Datasets:

simonycl

/

change_my_view_new

like 0

CMV: Anger is a stronger fuel than love to changing your life.

We've all grown up hearing that "love is the answer". In movies, music, and so on. But in real life, anger is a stronger fuel. It is what it takes for an overweight person to finally decide to lose weight. It is anger at their bullies who told them they would never amount to anything in life that makes them incredible successes. It is anger at the fact that they are stuck in poverty that makes them seek financial freedom. I use these 3 examples as common everyday scenarios that most people face. It is not love that makes these people change. It is anger at themselves, at someone else, or their situation.

sohoships

2025-01-16 21:59:01

m7l6xql

My ex-friend was constantly angry about their situation. What they did was constantly vent about it, but doing nothing to deal with the source. Like they constantly ecpressed their frustration that it seemed the neighbours next door were constantly looking at his living room through their window (which looks directly into their window). Did they go talk with those neighbours to see if they were looking at their living room or they were generally looking through the window at something else (thus they assumed that they were looking at their living room), did they try to cover the window with eithet curtains or putting something in front of the window - in both cases the answer is "no". What they did was constantly vent about it to me for years. Once i asked them why aren't they doing anything to change their situation, their answer was "i deserve to suffer, i am not worthy of good things". They didn't live themselves enough to care about themselves. Nor did they have enough love for others to see hiw much hurt they were inflicting onto the other. While for me i was angry at myself because i let the ex-friend drain and hurt me with constant ventings and blaming me for things they have done (like blaming me that they haven't talked with anybody for a week because i was unaviable for a week (which i informed them about months ago)) till i started to feel terror just from the thought of having to interact with them. That terror triggered a sort of a protective anger which motivated me to end the friendship and put effort into stopping people pleasing, being comfortable with the discomfort of other people and not being guilttriped to change my "no" into a"yes". Even if it is still anger, it came from self-love. The anger was because i was abandoning myself and betraying self-care and love. Anger gave me a sort of a kickstart. Like you press hard on the speed pedal to get out of the mud when you are stuck, but then you release the speed pedal a chunk to then go the rest of the way. Anger can help you get out of being stuck in the mud, but it is love that drives you throughbthe unmuddied road. Without love i would have been like my ex-friend constantly lashing out without doing anything about the reasons i lash out. So yeah, love is a vital component for change.

Siukslinis_acc

2025-01-17 01:12:16

m7kjbaj

I respectfully disagree. I personally know a woman who started trauma coaching first, out of anger, wanting to prove to people she was worthy, and she made a lot of money, but she wasn’t happy. She even ended up in abusive situations without even realizing it because all of her motivation was coming from a place of anger. She was even asked this same question by her first trauma coach. Is the time for this motivation to switch from anger to love? She thought that was silly and believed like you do that it was anger that got her to what success she had had. She hit rock bottom and discovered that anger had actually been the opposite of the fuel that she needed. She thought the key was to prove other people wrong, and when she started switching her motivation to prove other people right she has experienced massive growth and success. But not only her who I know how to experience this but also every single one of her clients. It’s when they switch their motivation from being fueled by anger to being fueled by love that they start taking off in ways that they never had before. Why don’t you put your motivation to the test like she did? Why don’t you take a week and see what it looks like when you switch your motivation from anger to love? When you’ve try it love based motivation, like actually try it for a week and intentionally get fueled by love, and not just think about it?

flippitjiBBer

2025-01-16 22:20:49

CMV: Anger is a stronger fuel than love to changing your life.

We've all grown up hearing that "love is the answer". In movies, music, and so on. But in real life, anger is a stronger fuel. It is what it takes for an overweight person to finally decide to lose weight. It is anger at their bullies who told them they would never amount to anything in life that makes them incredible successes. It is anger at the fact that they are stuck in poverty that makes them seek financial freedom. I use these 3 examples as common everyday scenarios that most people face. It is not love that makes these people change. It is anger at themselves, at someone else, or their situation.

sohoships

2025-01-16 21:59:01

m7mizer

I disagree - I’m angry about most things all the time. I’m a grumpy person - my average emotional state is grouchy. Anger is an easy emotion. Love is hard and it’s incredibly powerful. What inspires me to be the change I want to see in the world, is how much I love it. I got a TEFL certification when the US pulled out of Afghanistan and all those women couldn’t go to school anymore. It was so sad to me, that I wanted to try and do something to help them. I could help tutor someone in English, if they came to my country as a refugee or in hopes to find a better life. I started tutoring kids in reading, because it breaks my heart how illiterate people are. My politics are largely motivated by how much I love my country and the people in it. How beautiful I think we could be, if we just loved each other a little bit more. I started going to therapy to work through some issues I have, because I love myself enough to want to be better. It’s had a profound impact in all my relationships and has made me a better friend, daughter, partner, sister, etc. When I’ve fallen flat on my face and needed someone to pick me up, my friend and family met me with love. Their love helped me pick myself up and build something new for myself, out the rubble of my life.

ZestSimple

2025-01-17 08:37:23

m7mk7ib

I can see why you might think that this is true, but do you know any angry people who are leading happy lives? The happiest people I know are those that are in love.  If anger is so effective then why aren't there any angry people reaping the rewards of all that anger? Why is it so common for the happiest people to have love, but not common for them to be angry? In my experience, whatever emotion a person most frequently feels becomes a core part of how they view themselves. Generally people try to maintain anything that is core to who they are (even if it is bad for them). So if your thing is that you're unlucky or you're always pissed off or that people treat you unfairly, then you start viewing everything through that lens. You begin to resist anything that is contradicts that story. Likewise, if you are deeply in love with your partner and things are going really well, then gratitude and happiness and contentment become core parts of who you are. Part of you starts to assume that you're just inherently lucky and you end up ignoring any facts that contradict that assumption.  Being angry and developing the need to be angry seems like a terrible way to make any lasting progress in your life. You'll always be reaching for something else to be angry about 

Constant-Parsley3609

2025-01-17 08:44:42

CMV: Anger is a stronger fuel than love to changing your life.

We've all grown up hearing that "love is the answer". In movies, music, and so on. But in real life, anger is a stronger fuel. It is what it takes for an overweight person to finally decide to lose weight. It is anger at their bullies who told them they would never amount to anything in life that makes them incredible successes. It is anger at the fact that they are stuck in poverty that makes them seek financial freedom. I use these 3 examples as common everyday scenarios that most people face. It is not love that makes these people change. It is anger at themselves, at someone else, or their situation.

sohoships

2025-01-16 21:59:01

m7kjbaj

I respectfully disagree. I personally know a woman who started trauma coaching first, out of anger, wanting to prove to people she was worthy, and she made a lot of money, but she wasn’t happy. She even ended up in abusive situations without even realizing it because all of her motivation was coming from a place of anger. She was even asked this same question by her first trauma coach. Is the time for this motivation to switch from anger to love? She thought that was silly and believed like you do that it was anger that got her to what success she had had. She hit rock bottom and discovered that anger had actually been the opposite of the fuel that she needed. She thought the key was to prove other people wrong, and when she started switching her motivation to prove other people right she has experienced massive growth and success. But not only her who I know how to experience this but also every single one of her clients. It’s when they switch their motivation from being fueled by anger to being fueled by love that they start taking off in ways that they never had before. Why don’t you put your motivation to the test like she did? Why don’t you take a week and see what it looks like when you switch your motivation from anger to love? When you’ve try it love based motivation, like actually try it for a week and intentionally get fueled by love, and not just think about it?

flippitjiBBer

2025-01-16 22:20:49

m7ljwmw

Anger is just as blind as love. You ever heard the expression "blind rage"? It is naive to think anger makes you strong. It makes you focused, but you are just as exposed in your weak points and things you won't see coming. You miss opportunities, and colour things with negativity that may not need it.  Anger has its place for sure in being motivated, but I wouldn't say it's stronger than love to do it.  In fact you could argue that if you directing the anger inwards and at yourself, you will do more harm than good than if it was love instead.  Also anger can run out of steam. Anger is a response to something. Somebody wronged you or harmed you. It's reactionary. It's finite.  Love is not. Love just is. Love is peace. If anger is the flame, love is the brazier. After everything else has burned away... It's still there. It's like hope. Even in the worst of times, even when you are utterly miserable and at your wits' end and *feel* hopeless, hope is still there, underneath everything, because everyone hopes for something - even if it's just that whatever they do relieves some of the awful things they are experiencing or feeling.  I would argue hope is a more powerful motivator than either anger or love, but between love and anger I still think loves comes out on top. 

roxieh

2025-01-17 03:19:50

CMV: YieldStar, the rent pricing software used by landlords, isn't price fixing.

The company RealPage, who create the software YieldStar, have been in the news for helping aid landlords in fixing prices. They've been investigated by congress, and there's other proposed lawsuits being brought against them, but all these things seem fundamentally misguided to me. All land and homes have some value based on the supply of parcels and units available and the demand for those parcels. The goal of tenants is to get a unit that meets their needs as cheaply as possible, and the goal of landlords is to rent out those units to suitable tenants for as much as possible. Having better information about what the market looks like helps landlords make better decisions about what to ask for, but it doesn't actually move those supply and demand curves around. It's a price discovery mechanism, not a price setting mechanism. It's not price fixing even if two (or three, or any number) separate landlords are using the same software. They're still in competition, they're still able to undercut each other to get business, there's no enforcement mechanism for defecting from the price other people are asking for on a unit. If we had two computers playing chess using identical versions of Stockfish, that wouldn't be match fixing either. Each instance of the program is in competition with each other, even though they're doing the same math under the hood. Even if Yieldstar's better information is help landlords get higher prices on their units, that just means it's determining what people are willing and able to pay, and the correct response to rising prices in a competitive market would be to just build more housing, not ban better market data collection and sharing. And that's the fundamental problem here: we have a housing shortage and that means home and rental prices are going to go up. If we are serious about making housing affordable we need to make it legal to build the kinds of housing people want in the places they want it instead of subjecting every new proposed development to all kinds of delays, impact fees, unnecessary environmental review, community input, affordability mandates, etc.

IAMADummyAMA

2025-01-14 14:06:12

m76d8ox

Okay I've set some time down and honestly the thing that will change your view is to [Read the complaint](https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1383316/dl?inline) against them, because it'll do a better job than an of us. But I will try to summarize. 1. YieldStar uses nonpublic, competitively sensitive information to allow competitors to generate prices. This includes not only public data like "What is the rent" but things like renewal rates, discounts, occupancy, expected occupancy, tenent data etc. Most jobs would fire you for leaking this information to competitors. 2. YieldStar TOS involves landlords agreeing to use the software 'as designed', meaning to let it set the prices. 85% of all rentals under Yieldstar were within 5% of the algorithmically recommended value. This price is based on the sum total of all of the nonpublic anticompetitive data provided to the company and effectively sets the market price in an area. 3. Landlords who differentiate from the pricing by more than 1% have to explain why to a Yieldstar agent. If the agent cannot convince them to stay with the software they are escalated up to a regional manager who will again explain the importance of sticking to pricing. 4. Realpage has a consistent business refrain of "A rising tide lifts all boats" and uses this argument when landlords attempt to defer from strict pricing. This is a tacit acknowledgment that they are fixing prices by avoiding competition. 5. Realpage explains that their software 'reveals hidden yield'. In context this yield is the amount that would normally be lost through competition where landlords do not share data with one another. 6. Internal Yieldstar document states the following: "Demand is fixed, but our piece of the pie is variable. Yieldstar recommends a Market Position every day, not a price. Previous achievement vs. Peers and Current need will *determine how competitive we need to be Each day*. 7. Yieldstar has a market floor below which it would not drop. In instances where a client cannot make occupancy without lowering prices the software instead reduces *occupancy* and optimizes against that lower number rather than simply lowering the rent as doing so may hurt other landlords. 8. Yieldstar includes a 'governor' that maximizes rents overall even if suboptimal for individual landlords. For example, if todays optimal price is better than yesterdays, it will recommend that price. If tomorrow's is lower the system will recommend yesterday's price in order to increase overall revenue even to the determent of the individual landlord at that moment. 9. Yieldstar uses 'lease expiration management' to collude between various landlords to minimize the overall number of units that come available at any one time and thus constrain supply to maximize leverage for the landlords as a whole, even to the detriment of individual landlords at specific times. I can go on if you'd like, but this is just price fixing by algorithm.

