tiny and short in person most of hollywood is short people.

I wish I could remember who it was that I saw recently at some event that the tv cameras were covering, but the guy was much taller than I thought. I looked at the screen and thought “dang, he’s very tall”

It will come to me later. But it took me by surprise.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nick Cannon is clearly gay and overcompensating to try to look not gay. How can I be gay when I’m so hyper macho that I made 20 babies.

Buddy, you’re gay.

Not every male celebrity is secretly gay. Shocking, I know.

Most are. Another top actor just came out as gay/bi.

https://www.thepinknews.com/2025/10/02/alexander-skarsgard-pillion-men-women/

So? Sexuality is a spectrum. Alexander is hawt and I don’t care if he is bi. Wouldn’t care if he declared himself fully gay, either. He’s definitely nice to look at.

I really liked him in Murderbot-very different role than Eric in True Blood

most celebrities are tiny and short in person most of hollywood is short people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nick Cannon is clearly gay and overcompensating to try to look not gay. How can I be gay when I’m so hyper macho that I made 20 babies.

Buddy, you’re gay.

Not every male celebrity is secretly gay. Shocking, I know.

Most are. Another top actor just came out as gay/bi.

https://www.thepinknews.com/2025/10/02/alexander-skarsgard-pillion-men-women/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charlie Kirk was all about money. His wife was selling merch at his funeral/memorial service. They are entertainers. These are not good people. They just want your money. That’s all they want. They are not real Christians. Period.

I don’t think this is an unpopular opinion. Half the country feels this way.

I think it's more than half.

+100

It's sad to see so many at the stadium brain washed by all of this. All they are doing is making them richer. Erica is laughing all the way to the bank.

He was brainwashing these college women to get married and have babies by 25. These are women on college campuses seeking higher education. Ericka had her babies when she was 30. Now she is going to run his companies and travel all over the country and not stay home and be with her kids during their most formative years? What a bunch of crap. Her theatrics was sickening, constantly looking up like he's in heaven. He's not. He's in hell where he belongs.

Oklahoma wants to put statues of him everywhere!!! How about you use that money and educate your kids. You are 49th in this country for education and healthcare. Oklahomans are dumber than rocks and that how your politicians want to keep you.

Racist, misogynist, homophobic pig. Reap what you sow.

I’m a lifelong Dem who didn’t follow Kirk, so I don’t know each and every thing he ever said.

BUT

I do recall an extensive npr segment many years ago featuring an economist/sociologist basically said couples are “doing it wrong” when it comes to having kids and maximizing earning potential.

In short, the expert said the best move is to find a partner in your early 20s and quickly have a kid or two (if you want them). I think they suggested doing it by mid-20s. This way, you can opt to have a parent stay home until the kid (or younger kid) is in pre-k and you still have time to enter/reenter the workforce.

Again, the research was focused on the best financial choices and maximizing earning potential. It went beyond the typical anti poverty talking points to focus on educated people…again, essentially saying too many people are doing it wrong by waiting too long to marry and have kids by pointing out the impact to careers, high cost of childcare, etc.

Religion wasn’t part of the equation. Politics certainly weren’t discussed (this was a segment from many years ago before the US lost its collective mind and became so divided).

I had heard that at some point. And while they are probably right, society isn’t structured now in a way to make this easy. It was easier in the 50s when you married young, could be a SAHM, live on one income, etc etc. But things changed (for better and worse) and it just isn’t easy anymore. Most come out of college with debt, people want to play around rather than settle down in their 20s-there are myriad reasons. I got married at 26, and was on the younger end of most of my friends. Had my first at 28-felt like a teen mom in the DC area.

Understood.

But blindly criticizing a different perspective that actually has a lot of positive implications and is grounded in facts/research/data seems silly. But that’s where we are.

Values and priorities have changed. But they could shift a bit and that wouldn’t be crazy or the end of the world.

Anyway, I just wanted to put that out there since so many people are dismissing different perspectives right out of the gate simply because the messenger isn’t on the correct end of the political spectrum.

I think the thing people don’t like about right wing and/or religious pressure to marry young is the patriarchal messages behind it. Like women’s only purpose is to procreate and be a wife. Sorry, that’s gross.

Yes, biologically and by some financial perspectives, getting married and starting a family younger can be better. But I don’t know if there is an easy way to reverse the trends that have people delaying it.

NP. I was trying to think about this apart from the religious/cultural background, and where I came down is that it feels risky for the mother. I can see where she would have less impact on her career by raising young children sooner. But on the other hand, right after college she also generally has less money, less career capital, and less of the personal strength that comes from age and experience. And my husband is a prince of a man and a fantastic parent, but he is more of both of those at 50 than he was even when I met him at 30. Not sure I would have wanted my fate to depend on him at 22.

So I get the “higher rewards” aspect of the studies, but it also feels higher risk. If our society was set up to support working mothers or moms in higher education, I might see it differently. Makes me think of how my dad once told me that the people happiest with their careers are working artists. (Not sure if that was a study or just his opinion, but it makes some sense.) But I’m still not sure I’d recommend an art career to the young people I know. It’s an amazing way to spend your life IF it works out. But how many people have all the stars align just right to support themselves in that way? Reaching for the possible highest “reward” feels too risky compared to a nice safe office career that you just mostly don’t hate.

Anonymous wrote:I don't like Tom Hanks and I don't think he's a good actor.

Brad Pitt is not attractive or talented and never was.

Friends was garbage.

The Beatles sound like hicks.

Tom Hanks looks like he has jelly on his upper lip and needs to use a napkin.

You can tell Maryl Streep is acting so it's not believable.

There is no creativity left. The remakes upon remakes upon remakes are embarassing to anyone involved in them.