Orphan_Guy_Incognito

2025-01-14 17:40:08

m765kxr

>The question isn't really whether it's good for the consumer, it's whether it constitutes price fixing. Software that helps it's users find what the market will bear will always be bad for the users' clients, but only because the market is so skewed against them. The underlying issue is the shitty market, not the software doing the math to figure out how shitty the market is for renters. I'd argue that the software is price fixing, yes. With respect, you can literally see this in action. To pull straight from Propublica's article on the matter: "In one neighborhood in Seattle, ProPublica found, 70% of apartments were overseen by just 10 property managers, every single one of which used pricing software sold by RealPage." If the majority of landlords are setting their prices not based on their competitors, but on what the software tells them is most profitable, that is just price fixing. Traditional price fixing is a bunch of people going into a smoke filled room and agreeing "We'll all take $500 for this, yes?" and the price goes up to $500 because there is no more competition. This is the same thing but with the veneer of the software doing it. The proof is in the pudding. Rents skyrocketed in areas using Yieldstar compared to places that did not. This isn't accidental and it isn't the result of knowing what your competitors are doing. >Relying on the empathy of a business to keep prices low isn't a good policy. Building homes is, and that requires removing the barriers to construction. Back in the 70's IBM had a presentation with a quote that said: "A computer can never be held accountable, therefore a computer must never make a management decision." This is why. Removing humans from this process eliminates basic human empathy and replaced it with an algorithm that maximizes two things, profits and by extension human misery. >This goes back to my chess bot analogy. Even identical algorithms competing against each other are still competing. Normal market mechanics still apply. The fact that the units are successfully rented out at those higher prices means that those prices are what the market will bear, and they just didn't know that before. I am in 100% agreement that those high prices suck, are harmful to tenants, but the proper solution is that we should build so much housing that we crush landlord's ability to raise rents. They aren't, though, they're colluding. To give you an example that might help, in Canada we have 'Robelus', which is Rogers, Telus and Bell. Together these three companies set the prices for basically all telecommunications in Canada, and for *decades* they have been price fixing, colluding with one another to make sure that no actual competition happened. The result is that Canadians pay more than any other developed nation for our telecoms. Now you can say 'well the market can bear that', and that is true, but there is an exception to the above. The province of Saskatchewan had its own existing telecom (sasktel) with its own infrastructure. Their existence forced Robelus to actually compete for that market place, meaning Saskatchewan prices were roughly half of the canada-wide prices despite the fact that we are a rural hellscape that is basically the worst place for telecom to try and make money. The point of this example is that saying 'well the market can bear it, therefor the price is fine' is asinine. It is housing, people famously need shelter and they'll pay whatever they have to in order to get it. A price can be inflated by collusion, and as a society we don't have to accept that, we can do something about it. The proper solution is to break the fucking spine of what is effectively a cartel. We did it with Standard Oil, with Microsoft and plenty of others. This is an anti-competitive practice and should be treated as such.

Orphan_Guy_Incognito

2025-01-14 17:01:29

CMV: media companies that take down their own content because they later decide it's too offensive should be socially expected (if not legally required) to forfeit copyright to said content

Some examples of content that has been made thus unavailable: * The Simpsons episode *Stark Raving Dad* which had Michael Jackson as a guest star and was removed in 2019 due to sexual abuse allegations against Jackson * The Community episode *Advanced Dungeons and Dragons* which was removed in 2020 because it had a character dressed like a dark elf which made him look like he was wearing blackface * Several Dr. Seuss books such as *And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street* were withdrawn from publication in 2021 due to culturally insensitive imagery Now I get the impression that these specific takedowns were generally unpopular; i.e. most people didn't think that the content was offensive in the way that its owners claimed it was. I'm inclined to agree. But even if they were right and those episodes and books really were genuinely offensive, then the right thing to do is not to close it in a vault somewhere, but to **release it into the public domain**. This is because copyright, as I understand it, is **an artificial incentive program, not a natural right**. (It's unlikely that my mind would be changed on this specific point.) Society benefits when artists make art, so we give them **temporary monopolies** on copying and distribution of their art (by **temporarily limiting** the public's natural right to disseminate information) so that they can profit proportionally to how successful their art is. But when a copyright holder says "I own it so it's mine to do as I please" and closes it in a vault, then society does not benefit. This goes against the spirit of the law. And so when a company takes down their content for being offensive, it's like they're saying "we apologize for making this offensive thing... but we still reserve the legal right to profit from it in the future". Why would you do that if you genuinely believed it was that bad? Kind of makes you seem like you're just waiting for the backlash to subside so that you can profit from it later on. That's what seemingly happened to the Community episode when it was returned to streaming in 2024. How cynical! P. S. I recommend Matthew Yglesias' essay on this issue: [https://www.slowboring.com/p/dr-seuss-ip](https://www.slowboring.com/p/dr-seuss-ip) *Preemptive answers to likely objections:* * **Wouldn't it be too difficult to implement legally?** Maybe. I'm somewhat optimistic that it's doable but I'm not really interested to arguing this either way. If it cannot be a legal norm, then it at least should be a social norm - taking down content without waiving copyright should be considered distasteful and hypocritical. * **Shouldn't they get to keep copyright so that they can use inoffensive parts of the content for edited or derivative works?** As above: I'm sure there is some compromise scheme to be made where they waive their copyright to *only* the offensive parts of the content and keep everything else. E.g. something like the CC BY-ND license lets the original work to be distributed for free but one is still not allowed to make derivative works. * **Wouldn't offensive content being widely distributed (due to being in the public domain) damage the owner's reputation and brand?** Maybe sometimes, but that's too bad. Reputational damage control is not what copyright law is for. Also, the change in social norms that I argue for would make copyright forfeiture the proper way to *save* one's reputation - a kind of graceful gesture of apology. * **Wouldn't this discourage artists from making risque content when they know they'll never be able to take it back?** I think this might be the strongest objection to my point - if this is true then this is a real disincentive to make art, and so it would be within the spirit of copyright law to try and prevent this. But it doesn't seem that this is what actually motivates people. Also, see the previous point about reputation. * **Isn't it generally good that offensive content gets "censored" this way?** (*Mock quotes around "censored" because I don't want to argue whether a private company's decision could ever* really *qualify as censorship*.) In order words, shouldn't the general public be protected from offensive content by these kinds of decisions by copyright holders, even if they don't always make the right call? I don't think so, for the same general reasons people think censorship/"censorship" is bad. The Streisand Effect is strong here; whenever someone tells me that a company decided I shouldn't be able to see XYZ for my own good, my first impulse is "I'll be the judge of that!". I think very few people would feel guilty pirating something that's not legally available to buy anyway. But also: remember that copyright is an artificial restriction on the public's communication rights that's enforced by the state. So in a way, these episodes, books etc. being permanently taken down is a form of **state censorship**, just with private individuals making the call. If you think that the ends justify the means here, I think you should just argue for the content to be made illegal outright.

Daniel_B_plus

2025-01-16 14:48:56

m7ike80

>Companies who do this usually make statements explaining why. I suppose they could just remove stuff with no explanation, but that would also be an unpopular move. Right, but doesn't this completely defeat the goal of the OP? Like, instead of saying "I'm taking this down because it's offensive", I can just say "I'm taking this down for some other reason, it may come back sometime". Companies also pull content all of the time. While it's unpopular, it's not uncommon. >Because it should not be your call to make. It's your property, though. >I disagree that intellectual property should be treated as physical property. This is why you (and your posterity) can own stuff forever, while copyrights expire. You can still own something, or at least enjoy exclusive control over something, in a temporary sense. >Should patent law allow this on the grounds of "well, it's their intellectual property so they can do what they want"? Arguably, yeah.

MrGraeme

2025-01-16 15:54:55

m7i9jxb

> And so when a company takes down their content for being offensive, it's like they're saying "we apologize for making this offensive thing... but we still reserve the legal right to profit from it in the future". Why would you do that if you genuinely believed it was that bad? The answer should be obvious: they *don't* genuinely agree that the content is bad and they are hoping that in the future society will lighten up and let them make that content available again. >I'm sure there is some compromise scheme to be made where they waive their copyright to *only* the offensive parts of the content and keep everything else. I don't think this would really be possible. You would not be able to meaningfully use anything from the Michael Jackson episode of the Simpsons or the D&D episode of Community because all of the supposedly offensive scenes also contain the core characters and other unique creative elements of those series.

AcephalicDude

2025-01-16 15:02:11

CMV: media companies that take down their own content because they later decide it's too offensive should be socially expected (if not legally required) to forfeit copyright to said content

Some examples of content that has been made thus unavailable: * The Simpsons episode *Stark Raving Dad* which had Michael Jackson as a guest star and was removed in 2019 due to sexual abuse allegations against Jackson * The Community episode *Advanced Dungeons and Dragons* which was removed in 2020 because it had a character dressed like a dark elf which made him look like he was wearing blackface * Several Dr. Seuss books such as *And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street* were withdrawn from publication in 2021 due to culturally insensitive imagery Now I get the impression that these specific takedowns were generally unpopular; i.e. most people didn't think that the content was offensive in the way that its owners claimed it was. I'm inclined to agree. But even if they were right and those episodes and books really were genuinely offensive, then the right thing to do is not to close it in a vault somewhere, but to **release it into the public domain**. This is because copyright, as I understand it, is **an artificial incentive program, not a natural right**. (It's unlikely that my mind would be changed on this specific point.) Society benefits when artists make art, so we give them **temporary monopolies** on copying and distribution of their art (by **temporarily limiting** the public's natural right to disseminate information) so that they can profit proportionally to how successful their art is. But when a copyright holder says "I own it so it's mine to do as I please" and closes it in a vault, then society does not benefit. This goes against the spirit of the law. And so when a company takes down their content for being offensive, it's like they're saying "we apologize for making this offensive thing... but we still reserve the legal right to profit from it in the future". Why would you do that if you genuinely believed it was that bad? Kind of makes you seem like you're just waiting for the backlash to subside so that you can profit from it later on. That's what seemingly happened to the Community episode when it was returned to streaming in 2024. How cynical! P. S. I recommend Matthew Yglesias' essay on this issue: [https://www.slowboring.com/p/dr-seuss-ip](https://www.slowboring.com/p/dr-seuss-ip) *Preemptive answers to likely objections:* * **Wouldn't it be too difficult to implement legally?** Maybe. I'm somewhat optimistic that it's doable but I'm not really interested to arguing this either way. If it cannot be a legal norm, then it at least should be a social norm - taking down content without waiving copyright should be considered distasteful and hypocritical. * **Shouldn't they get to keep copyright so that they can use inoffensive parts of the content for edited or derivative works?** As above: I'm sure there is some compromise scheme to be made where they waive their copyright to *only* the offensive parts of the content and keep everything else. E.g. something like the CC BY-ND license lets the original work to be distributed for free but one is still not allowed to make derivative works. * **Wouldn't offensive content being widely distributed (due to being in the public domain) damage the owner's reputation and brand?** Maybe sometimes, but that's too bad. Reputational damage control is not what copyright law is for. Also, the change in social norms that I argue for would make copyright forfeiture the proper way to *save* one's reputation - a kind of graceful gesture of apology. * **Wouldn't this discourage artists from making risque content when they know they'll never be able to take it back?** I think this might be the strongest objection to my point - if this is true then this is a real disincentive to make art, and so it would be within the spirit of copyright law to try and prevent this. But it doesn't seem that this is what actually motivates people. Also, see the previous point about reputation. * **Isn't it generally good that offensive content gets "censored" this way?** (*Mock quotes around "censored" because I don't want to argue whether a private company's decision could ever* really *qualify as censorship*.) In order words, shouldn't the general public be protected from offensive content by these kinds of decisions by copyright holders, even if they don't always make the right call? I don't think so, for the same general reasons people think censorship/"censorship" is bad. The Streisand Effect is strong here; whenever someone tells me that a company decided I shouldn't be able to see XYZ for my own good, my first impulse is "I'll be the judge of that!". I think very few people would feel guilty pirating something that's not legally available to buy anyway. But also: remember that copyright is an artificial restriction on the public's communication rights that's enforced by the state. So in a way, these episodes, books etc. being permanently taken down is a form of **state censorship**, just with private individuals making the call. If you think that the ends justify the means here, I think you should just argue for the content to be made illegal outright.

Daniel_B_plus

2025-01-16 14:48:56

m7jol5m

How so? They agree it’s offensive so they don’t want it openly circulating where children or people not aware of the historical context might see it, but for the right price people can still see it if they think researching it is that valuable. But everyone will easily realize the company wants to hide offensive stuff yet abide by the new law.

clampythelobster

2025-01-16 19:21:40

m7i8b4t

So, Matthew Yglesias is basically okay with the copyright system, but thinks there should be more racist content available? I just don't get how your argument is compelling or cohesive  Or maybe I do get it and it's just dumb and pedantic to introduce this convoluted idea into our fucked up copyright law, which should be universally shortened, at least.

Connect_Drama_8214

2025-01-16 14:56:05

CMV: people convicted of looting during the LA wildfires should be swiftly executed for their crimes.

There have been dozens of arrests made for looting during the LA wildfire disaster. Many Los Angeles residents have refused to leave their homes, despite risk of death to the flames, out of fear for the looters. In fact, some looters have reportedly been caught dressing as firefighters themselves to get into people's homes and rob them, making the critical work of real firefighters much more difficult as well. I believe that this is a far worse crime than usual looting, this is taking advantage of people in their most desperate hour, and directly causing people to burn to death in their homes. They are thus culpable for every fatality to the flames. For the grave crime against humanity they have committed, the damage to the social fabric, and to set an example of them, they should be given the most severe punishment our government can give them, execution. Otherwise, when we have major natural tragedies in the future (which is inevitable under climate change), such behaviors will continue, leading to many more innocent people dying from burning/drowning/etc.

original_og_gangster

2025-01-16 14:06:27

m7i0n9c

Even if we accept that looters are deserving of the death penalty, the *swiftly* aspect of your proposal is very problematic. How do you swiftly determine whether someone was looting or saving the valuables of a friend or family member? How do you swiftly determine whether the valuables someone is carrying off are theirs or someone else's? Speeding up any process is going to make errors more likely. Once you've executed them, you can't bring them back. Support capital punishment all you like, but don't let that get in the way of due process.

MrGraeme

2025-01-16 14:19:07

m7i2vkb

I struggle with this line of thought, I know it’s a common argument against the death penalty, but I don’t fully understand it.  We trust our government enough to judge criminals and to sentence them to corresponding penalties for their crimes. If we can’t trust them to do that, then trusting them to enact any punishment for any reason is immoral too. Yes, you cannot reverse execution, but arguably, life in prison is just as torturous and you can’t reverse the psychological torture of years of solitary confinement either. 

original_og_gangster

2025-01-16 14:29:53

CMV: people convicted of looting during the LA wildfires should be swiftly executed for their crimes.

There have been dozens of arrests made for looting during the LA wildfire disaster. Many Los Angeles residents have refused to leave their homes, despite risk of death to the flames, out of fear for the looters. In fact, some looters have reportedly been caught dressing as firefighters themselves to get into people's homes and rob them, making the critical work of real firefighters much more difficult as well. I believe that this is a far worse crime than usual looting, this is taking advantage of people in their most desperate hour, and directly causing people to burn to death in their homes. They are thus culpable for every fatality to the flames. For the grave crime against humanity they have committed, the damage to the social fabric, and to set an example of them, they should be given the most severe punishment our government can give them, execution. Otherwise, when we have major natural tragedies in the future (which is inevitable under climate change), such behaviors will continue, leading to many more innocent people dying from burning/drowning/etc.

original_og_gangster

2025-01-16 14:06:27

m7i3gky

It cannot be as the regulatory framework for executions has been deemed unconstitutional by federal courts following the *Morales v. Tilton* Memorandum from the federal district court. Lifting the moratorium would merely lead to a protracted legal battle to reinstate the death penalty, which likely wouldn't be successful. Additionally, the state has already dismantled its death row facilities. The only way you are swiftly executing anyone in CA is by ignoring the laws of the state and country. The CDCR has been attempting for over a decade to create an execution protocol that doesn't violate the Constitution. They finally stopped trying in 2018. All the legal action to lift the *Morales* stays are pending. In order to achieve what you want, you'd need to: 1. Get the governor to lift the moratorium. 2. Wait for the CDCR to write new regulations. 3. Wait for the District court to agree that those regulations are Constitutional after they rejected them since 2006. 4. Wait for CA to rebuild, staff, train, and establish infrastructure for capital punishment that they already dismantled. To give you some perspective, the last time capital punishment was reinstated in CA was in 1978. The first execution following that occurred *in 1992.* You're looking at decades before anyone is executed. They will be tried and sentenced far before then and won't be eligible for capital punishment that was unconstitutional at the time they were sentenced. People can popular vote all they want. Unconstitutional is still impermissible and there is a lifetime of work that needs to happen to make CA's capital punishment legally compliant, if that is even possible.

Biptoslipdi

2025-01-16 14:32:43

m7i0vyz

I have 2 major issues with your reasoning. 1. The deterrent effect of the death penalty is not clear. Look at the states with the[ highest murder ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_intentional_homicide_rate#/media/File:Homicide_rates_per_100,000_by_state._FBI._US_map.svg)rates in the country and compare it to states with the[ death penalty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States). Notice something about them? States with capital punishment in general have higher murder rates than those without. Obviously cause and effect are difficult (both are likely downstream of economic development), and I'm not saying that the death penalty causes higher crime, but I don't think you can assume that the death penalty would have any deterrent effect. 2. I lack faith in our criminal justice system to adjudicate these cases fairly, particularly because you added "swiftly" to it. Giving a government the authority to kill a citizen is a big power, and not one that should be taken lightly. I believe every person should be given the right to due process, and favor an extremely rigorous appeal process for an unreversable punishment (death). So not only am I skeptical it would help prevent future looting, but it also would probably sentence innocent people to death, and at minimum target certain demographics at disproportionate rates. I just don't trust the system to enact any of this in a fair way.

fossil_freak68

2025-01-16 14:20:18

CMV: There is no good way to deal with unauthorized immigration to the United States

I don't see a good solution to the issue of unauthorized immigration to the U.S. The way I see it there are three basic responses, none of which are good. 1. Deport them all - I have read that that there are 11-12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. Locating them, apprehending them, and forcing them to leave the country would be an affront to human dignity. Yes, most of these people willingly broke the law but the vast majority are not committing any other crimes and are hardworking and productive members of their communities. Moreover, even if mass deportation were wise, it's not going to be possible. The amount of effort and skill that it would take to actually pull that off would require an organization like the Soviet KGB. And the U.S. doesn't have one of those. Its law enforcement and intelligence gathering is widely dispersed and very clunky. Attempting to deport 12 million people would be a logistical, administrative and humanitarian disaster. It would not work and even trying to implement such a policy would lead to civil unrest the likes of which the country has never seen. It is not a good idea. 2. Just letting them stay and pretending like it's all good - To me this seems like the most compelling idea. After all, unauthorized immigrants make a huge percentage of the workforce in areas like agriculture, construction and hospitality/food services. If they were not here performing those tasks, we would likely have a labor shortage and even more extreme inflation. Or so I have read. And that's where I get a bit of the "ick". The idea that "Americans won't do those jobs"? Really? I'll bet they would do those jobs if you paid them enough or gave them proper benefits. And maybe if American citizens were getting paid $17/hr to pick strawberries or change sheets at the Marriott, they would be able to afford a house. What's more, the very idea which I see repeated again and again by so called "progressives", is that we need unauthorized immigrants to do jobs Americans won't do. Think about the implications of this ideas. It suggests that there are certain jobs that are so shitty that only desperately poor people from El Salvador and Honduras are fit to do them. And the reason that they and not us can do this work is because they are willing to labor for very little pay and zero legal protections. I don’t like the idea of a underclass with no legal status which lives with the de facto acceptance of all of society. And that is what we have now as far as I can see. 3. Make it way easier to come - Also not a terrible idea in theory but how would it really work? Let's imagine that the U.S. starts issuing work visas to pretty much anyone who wants to come and work for a set amount of time. I'll bet that would be very popular. But then what? Are employers just free to exploit these work visa holders? Can they pay them as little as they want and not give any compensation for injury or sick leave or vacation time? If the answer is no to these questions, (and it should be) then you just removed the whole point of unauthorized immigration. And that is really the crux of the issue - undocumented workers are attractive to employers because they have no rights. Therefore a program or programs to bring in workers to do the same jobs legally doesn't get very far, does it? So that's my view. Please change it. This whole issue makes me very sad.

BluePillUprising

2025-01-16 15:48:24

m7ikn44

The largest source of “illegal immigrants” are usually asylum seekers who fail to file their paperwork or show up to their hearings to have their claims for asylum status determined. It seems the single biggest thing we could do is provide more funding to this system so the government can hire more judges and get these cases heard in a shorter period of time, maybe within a few days of them arriving at the border. That way if they don’t have a legitimate claim for asylum, they can be deported before they are released into the country and are harder to track down.

Xiibe

2025-01-16 15:56:06

m7imi5s

Here’s the perfect solution. Let everyone stay that has not committed a crime. But for those that have committed crimes, immediate deportation. I got into a car accident with an undocumented guy that never showed up to his court date for a distribution charge, and the cops didn’t say anything to him about it. If it was a citizen they would have gotten jail time just for skipping the court date. In metropolitan areas many people are under the impression that undocumented people are above the law as of recent and it does seem that way.

Suitable-Ad-8598

2025-01-16 16:05:05

CMV: There is no good way to deal with unauthorized immigration to the United States

I don't see a good solution to the issue of unauthorized immigration to the U.S. The way I see it there are three basic responses, none of which are good. 1. Deport them all - I have read that that there are 11-12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. Locating them, apprehending them, and forcing them to leave the country would be an affront to human dignity. Yes, most of these people willingly broke the law but the vast majority are not committing any other crimes and are hardworking and productive members of their communities. Moreover, even if mass deportation were wise, it's not going to be possible. The amount of effort and skill that it would take to actually pull that off would require an organization like the Soviet KGB. And the U.S. doesn't have one of those. Its law enforcement and intelligence gathering is widely dispersed and very clunky. Attempting to deport 12 million people would be a logistical, administrative and humanitarian disaster. It would not work and even trying to implement such a policy would lead to civil unrest the likes of which the country has never seen. It is not a good idea. 2. Just letting them stay and pretending like it's all good - To me this seems like the most compelling idea. After all, unauthorized immigrants make a huge percentage of the workforce in areas like agriculture, construction and hospitality/food services. If they were not here performing those tasks, we would likely have a labor shortage and even more extreme inflation. Or so I have read. And that's where I get a bit of the "ick". The idea that "Americans won't do those jobs"? Really? I'll bet they would do those jobs if you paid them enough or gave them proper benefits. And maybe if American citizens were getting paid $17/hr to pick strawberries or change sheets at the Marriott, they would be able to afford a house. What's more, the very idea which I see repeated again and again by so called "progressives", is that we need unauthorized immigrants to do jobs Americans won't do. Think about the implications of this ideas. It suggests that there are certain jobs that are so shitty that only desperately poor people from El Salvador and Honduras are fit to do them. And the reason that they and not us can do this work is because they are willing to labor for very little pay and zero legal protections. I don’t like the idea of a underclass with no legal status which lives with the de facto acceptance of all of society. And that is what we have now as far as I can see. 3. Make it way easier to come - Also not a terrible idea in theory but how would it really work? Let's imagine that the U.S. starts issuing work visas to pretty much anyone who wants to come and work for a set amount of time. I'll bet that would be very popular. But then what? Are employers just free to exploit these work visa holders? Can they pay them as little as they want and not give any compensation for injury or sick leave or vacation time? If the answer is no to these questions, (and it should be) then you just removed the whole point of unauthorized immigration. And that is really the crux of the issue - undocumented workers are attractive to employers because they have no rights. Therefore a program or programs to bring in workers to do the same jobs legally doesn't get very far, does it? So that's my view. Please change it. This whole issue makes me very sad.

BluePillUprising

2025-01-16 15:48:24

m7iver4

I'm sorry, but your view wasn't that "Americans don't support viable solutions to unauthorized immigration." It was that there are no viable solutions. Either you think this solution is viable, if it was implemented, or not. You offered one reason it wasn't - foreign workers would be exploited. We've resolved that by extending them workplace protections. You offer no reason why extending existing workplace protections to them wouldn't solve the exploitation problem. If your view is now "there is a good way to address unauthorized immigration to the US but Americans don't want it" then you've changed your view.

Biptoslipdi

2025-01-16 16:47:56

m7ikn44

The largest source of “illegal immigrants” are usually asylum seekers who fail to file their paperwork or show up to their hearings to have their claims for asylum status determined. It seems the single biggest thing we could do is provide more funding to this system so the government can hire more judges and get these cases heard in a shorter period of time, maybe within a few days of them arriving at the border. That way if they don’t have a legitimate claim for asylum, they can be deported before they are released into the country and are harder to track down.

Xiibe

2025-01-16 15:56:06

CMV: There is no good way to deal with unauthorized immigration to the United States

I don't see a good solution to the issue of unauthorized immigration to the U.S. The way I see it there are three basic responses, none of which are good. 1. Deport them all - I have read that that there are 11-12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. Locating them, apprehending them, and forcing them to leave the country would be an affront to human dignity. Yes, most of these people willingly broke the law but the vast majority are not committing any other crimes and are hardworking and productive members of their communities. Moreover, even if mass deportation were wise, it's not going to be possible. The amount of effort and skill that it would take to actually pull that off would require an organization like the Soviet KGB. And the U.S. doesn't have one of those. Its law enforcement and intelligence gathering is widely dispersed and very clunky. Attempting to deport 12 million people would be a logistical, administrative and humanitarian disaster. It would not work and even trying to implement such a policy would lead to civil unrest the likes of which the country has never seen. It is not a good idea. 2. Just letting them stay and pretending like it's all good - To me this seems like the most compelling idea. After all, unauthorized immigrants make a huge percentage of the workforce in areas like agriculture, construction and hospitality/food services. If they were not here performing those tasks, we would likely have a labor shortage and even more extreme inflation. Or so I have read. And that's where I get a bit of the "ick". The idea that "Americans won't do those jobs"? Really? I'll bet they would do those jobs if you paid them enough or gave them proper benefits. And maybe if American citizens were getting paid $17/hr to pick strawberries or change sheets at the Marriott, they would be able to afford a house. What's more, the very idea which I see repeated again and again by so called "progressives", is that we need unauthorized immigrants to do jobs Americans won't do. Think about the implications of this ideas. It suggests that there are certain jobs that are so shitty that only desperately poor people from El Salvador and Honduras are fit to do them. And the reason that they and not us can do this work is because they are willing to labor for very little pay and zero legal protections. I don’t like the idea of a underclass with no legal status which lives with the de facto acceptance of all of society. And that is what we have now as far as I can see. 3. Make it way easier to come - Also not a terrible idea in theory but how would it really work? Let's imagine that the U.S. starts issuing work visas to pretty much anyone who wants to come and work for a set amount of time. I'll bet that would be very popular. But then what? Are employers just free to exploit these work visa holders? Can they pay them as little as they want and not give any compensation for injury or sick leave or vacation time? If the answer is no to these questions, (and it should be) then you just removed the whole point of unauthorized immigration. And that is really the crux of the issue - undocumented workers are attractive to employers because they have no rights. Therefore a program or programs to bring in workers to do the same jobs legally doesn't get very far, does it? So that's my view. Please change it. This whole issue makes me very sad.

BluePillUprising

2025-01-16 15:48:24

m7isvod

I will argue a good way was figured out if you allow for time. Consider this NY Times opinion piece: https://youtu.be/HyzGkEV3p2g?si=Zuzq76KfbtE2FOr6 1) Quiet diplomacy to give neighboring leaders an opportunity to come to the table 2) clarifying incentives and disincentives, along with competing opportunities (such as alternative immigration along the way to Mexico, or making the legal paperwork more accessible so less people will avoid the legal process) 3) respectful and dignified handling deportation so everyone is encouraged to do it the right way, no one will want to waste the US time if we treat immigrants with respect when sending them back home, what's more they will share their experience 4) including employers in the penalization, but also tying immigrant labor to understaffed industries and incentives to sponsorships in those cases so the people are directed efficiently to where they are most helpful 5) upholding birthright and DACA because it's in the constitution, it's who we are and changing that means changing a big part of what is good about America. And yes this means creating pathways for families to stay together if they are employed and civil. All of us are created equal and we stand up to bullies. We shouldn't employ fear of the "other" and turn on our neighbors in need for political points, throwing our cultural identity into disarray. 6) we have to tackle mis/disinformation about immigration as a threat. John Oliver had a good piece on this: https://youtu.be/axsgzg3RyF0?si=AZEcLCl8B9Gu_jpH Case in point: if you adhere to compassion, common sense and ideal democratic principles, yes there is a "good" way to deal with illegal immigration. Anything contrary is just a way to win votes.

Good_Requirement2998

2025-01-16 16:35:45

m7iliix

>I have read that that there are 11-12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. Locating them, apprehending them, and forcing them to leave the country would be an affront to human dignity. It's not an affront to human dignity, they're taking advantage of our niceness and sowing division in our society for years to come (Look at DACA for example). This is a completely viable solution. >Yes, most of these people willingly broke the law but the vast majority are not committing any other crimes and are hardworking and productive members of their communities. So what? They're undermining American wages and sucking up public resources (school if not welfare) and we never invited them to come. >Moreover, even if mass deportation were wise, it's not going to be possible. It is possible, you just have the will to do it and constantly enforce the law. It won't be done in a day, but a consistent approach will achieve this. >organization like the Soviet KGB. And the U.S. doesn't have one of those. KGB was the Soviet Intelligence service. The US version of this is the FBI and CIA. >Attempting to deport 12 million people would be a logistical, administrative and humanitarian disaster. Why? Millions of people flooding into the US the last 4 years was manageable and was even encouraged. >It would not work and even trying to implement such a policy would lead to civil unrest the likes of which the country has never seen. That's for people to decide and the only reason there would be civil unrest is because Americans want to prevent it for political reasons. Get on board and we can get it done.

IT_ServiceDesk

2025-01-16 16:00:19

CMV: It is not hypocritical to eat imitations of proscribed foods according to your ideology.

Various ideologies and religions assign limitations on what foods you should/shouldn't eat. Vegetarians don't eat meat, vegans don't eat animal byproducts either, Muslims only eat Halal, Jews eat Kosher etc. Many of these foods also have imitations that do hypothetically fit within the confines of these limitations. Imitation milk is made from soy/rice/coconut/almonds, imitation meat is made from vegetable products, imitation crab from other fish, etc. If a vegetarian decides to have a beyond burger there is nothing wrong with that (purely from an ideological standpoint, I am not going to discuss potential health issues with over-processed foods). The food they are eating fits within their ideology: The beyond burger is made of vegetative matter. The fact that it is an imitation of meat and vegetarians don't eat meat is irrelevant. Similarly, the reason for eating a beyond burger is also irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the vegetarian is making a choice to find an alternate product that upholds his values. EDIT: Since a lot of people are asking about why this came up: I (Kosher keeping Jew) was told off for making sushi at home with imitation crab a few weeks ago. I was told that I should just eat crab or not bother with the imitation since it wasn't appropriate. Crab isn't Kosher, the imitation is made from pollock, which is.

Tuvinator

2025-01-16 09:35:50

m7gg2p5

I think it's important to consider \*why\* a food is proscribed in order to evaluate this. If the proscription is due to the nature of the food itself, e.g. the food is intrinsically "unclean" or offensive to God, or whatever, then substituting it for a food that is similar in taste but does not cross those same boundaries is fine. In other cases, like the traditional requirement for Catholics to refrain from eating meat on Fridays, the target of the proscription is not the food itself, but the behavior--in that case, the goal is to fast and do penance, which you can't do if you're enjoying something that isn't technically proscribed but gives you the same pleasure of consumption.

opinicus

2025-01-16 09:43:18

m7gs9nd

It depends on your specific ideology/community. You are a Kosher keeping Jew, and as such would presumably only eat imitations of treif foods that are hechshered (i.e. approved by the community). But that sort of begs the question. After all, might Kashrut organizations refuse to certify imitations of proscribed foods simply because it is an imitation? Yes! Impossible Foods has tried and failed to obtain Kosher certification for Impossible Pork, purely because of the word "pork" in the name. Thus, community standards for Jews do not currently permit *all* imitations of proscribed foods. I (a Jew who eats non-kosher vegetarian foods) would have to think hard before eating it.

Falernum

2025-01-16 10:46:18

CMV: clean freaks are the worst roommates to have

I have had many roommates. The worst roommates were usually clean freaks. I get that nobody wants to live in a pig sty, but sometimes it is over the top. For example: how dare I accidentally fall asleep while eating and watching TV and leave a plate out? How dare I walk around my room above theirs on a creaky floor and they have noise sensitivity issues? How dare I forget a sauce at the back of the fridge that is past expiration? Then there is the issue with the fair splitting of cleaning duties. They tend to do frequent "deep cleans" of the place when to my eyes, it looks totally fine. Then they get mad that "they do most of the cleaning" when they are cleaning so unnecessarily often that it just never gets dirty enough for me to clean. And Im certainly not going to clean as often as a clean freak just because they are a germaphobe. I feel that that isnt fair either. If someone cleans and scrubs unnecessarily often, it is ridiculous to expect me to do the same just so that I am doing "my half".

Female-Fart-Huffer

2025-01-16 17:50:46

m7k6wck

There are many types that could be worse but I'll pick the opposite. I had a roommate in University who was so filthy, his clothes would get mold on them. Going into his room id immediately start sniffing because his blankets were so dusty and musty. The stench would pour out of his room and into the shared areas. So thick sometimes it actually had a taste. Was too ashamed to even bring girls over. He smelled like a mix of sweat and piss, cooked over cigarette smoke. I'd rather take a clean freak than a mud demon.

ninja-gecko

2025-01-16 21:05:58

m7jmoyc

I agree that it is ridiculous sometimes how much people want cleanliness, and it’s definitely difficult when roommates are incompatible on how much they want to clean. However, I would say it’s absolutely worse to live with a hoarder who pees in buckets and keeps cat litter boxes that aren’t cleaned around the house. Old newspapers and things like that. So if you’re saying worst, I’m gonna say that an unhygienic hoarder is worse than a clean freak.

Constellation-88

2025-01-16 19:11:13

CMV: clean freaks are the worst roommates to have

I have had many roommates. The worst roommates were usually clean freaks. I get that nobody wants to live in a pig sty, but sometimes it is over the top. For example: how dare I accidentally fall asleep while eating and watching TV and leave a plate out? How dare I walk around my room above theirs on a creaky floor and they have noise sensitivity issues? How dare I forget a sauce at the back of the fridge that is past expiration? Then there is the issue with the fair splitting of cleaning duties. They tend to do frequent "deep cleans" of the place when to my eyes, it looks totally fine. Then they get mad that "they do most of the cleaning" when they are cleaning so unnecessarily often that it just never gets dirty enough for me to clean. And Im certainly not going to clean as often as a clean freak just because they are a germaphobe. I feel that that isnt fair either. If someone cleans and scrubs unnecessarily often, it is ridiculous to expect me to do the same just so that I am doing "my half".

Female-Fart-Huffer

2025-01-16 17:50:46

m7jf51t

You are just saying this because you’re not getting along with your clean roommate but you know damn well a clean roommate is better than a dirty roommate. If there’s a problem with your noise above theirs, swap rooms. If you have a problem with cleaning fairness, sit down and lay out everything you guys think needs doing and split it up. Just communicate and work through it. But at the end of the day there are far worse roommates to have than one who cleans your living space haha. Imagine the opposite where they leave trash everywhere and you get roaches or rats. Or a roommate who steals your stuff, smokes and stinks up the place, drinks a lot and gets violent, etc. there are so many worse possibilities.

WeekendThief

2025-01-16 18:29:09

m7jqgnx

> how dare I accidentally fall asleep while eating and watching TV and leave a plate out? How dare I walk around my room above theirs on a creaky floor and they have noise sensitivity issues? How dare I forget a sauce at the back of the fridge that is past expiration? The fact that you think these are comparable issues kind of puts you as the source of the problem. Leaving a plate of food out overnight that attracts flies and vermin is a world apart from stepping on a squeaky floorboard. The only thing they have in common is that someone who doesn’t consider them to be a problem is at best inconsiderate, or at worst lazy and selfish. I can’t comment on the sauce as that’s too specific. But do you regularly leave it to others to clear up your mess for you?

silverbolt2000

2025-01-16 19:32:00

CMV: clean freaks are the worst roommates to have

I have had many roommates. The worst roommates were usually clean freaks. I get that nobody wants to live in a pig sty, but sometimes it is over the top. For example: how dare I accidentally fall asleep while eating and watching TV and leave a plate out? How dare I walk around my room above theirs on a creaky floor and they have noise sensitivity issues? How dare I forget a sauce at the back of the fridge that is past expiration? Then there is the issue with the fair splitting of cleaning duties. They tend to do frequent "deep cleans" of the place when to my eyes, it looks totally fine. Then they get mad that "they do most of the cleaning" when they are cleaning so unnecessarily often that it just never gets dirty enough for me to clean. And Im certainly not going to clean as often as a clean freak just because they are a germaphobe. I feel that that isnt fair either. If someone cleans and scrubs unnecessarily often, it is ridiculous to expect me to do the same just so that I am doing "my half".

Female-Fart-Huffer

2025-01-16 17:50:46

m7skqg1

Actually, the worst roommates to have are nosy ones. The ones not minding their own business. The cleanliness freak falls in that category because they let their preferences and obsessive tendencies get in the way of efficient cohabitation. Similarly, people who are nosy, bitchy and have got less to do in life than make the lives of the ones around them difficult. If you have problem with the expired sauce packet and no one seems to take notice of it just pick it up and throw it in the trash can. The cleanliness bit is a blessing, the nosy behaviour is the curse here.

yadayadayodayoda

2025-01-18 07:42:17

m7jzjgl

Clean people make great room mates / partners. The main thing they need is to be self-aware about it. Realise that their standards are theirs, not yours. If they accept this and clean stuff because they want to and enjoy it, and don't resent you for not cleaning to their standards, then surely this is a win. There are two difficult points: * when the 'clean freak' person expects you to keep up to their standards which aren't reasonable * when the less clean person freeloads off the cleaner person, leading to resentment If both of you can be self-aware enough not to reach these issues, then there's no problem.

MissTortoise

2025-01-16 20:23:20

CMV: Pete Hegseth is wholly unqualified to be SecDef.

As stated above, my view is that Pete Hegseth is possibly the least qualified candidate that has ever been nominated for the position. I’ve served both Active and as a Reservist, and his resume borders on insulting. Here’s a brief breakdown of my reasoning 1. He’s never led a large organization or one with a large budget. By my research, he’s led a few non-profits that had less than 50 employees. 2. He doesn’t have any experience in things like acquisition, diplomacy, policy, or congressional appropriations. Which are all important in one way or another and are things most senior officers are trained in. 3. His military experience is relatively light for someone who is entirely basing their qualifications on it. He’s only served a few deployments working in training or at the tactical level, but he doesn’t have any experience at the operational or strategic levels of a war which are going to be much more relevant for SecDef. He served roughly 10 years as an Officer in the National Guard and transitioned to IRR (an inactive, non-drilling status) about the same time he was promoted to Major. I don’t have anything negative to say about his service, but on its face there isn’t anything that stands out compared to the thousands of other members serving at similar ranks and time in service. Overall, I don’t think Pete Hegseth has much in the way of real experience that would be important or valuable for the position of SecDef. I’m not saying we even need someone with military experience. The current challenges of the military and priorities of the administration may require someone with skillsets outside of the military. In my view, Hegseth was selected strictly based on his status as an ideologue who will try to “de-woke” the military and ignores any real qualifications which might be valuable in facing the very real challenges being faced by our military. (I’m purposely leaving out his scandals and opinions, which I also find concerning, to keep this a bit more focused and easier to respond to.)

2025-01-16 09:47:00

m7gs0ff

**I don’t think Pete Hegseth has much in the way of real experience that would be important or valuable for the position of SecDef.** So, you just want to keep recycling the same DoD friends-n-family? What if we really need a change at DoD? Not saying any candidate is that great, but at least he's not a lifer.

Old-Tiger-4971

2025-01-16 10:45:01

m7gp6ru

I don’t believe having served in the military is a necessary qualification for that position. Even the commander in chief doesn’t have that condition. I do believe experience in running a large organization and the ability to delegate is a necessary qualification. I’m not sure his resume in this area is adequate.

Silly-Resist8306

2025-01-16 10:30:54

CMV: The Reddit blackouts a few years ago were doomed to fail; the protesting mods should have banded together to promote an alternative to Reddit

A few years ago, a lot of Reddit moderators went on "strike" and temporarily "blacked out" their subreddits in protest against some changes made by Reddit-the-company. As far as I know the protesting mods got nothing out of this. IMO this was predictable. There is a _demand_ for a forum like Reddit. The blackouts did nothing to satisfy the demand. As a redditor, I postponed a few threads that I had wanted to post, but when it became clear that things were returning to normal, I posted the discussions and questions I had in mind. The best way the protesting mods could have hoped to make a change would have been to _pitch an alternative to Reddit_. That way, some Redditors might be willing to switch and abandon Reddit, which would hurt Reddit-the-company and give the protesters some leverage. They didn't all need to suggest the _same_ alternative, but preferably it should be as convenient as possible, to encourage as many redditors as possible to emigrate. As long as the demand remained, and there was no good alternative, users were bound to return to Reddit. As far as I know, there are no really good alternatives to Reddit in general. There are sites that can replace Reddit for _some_ specific purposes, such as Quora and Stack Exchange, but those are much less general. There also exist old-fashioned fora, but few of them have a level of activity that can compete with a decent subreddit. The best option for a general alternative is Facebook groups, and that is worse than Reddit in a lot of ways IMO. But with enough community support, an alternative to Reddit could be viable. That time with the blackouts was a great opportunity to pitch such an alternative. Sadly, the protesters did not.

SpectrumDT

2025-01-16 01:23:36

m7ewroy

Some mods/subreddits did push Reddit alternatives - Lemmy and Kbin in particular. They just didn’t gain all that much traction in the end. /r/Lemmymigration has all of its activity from around the time of the blackouts /r/kbinmigration is the same. It apparently got locked out by Reddit despite following the codes of conduct. /r/redditalternatives saw big upticks in use and discussion around that same timeframe. I’m not entirely sure what would change your view here, but there absolutely was at least some form of collective push to migrate to a Reddit alternative during the blackouts, even if it wasn’t particularly effective or widespread.

CosmicJ

2025-01-16 01:57:19

m7f0nyj

If people wanted to use an alternative reddit, they would have. But they don't, and there also really isn't an alternative (not even close to one afaik), and the idea that the mods should have made the alternative themselves is silly. You can hardly blame the protesting mods for not promoting something that doesn't exist. And even if, theoretically speaking, they were pushing an alternative, the most likely result would had been an instant ban-everyone-involved clampdown by reddit staff itself. The relative harmlessness of the protest was the reason why the response was just waiting it out. A different protest would have gotten a wildly different reaction.

Eastern-Bro9173

2025-01-16 02:35:41

[ Removed by Reddit ]

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the [content policy](/help/contentpolicy). ]

AleksioDrago

2025-01-16 10:39:59

m7gsu6b

I would argue that one of the primary purposes of civilization is to stop conflicts from being resolved primarily through violence. It's a way to encourage cooperation, to ensure that people who are physically unable to win a fight still have their views considered and represented (and aren't forced into some lesser category by virtue of the fact that others can physically dominate them.) This isn't to say that I don't see where you're coming from - there's SO many people who I would love to see get a good punch in the face. But it very quickly becomes a slippery slope. Who decides who these people are? How violent is the reprisal? If a majority of people think that Joe Biden should get curb stomped because inflation is high, does it happen? It seems like it very very quickly devolves into a might-makes-right society without any principles. The better solution is to make social ostracism painful again. In pre-internet smaller communities, someone saying "your body, my choice" would just be shunned. No friends, no job, no community connections. It's a startlingly effective punishment, as humans are social creatures. But the internet has mitigated the impact of that kind of punishment - there's enough assholes out there that they can form their own communities and don't have to worry, in fact they can thrive, on antagonizing others outside of their group. I'm not 100% sure what the solve is, but I don't think it's physically hurting these people.

OctopusParrot

2025-01-16 10:49:06

m7gugpa

1. Beating People Up = Morality? If physical violence were a valid path to moral correction, we’d be living in a utopia right now because, historically, humans have never hesitated to use violence. Spoiler: we’re not in a utopia. Violence creates fear, not change, and it often reinforces the views of those being attacked. A bigot who gets punched in the face doesn’t think, “Wow, I should rethink my worldview.” They think, “I’m a martyr for my cause.” 2. Who Decides the Line? The post suggests beating up “Nazis,” racists, and bigots—which sounds nice until you realize “bigot” is a subjective term. What if someone decides your beliefs are worth a black eye? Giving society permission to physically attack people based on subjective morality is a slippery slope to chaos. 3. Universal Healthcare for Better Beatings? This point is so absurd it’s almost poetic. Advocating for universal healthcare so people can safely beat others up is like building a fire extinguisher factory next to a fireworks plant—counterproductive at best. 4. Keyboard Warriors vs. Actual Consequences Frustration with online hate and toxic behavior is valid, but using violence to address it is both lazy and ineffective. Psychological and social solutions, like deplatforming harmful rhetoric or educating people, yield much better results in the long run.

Ready_Calendar9058

2025-01-16 10:57:01

[ Removed by Reddit ]

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the [content policy](/help/contentpolicy). ]

AleksioDrago

2025-01-16 10:39:59

m7gugpa

1. Beating People Up = Morality? If physical violence were a valid path to moral correction, we’d be living in a utopia right now because, historically, humans have never hesitated to use violence. Spoiler: we’re not in a utopia. Violence creates fear, not change, and it often reinforces the views of those being attacked. A bigot who gets punched in the face doesn’t think, “Wow, I should rethink my worldview.” They think, “I’m a martyr for my cause.” 2. Who Decides the Line? The post suggests beating up “Nazis,” racists, and bigots—which sounds nice until you realize “bigot” is a subjective term. What if someone decides your beliefs are worth a black eye? Giving society permission to physically attack people based on subjective morality is a slippery slope to chaos. 3. Universal Healthcare for Better Beatings? This point is so absurd it’s almost poetic. Advocating for universal healthcare so people can safely beat others up is like building a fire extinguisher factory next to a fireworks plant—counterproductive at best. 4. Keyboard Warriors vs. Actual Consequences Frustration with online hate and toxic behavior is valid, but using violence to address it is both lazy and ineffective. Psychological and social solutions, like deplatforming harmful rhetoric or educating people, yield much better results in the long run.

Ready_Calendar9058

2025-01-16 10:57:01

m7gsu6b

I would argue that one of the primary purposes of civilization is to stop conflicts from being resolved primarily through violence. It's a way to encourage cooperation, to ensure that people who are physically unable to win a fight still have their views considered and represented (and aren't forced into some lesser category by virtue of the fact that others can physically dominate them.) This isn't to say that I don't see where you're coming from - there's SO many people who I would love to see get a good punch in the face. But it very quickly becomes a slippery slope. Who decides who these people are? How violent is the reprisal? If a majority of people think that Joe Biden should get curb stomped because inflation is high, does it happen? It seems like it very very quickly devolves into a might-makes-right society without any principles. The better solution is to make social ostracism painful again. In pre-internet smaller communities, someone saying "your body, my choice" would just be shunned. No friends, no job, no community connections. It's a startlingly effective punishment, as humans are social creatures. But the internet has mitigated the impact of that kind of punishment - there's enough assholes out there that they can form their own communities and don't have to worry, in fact they can thrive, on antagonizing others outside of their group. I'm not 100% sure what the solve is, but I don't think it's physically hurting these people.

OctopusParrot

2025-01-16 10:49:06

CMV: The discourse surrounding the California fires proves the differences between Americans are now irreconcilable.

The last few days have really confirmed a suspicion that I’ve held for a few years now: the “United” States might as well be two different countries already. Before anybody asks, the point of this post isn’t “why can’t we all be nice to each other?,” I genuinely feel the chasm between right and left in the United States cannot be bridged; both sides are on completely different teams, and they, especially the left, would rather see America destroyed than the other team be successful. The front page of reddit is currently chock-full of threads calling Republicans “heartless” and “inhuman” for their response to the California fire, which is fair enough. However, it hasn’t been lost on me that these are the same people who were just a few months ago filling comment sections about the Panhandle fires and the Florida hurricanes with comments to the tune of “Serves those inbred Trumptards right!” They expect compassion and sympathy, but they have none to give. My argument is that both sides of the political spectrum, especially the left, now view the opposition not as dissidents, but as inferiors; a defective, detestable cancer worthy of hatred and scorn, and deserving of suffering. I truly believe that the United States is not salvageable. That said, I am open to changing this view. The United States has weathered storms before, and while I believe the crisis we face is unprecedented and unique, I also understand that the U.S. is an unprecedented and unique country, and that it’s not too late for us to change course. Please, change my view.

RoboticsGuy277

2025-01-15 20:56:04

m7e7jw6

I'll admit: I have no citations. This is largely anecdotal (as most things are). That being said, it came to me as a pretty convincing argument (which you describe happening for you on the other side). I think it comes, at least in part, from stuff like this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online\_disinhibition\_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect) & [https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/greater-internet-fuckwad-theory#fn4](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/greater-internet-fuckwad-theory#fn4) Let me ask a question: do you think a man is what he says, or what he does? A follow-up: is a man unhibited his Truest Self? Is the Id the most """real""", authentic/genuine/sincere heart of a man?

Khyrberos

2025-01-15 22:40:54

m7drtro

>Do you really think that the left dehumanizes the right more than the right dehumanizes the left? That's generally been my experience, yes. I can't remember the exact study, but there was a scientific paper that found that "conservatives" generally understand the way "liberals" think, but not vice-versa. If you were to ask me "Which side hates the other more?," I would answer the left. >Why "especially the left"? Do you hold them to a higher standard? No, not necessarily. They are just far and away the most hateful and vitriolic side right now. I've seen far more comments criticizing conservatives for mocking California than I've seen conservatives mocking California, many of which are from accounts who openly say they would have no sympathy for Republicans in the same situation.

RoboticsGuy277

2025-01-15 21:06:39

CMV: For straight married couples, you shouldn't have friends of the opposite sex.

I've made a few comments on Reddit previously that get downvoted a lot because of my position on this. That makes me believe that maybe I should change my position. When you're a straight individual and are married, you should not have friends of the opposite sex. The number one reason for my position on this is affairs. **Time and time again, people fall into affairs because there's a small fracture in their marriage and a friend fills the void.** It usually starts innocent enough - meaning, people don't plan to have the affair. It's simply a friendship. But for a few of reasons, it turns into something more. 1. **You trust the friend.** This often leads to sharing private information about your marriage with them and often leads to asking for advice about your marriage. This begins the slippery slope of bonding over a situation where the friend genuinely wants to help you, and you need their emotional support. 2. **The friend likely knows or has met your spouse.** Similar to the point above, this is comforting for you because the friend will better understand the problems you are having in your marriage because they are familiar with your spouse. 3. **Your spouse is comfortable with you talking to this person already.** This allows communication to happen 'in plain sight', because the foundation has been laid that you and the friend are allowed to communicate, with or without the spouse present. Even when communications become 'more than friendly', you feel less guilt because your spouse knows that you're 'just friends' with this person. It reinforces the justifications you are already having to make about the emotional connection you share with this friend that has gone beyond that of a friendship. 4. **The negative information you're giving the friend about your spouse encourages the friend to do/say the opposite of your spouse, making them appear better suited for you and you start to compare your friend and the spouse with each other.** I'm not sure if there's a technical name for this phenomenon, but in short, you're giving the friend a cheat code for how to be a better partner for you than your spouse. For instance, you say, "Every time I try to talk to my spouse, he hijacks my story and makes it about himself and never tells me he understands." The friend promptly responds with "I understand, that must be really hard for you." Now, it's a great response by the friend, but also an opportunity to continue to drive a wedge between you and your spouse with the information that *you* provided. The friend feels needed and appreciated, you feel understand and heard, and again - the relationship continues to develop into something far beyond a friendship. This isn't based on a real connection, but rather opportunistic behaviors by the friend who is now attached and leverages the information you've provided them to develop a deeper connection with you. 5. **The relationship with the friend is easier to maintain that the marriage; no bills/money to argue over, no children to interfere - just an emotional connection that may develop into something sexual over time.** As mentioned in the previous point, nothing about this is more 'real' than your marriage - in fact, it's everything but. But your once friend now has a halo on and you're fantasizing about running away together to escape your marriage problems with the person you made your vows to. The above points show why this happens even when you didn't plan on it, and why it continues even after you realize it's happening. Being friends with the opposite sex during a marriage may be well intended but often ends up as something more than you planned. Change my view that straight couples shouldn't have friends of the opposite sex.

2025-01-15 12:33:16

m7dmfp6

To me, there are several instances in where communication needs to be hidden from the spouse. As an example, speaking with the friend (privately) for a suprise birthday party. Or with his brother! Does this communication/relationship need to last for a duration of time for it to be considered cheating? Say a man planning a proposal. He may feel the need to involve a friend or two of the girlfriend (ik it’s not marriage yet, but just an example) to plan for months to get things working. Specific details, meetups, and private conversations that the girlfriend cannot find out about. This could apply for other large events in life as well.

Asleep-Ad-4929

2025-01-15 20:35:47

m7b12fe

If you think it’s bad because it might lead to affairs, then why not change your view to simply “people shouldn’t have affairs”? Why punish the millions of people with friends of the opposite sex who don’t have affairs? Or, alternatively, if you’re going to oppose the thing that could lead to the bad thing, then why stop at just one level? Why not say that straight married people shouldn’t have acquaintances of the opposite sex, because it might lead to friendship, which might lead to an affair? Or they shouldn’t even talk to or work with people of the opposite sex? Come to think of it, maybe we should abolish marriage — that would eliminate all extramarital affairs.

BitcoinMD

2025-01-15 12:46:57

CMV: For straight married couples, you shouldn't have friends of the opposite sex.

I've made a few comments on Reddit previously that get downvoted a lot because of my position on this. That makes me believe that maybe I should change my position. When you're a straight individual and are married, you should not have friends of the opposite sex. The number one reason for my position on this is affairs. **Time and time again, people fall into affairs because there's a small fracture in their marriage and a friend fills the void.** It usually starts innocent enough - meaning, people don't plan to have the affair. It's simply a friendship. But for a few of reasons, it turns into something more. 1. **You trust the friend.** This often leads to sharing private information about your marriage with them and often leads to asking for advice about your marriage. This begins the slippery slope of bonding over a situation where the friend genuinely wants to help you, and you need their emotional support. 2. **The friend likely knows or has met your spouse.** Similar to the point above, this is comforting for you because the friend will better understand the problems you are having in your marriage because they are familiar with your spouse. 3. **Your spouse is comfortable with you talking to this person already.** This allows communication to happen 'in plain sight', because the foundation has been laid that you and the friend are allowed to communicate, with or without the spouse present. Even when communications become 'more than friendly', you feel less guilt because your spouse knows that you're 'just friends' with this person. It reinforces the justifications you are already having to make about the emotional connection you share with this friend that has gone beyond that of a friendship. 4. **The negative information you're giving the friend about your spouse encourages the friend to do/say the opposite of your spouse, making them appear better suited for you and you start to compare your friend and the spouse with each other.** I'm not sure if there's a technical name for this phenomenon, but in short, you're giving the friend a cheat code for how to be a better partner for you than your spouse. For instance, you say, "Every time I try to talk to my spouse, he hijacks my story and makes it about himself and never tells me he understands." The friend promptly responds with "I understand, that must be really hard for you." Now, it's a great response by the friend, but also an opportunity to continue to drive a wedge between you and your spouse with the information that *you* provided. The friend feels needed and appreciated, you feel understand and heard, and again - the relationship continues to develop into something far beyond a friendship. This isn't based on a real connection, but rather opportunistic behaviors by the friend who is now attached and leverages the information you've provided them to develop a deeper connection with you. 5. **The relationship with the friend is easier to maintain that the marriage; no bills/money to argue over, no children to interfere - just an emotional connection that may develop into something sexual over time.** As mentioned in the previous point, nothing about this is more 'real' than your marriage - in fact, it's everything but. But your once friend now has a halo on and you're fantasizing about running away together to escape your marriage problems with the person you made your vows to. The above points show why this happens even when you didn't plan on it, and why it continues even after you realize it's happening. Being friends with the opposite sex during a marriage may be well intended but often ends up as something more than you planned. Change my view that straight couples shouldn't have friends of the opposite sex.

2025-01-15 12:33:16

m7dswec

Even then, I think that your argument is falsely based on the belief that people inherently will do this at some point in time. If your relationship was set up different, do you believe that you would have an affair at one point in time? Or that your wife would? I would say that you don’t— though your post makes it clear that you believe that this usually happens accidentally, not intentionally. I think it is hard, due to being humans, to assume such a negative stance upon ourselves. If you say that you ~could~ see yourself doing this, (if you hadn’t already set the boundaries that you and your wife have), then there is not much to say. That would then mean that you believe that you/other people are inherently bad. When I stand to believe that I could not fathom ever cheating on my partner, nor him on me. It is hard to speak on the other person in the relationship, which is why I only ask of yourself. I agree with you on some of your replies— that the numbers may be skewed on only 20% of relationships experiencing infidelity, and that it may be more than that. I guess my view at the end of the day, to try and change yours is just this.. if my partner does cheat, I would rather it happen, than not happen. If the cracks in the relationship, are enough for them to sneakily hide in the comfort of a friend, going to cheat? Then I wouldn’t want to be in said relationship with them anyway, if they cannot come to me first. I would not choose to make platonic friendships not allowed, because that is just making what they (hope not, but may) want to do even harder. If they want to cheat, be my guest. I will not hide behind these boundaries, because they should not be needed when you have found your true person, love, anyway. If they cheat- they were never the one.

Asleep-Ad-4929

2025-01-15 21:12:54

m7b3oyw

>**You trust the friend.** This often leads to sharing private information about your marriage with them and often leads to asking for advice about your marriage. People need friendships outside of marriage. They *do* fill a void that your spouse can't fill - and that's okay. Your spouse was never meant to and isn't capable of "completing" you or filling every void in your life. That's simply not their job. The entire reason why the family used to get involved in one's marriage is precisely because each spouse needs other people outside their spouse to rely upon and seek advice from. >**The negative information you're giving the friend about your spouse encourages the friend to do/say the opposite of your spouse** ...which is why one of the more common pieces of marital advice is to *never badmouth your spouse to others*. Friends included. You keep that between you and your spouse. I have another point to make: Most of the arguments listed apply to friends of all sexual orientations, not just the opposite sex. Your CMV was regarding friendships between people of sexually charged orientations, but none of the presented arguments make a direct case for that. Worst case scenario (for me), or best case scenario (for you), you've shown how married individuals might come to prefer their friends over their spouses. The relationship need not be sexual to be inappropriate. A hetero man who fails all of your points with his hetero male friend might find himself in a bromance with his friend and leave his wife in the dust. Just because his friendship is 100% platonic doesn't mean he's doing right by his wife. You've shown that married couples need to appropriately prioritize their friendships, not that their friendships shouldn't be with people of the opposite sex (or more generally, of sexually charged orientations).

Thinslayer

2025-01-15 12:59:17

CMV: Telling struggling people to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" and "keep working harder" is more effective at improving their lives than waiting for the government to do it or for society to change

"Nobody is coming to save you" is my thesis. To be clear, telling someone to pull themselves up by their bootstraps won't work for most people because most people aren't going to listen. But for those that do and for those that take accountability for their actions, that person can start to internalize what they're doing wrong and then find ways out of their bad situation. Waiting for the government to fix these problems is not the way. Saying things like "this government programs helps x% of people" or "if we just raise the minimum wage, forgive student loan debt, implement universal health care then we can improve the lives of so many people!" Yes that would be nice, but while we wait for politicians to endlessly be bought off and never do anything, telling someone, even if they're disabled or has nothing, that only they can get out of their situation and nobody cares is technically a better solution than some top down policy which will never come.

corbohr

2025-01-15 12:43:04

m7bnjur

When a job opening appears, the company will hire the best person for the job. Person, singular. Yes, if you motivate your deadbeat brother Arin to really apply himself and study up and make an awesome resume, maybe that will let him get that job, and improve his life a lot. But he will then be getting that job *instead of* Bill, who would have otherwise gotten it, if Arin hadn't taken your advice. Instead, Bill will get a slightly worse job. And Cindy, the person who would have gotten that slightly worse job if not for Bill, will get an even worse job instead. And so on and so forth down the line, until Yancy is pushed into taking the last and worst job opening available, and Zack (who would have gotten that job if not for Yancy) ends up just staying unemployed longer. Like your brother Arin *would* have, if you hadn't given him that advice. The point here is that jobs are *positional goods*. You can get a better or worse job through your own efforts, but only by taking it away from someone else. Every time you make yourself better off, you make other people worse off by the same amount. Across the whole population of workers looking for jobs, it's a zero-sum competition. So, yes, you can help one specific person you care about by giving them advice and getting them to follow it. But only at the expense of other people, who also have people that care about them. You can't improve the lot of *struggling people as a whole* by giving them advice and trying to motivate them. Even if that worked and they *all* became 20% more competitive as potential employees, in the end that just means no one has improved *relative to their competition* for a job opening. Bosses get better employees, but every worker ends up with the same jobs as before. The *only* way to help struggling people *as a whole population* is structural changes that improve the number and quality of jobs (or the opportunities for entrepreneurship, or the assistance to people without good jobs, or etc).

darwin2500

2025-01-15 14:33:56

m7b4eii

Can everybody feasibly pick themselves up by their bootstraps? Let's say 50 out of 100 people need help. Can all 50 pick themselves up by their bootstraps, or will supply and demand affect just how long those bootstraps need to be for the last few, thus making it nearly impossible to do? Simple math really. The more people pick themselves up by their bootstraps (ie. leveraging opportunities to make money and pay bills and make a living), the longer the bootstraps will become because as more and more people have access to capital, the less valuable the capital will become. So as there are less and less people who need to pick themselves up by their bootstraps, the more impossible it becomes. Suffice it say, it's probable that the first folks to be told they need to pick themselves up by their bootstraps have the best access and opportunity to doing it. As more and more resources wind up in the hands of everyone who has picked themselves up by their bootstraps, the harder it will be for the next person who is told to pick themselves up by their bootstraps. Perhaps the folks being told to pick themselves up by the their bootstraps today are literally those folks I'm talking about, ie. the people who are literally finding it not so easy since all the capital (which is becoming devalued) and resources (which therefore cost more and more money) are becoming harder and harder to access compared to the first folks who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps through opportunities and resources that were way more plentiful.

Engelgrafik

2025-01-15 13:02:42

CMV: Judges who lightly sentence or refused sentencing people who committed a crime that then actually committed a worse crime afterwards should be forced to serve the same sentence the criminal gets afterwards.

For too long we have had too many incompetent judges who for some reason are in cahoots with criminal scum like rapists, pedophiles and murderers and giving them light sentences for 3 months or just not sentencing them at all which then leads to these criminals offending again with a worse crime that then gets them sentenced because now it looks bad. These people should be FORCED to serve the same sentence as criminals who they should have sentenced harder or did not sentence at all, because their incompetence cause the rest of us upstanding folk to live with these savages who should have been locked up or executed. A piece of paper or a title should not allow you to get away with playing with people’s lives by refusing to charge or charging criminals lightly for horrendous crimes that then lead them to do worse crimes. I’m not sure why soooo many judges love making sure rapists, pedophiles and killers on the streak but if someone kills 2 people or rapes a child they should NOT be set free and be out in jail forever or executed. These judges should serve the same sentence as the people they failed to bring to justice because their incompetence put society in danger.

Evoxrus_XV

2025-01-15 08:50:37

m79xc9c

So, I think that there are several points that you're missing. 1. In another comment, you mentioned the case of Wade Wilson as an illustrative example of the sort of person that you would more harshly punish. You said that you chose him because he wasn't heavily punished for his prior sexual crimes. However, he was acquitted of those crimes. A jury found him not guilty. Therefore, legally, he didn't commit any prior sexual crimes. His only prior crimes were minor burglaries, thefts, and firearms charges. So, for which of these would he be going to prison for life? 2. The "separation theory" of criminal justice hasn't really worked all that well in practice. The United States has one of the largest prison populations of any advanced nation, and yet we also have one of the highest crime rates. To put it simply, prison doesn't seem to reduce crime rates. If you want to reduce violent crime rates, you need to invest in public health mental health initiatives, address the homeless and drug problem in a medical rather than crime-fighting way, and focus on rehabilitating people from their earliest crimes rather than simply punishing them. We know that these interventions work. Yet, we don't use them because they don't feel satisfying to people who hold opinions like yours. 3. Why should the *judge* be the one responsible here? The judge committed no crime. The judge hears the evidence and makes their best judgment as to a fair resolution. They aren't setting people free because they feel like it or are excited to let criminals roam the streets. They do it because, having listened to days of trial and testimony, they think that it's a fair outcome. If you institute a rule like this, you won't be able to find judges. Nobody qualified will sign up for the job.

LucidLeviathan

2025-01-15 09:25:27

m79xoit

Is your view limited to judges? In other words, do you believe that only judges should get this "eye-for-an-eye" style retribution when they make mistakes during their employment? If so, why is that? Should we start executing (or giving life sentences to) police officers and prosecutors who arrest and charge innocent people? And what about people involved in the process but not in an employment role, for example jurors who convict innocent people, or eyewitnesses whose evidence convicts innocent people? And let's look beyond the criminal justice system. How about surgeons who kill a patient they are operating on? Or doctors who misdiagnose patients, leading to treatment delays that result in death? Or electricians whose faulty wiring gets someone electrocuted to death? Heck, you mentioned rape as well as murder, so let's also expand this beyond mistakes that cause death. Mistakes that have a harmful effect on someone occur in their thousands in workplaces every day - should we institute your "eye-for-an-eye" system for all mistakes in the course of employment? If not, why not? What do you do for a living, OP? I bet you aren't chomping at the bit to expand your draconian scheme to your own workplace, or to those of people you care about...

-TheBaffledKing-

2025-01-15 09:27:27

CMV: "I disapprove of what you have to say, but I will fight for your right to say it", is a good principle for society.

I am relative purist when I comes to free speech. Whilst I accept there are some limitations, I think I these are fringe cases (violence, libel). I think broadly society should have a mutually understood principle that even if you disagree or disapprove of someone's speech, they have the right to say it. This includes supposed 'misinformation' and 'hate speech'. As John Stuart Mill makes clear in On Liberty "he who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that", and "“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” Hate speech is a poorly worded and fascial set of legislation in the UK that can be used to prosecute anyone (including a young girl posting lyrics to a rap song and many teaching his dog to nazi salute as a joke - both of which have been arrested and prosecuted, though the former was released on appeal). Ultimately a functioning society requires us to appreciate others views and allow them the space to air their beliefs, even if we believe they are wrong.

Fando1234

2025-01-15 14:42:53

m7bub5l

A right to free speech does not mean an unconditional right to free speech. We have rights to many freedoms but if you go around murdering people those rights are taken away or at least curtailed. The same thing should apply to right to free speech. And intrinsically we understand this, which is why we have exceptions for free speech even in the "freest" societies, where you can't have direct calls to violence or yell "Fire" in a movie theatre. This is because we understand that if you incite panic, the effort required to undo said panic is much greater than that which goes into causing it. Not only that but it allows the opportunity for people to purposely incite panic in large groups to profit from the chaos. If you're deemed to have incited panic or directed groups to violence, especially as a public figure who has access to large swathes of people you influence, there's nothing inherently wrong with being prosecuted and/or your ability to speech being curtailed by a democratically selected judge, in a democratic system.

TheConsultantIsBack

2025-01-15 15:06:14

m7c4tr1

Again, it would not be illegal to continue practicing religion. I can almost guarantee if (HUGE IF) someone were able to truly disprove religion, there would be a TON of people who simply deny it, and they would truly believe the scientists were lying to them They would believe wholeheartedly in their religion, and they would not be committing a crime in doing so. Whether it's factual or not, THEY believe their religion to be true, and spreading the word of their religion would not be libel Edit if you don't think people would simply deny it: look up "flat earthers proving the earth is round accidentally" on YouTube. You'll find tons of videos of flat earthers running experiments that prove the earth is a globe, and they simply say "no, our instruments have been tampered with" or "no, we didn't do the test right because obviously the earth is flat" Edit 2: A true scientist would never claim to 100% undoubtedly "prove" anything. In science, the "truth" is always changing. I would personally have a lot of initial doubts about any scientists claiming to have completely and totally disproved ALL religion

GoodGorilla4471

2025-01-15 15:55:15

CMV: "I disapprove of what you have to say, but I will fight for your right to say it", is a good principle for society.

I am relative purist when I comes to free speech. Whilst I accept there are some limitations, I think I these are fringe cases (violence, libel). I think broadly society should have a mutually understood principle that even if you disagree or disapprove of someone's speech, they have the right to say it. This includes supposed 'misinformation' and 'hate speech'. As John Stuart Mill makes clear in On Liberty "he who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that", and "“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” Hate speech is a poorly worded and fascial set of legislation in the UK that can be used to prosecute anyone (including a young girl posting lyrics to a rap song and many teaching his dog to nazi salute as a joke - both of which have been arrested and prosecuted, though the former was released on appeal). Ultimately a functioning society requires us to appreciate others views and allow them the space to air their beliefs, even if we believe they are wrong.

Fando1234

2025-01-15 14:42:53

m7fjgfb

You make good points and I agree in some ways. But as evident by history what you're describing is a kind of best case scenario and not how it always plays out. Look at the genocide in Rwanda where they used radio broadcast extensively to rile up hatred for the Tutsi. You say the proof is in the data, do you have any source?

Rikoschett

2025-01-16 05:52:57

m7bzfo4

In the UK it unfortunately encompasses offensive language that singles out any element of a person's identity. Which (according to stop Hate UK) includes their dress sense and hair colour. Mill draws the line at someone inciting violence to an angry mob, outside someones house. I would agree with him there.

Fando1234

2025-01-15 15:30:37

cmv: I don't like rap because of the culture it promotes. Had too many negative experiences trying to get into it with fans and the like...

Just an FYI this has nothing to do with race issues. I come from the punk side of things, and I've had more positive experiences with this culture than I did with friends or people who enjoy more of the rap culture. The thing I've always noticed among people who enjoy this kind of music, is how selfish, backstabby, arrogant, and self involved they are or become. My bullies in high school were a part of it (I mean it is the more popular genre but still), and it can be very misoginystic, promotes and encourages shit attitudes about others as a whole, instills or strengthens insecurities especially among men(and women for other reasons), promotes selfish tendencies and screwing people over for the sake of money (hustle culture and the like), and doesn't ever seem to promote understanding or encourage optimism as a whole among people around them. Plus, I don't even want to get into the LGBTQ side of things, cause that's a whole can of worms and I don't feel comfortable voicing my opinion on it because I know I could be wrong. I believe I could be wrong, and I understand there are sub groups that are more intellectual and try to promote a better atmosphere of things. But, overall, I just feel like the culture around it all is just full of assholes and bullies, it's not very inclusive or can be quite shallow and judgmental of those who actually enjoy and want to be a part of things. So, is it just my experiences which are isolated incidents for what I've noticed, or is it just because it is the more mainstream of course it's going to attract all sorts of people and that's just the way it is (and has nothing to do with the music in general)?

T7hump3r

2025-01-15 17:41:07

m7d6gy8

Hip Hop/Rap is a style of musical performance, to attach any particular cultural values to it is iffy. You could be right that historically some of the biggest hip hop artists have used misogynistic and homophobic language, promoted hustle culture, etc. However that has more to do with what the audience wanted historically. In particular gangster rap is what is the most guilty of this. That genre uses very heightened language and represents very heightened attitudes. Other genres, particularly conscious rap is very different from that. Rappers like [Talib Kwali](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OPS3kw1U5c), [Common](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7G_KN-yhBI), [Mos Def](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ir-zFC9nFE), [J. Cole](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HBcV0MtAQg), [Lupe Fiasco](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3m3t_PxiUI), [Jean Grae](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogz9BSS7xho), and Kendrick Lamar tend to reject partially or wholly the tendencies found in gangster rap (misogyny, homophobia, hustle culture, etc.). Sometimes they utilize the language of gangster rap, using words like for instance "bitch", but that is generally not in a misogynistic or homophobic manner, and often ironic. Conscious rap has in many ways eclipsed gangster rap these days and Kendrick is probably the biggest performer. Now, that is just referencing the historical core of audience and performers, in the periphery things are very different. In fact one of the most rapidly growing markets for rap is K-pop. Most K-pop groups tend to have a rapper, most songs tend to feature at least one rap verse. K-pop rap is totally different from the rap that is found in the historical core. One fun example is Mamamoo's [Taller than you](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApyijjOsgrA) (cc for lyrics) which is a song arguing about who in the group is tallest. In Europe as well my impression is that conscious rap dominates, however European conscious rap is different from American conscious rap. European conscious rap does not have the same historical ties to gangster rap, which means that the language tends to be a lot more toned down with regards to the things that you had issues with, instead speaking in its own idiom. An excellent example if you got a few minutes is Dave's [Lesley](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNdHVGCM8Bs). Because hip hop/rap is a style, it can contain both of those examples and for instance [No Vaseline](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kH2mBlfs9hI) without either being representative of the entire genre.

TheAffectiveTurn

2025-01-15 19:05:44

m7czjhi

I would ask you to do this. Listen to B.I.G.'s Ten Crack Commandments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcW6ahdoBJ4 I'm not someone who sold drugs, but I know that people sell drugs. And this song, at the very least, tells me what B.I.G. thought about an activity in which he participated. I get to see how he feels about trust, about violence, about loyalty, about money. And when I hear identity first rap ("I'm the king of...", "I'm the best...", "I don't care what you say because...") I view it as someone who is oppressed finding an imaginary space where they can succeed. Like: so much of my life is shit, is feeling like shit, is being poor, is trying to navigate violence and power, that I can create a dream world in which I have value. And when I repeatedly say that I am king, it's because no one else, not even me, believes it. I grew up poor and white in a mixed race environment during the birth of hip hop (NYC in the 80s). This identity stuff--this pure bravado that is unsupported, is the necessary fantasy to stop you from going insane. I wasn't desperately poor, though I was occasionally hungry, but I knew a lot of kids who were. And when you have no real control over your life, where you don't even have the baseline ability to control when you sleep or when you eat and when and where you feel safe, building a fantasy internal life is the best you can. Honestly, I'm not asking you to listen to more like it, but read Brent Staples' essays about the Black Boy and think of rap music not as a luxury but as the desperate clawing for a psychic survival.

antaressian0r

2025-01-15 18:27:00

cmv: I don't like rap because of the culture it promotes. Had too many negative experiences trying to get into it with fans and the like...

Just an FYI this has nothing to do with race issues. I come from the punk side of things, and I've had more positive experiences with this culture than I did with friends or people who enjoy more of the rap culture. The thing I've always noticed among people who enjoy this kind of music, is how selfish, backstabby, arrogant, and self involved they are or become. My bullies in high school were a part of it (I mean it is the more popular genre but still), and it can be very misoginystic, promotes and encourages shit attitudes about others as a whole, instills or strengthens insecurities especially among men(and women for other reasons), promotes selfish tendencies and screwing people over for the sake of money (hustle culture and the like), and doesn't ever seem to promote understanding or encourage optimism as a whole among people around them. Plus, I don't even want to get into the LGBTQ side of things, cause that's a whole can of worms and I don't feel comfortable voicing my opinion on it because I know I could be wrong. I believe I could be wrong, and I understand there are sub groups that are more intellectual and try to promote a better atmosphere of things. But, overall, I just feel like the culture around it all is just full of assholes and bullies, it's not very inclusive or can be quite shallow and judgmental of those who actually enjoy and want to be a part of things. So, is it just my experiences which are isolated incidents for what I've noticed, or is it just because it is the more mainstream of course it's going to attract all sorts of people and that's just the way it is (and has nothing to do with the music in general)?

T7hump3r

2025-01-15 17:41:07

m7d1vli

What you are seeing is not rap as a genre, but a commodification of that genre that put money behind a selection of marketable themes at the exclusion of others. [Here is one of the many analyses of this](https://webbcanyonchronicle.com/6373/culture-and-lifestyle/hip-hop-and-the-commodification-of-death/). This is something that happens in many musical genres: it is part of why commercial punk and country so heavily differ from the genres' scope and roots there as well.

throughdoors

2025-01-15 18:39:58

m7cyc7y

I'm sorry it's not just about the bullying. And, you're right it is the more popular genre now, so it's going to attract many kinds of people. I just don't genuinely see it promoting anything good as a whole, except glamour, focus on hustling and money, being rich and happy as if that's the only way to be happy, and on the worst side of it - to me - some artists claiming to promote postive aspects, but it seems like they only do it... for the money.

T7hump3r

2025-01-15 18:20:25

cmv: I don't like rap because of the culture it promotes. Had too many negative experiences trying to get into it with fans and the like...

Just an FYI this has nothing to do with race issues. I come from the punk side of things, and I've had more positive experiences with this culture than I did with friends or people who enjoy more of the rap culture. The thing I've always noticed among people who enjoy this kind of music, is how selfish, backstabby, arrogant, and self involved they are or become. My bullies in high school were a part of it (I mean it is the more popular genre but still), and it can be very misoginystic, promotes and encourages shit attitudes about others as a whole, instills or strengthens insecurities especially among men(and women for other reasons), promotes selfish tendencies and screwing people over for the sake of money (hustle culture and the like), and doesn't ever seem to promote understanding or encourage optimism as a whole among people around them. Plus, I don't even want to get into the LGBTQ side of things, cause that's a whole can of worms and I don't feel comfortable voicing my opinion on it because I know I could be wrong. I believe I could be wrong, and I understand there are sub groups that are more intellectual and try to promote a better atmosphere of things. But, overall, I just feel like the culture around it all is just full of assholes and bullies, it's not very inclusive or can be quite shallow and judgmental of those who actually enjoy and want to be a part of things. So, is it just my experiences which are isolated incidents for what I've noticed, or is it just because it is the more mainstream of course it's going to attract all sorts of people and that's just the way it is (and has nothing to do with the music in general)?

T7hump3r

2025-01-15 17:41:07

m7dp645

In addition to what AffectiveTurn mentioned, as with all industries, you have to consider two things: mainstream, and indie. With mainstream artists, the industry and society itself is also responsible for promoting the very things that are deemed controversial. While people decry hip-hop for promoting drugs, misogyny, and hustle-culture, there's a failure to recognize that record label execs carry demands of what artists are supposed to present and sell. On the consumer side, people listen to it, see it as a representation of culture and people sometimes shun deviance from it. Kendrick Lamar is actually a good example, as up until his most recent album people have historically complained his music is not "fun" enough. There are also numerous indie artists out there, and even mainstream ones that delve into themes that are inclusive. Times have changed VERY quickly. Tyler, The Creator has never come out officially, but through his music has more or less alluded to being bisexual on several albums now. Music-wise, he is also recognized as one of the most creative rappers out there (Iggy Pop actually just just gave an interview about him). Another rapper, Isiah Rashad similarly was forced out of the closet, and essentially the response was one big shrug from the community. There are numerous other rappers on varying tiers who are queer, men who are confronting their own history of misogyny or personal experiences with sexual assault through their songs, rappers like Rico Nasty interjecting punk into the scene, boy bands like Brockhampton , and then the UK grime scene which tackles politics from a level that's full of rage. Also Little Simz, who is frankly on another level. Basically, rap is a massive genre, and if you're only listening to what's on the radio...you're missing out on SO SO much. Especially if you like punk!!! Hell, Ill Communication by the Beastie Boys, hello!!!!

Alert-Hospital46

2025-01-15 20:51:27

m7czjhi

I would ask you to do this. Listen to B.I.G.'s Ten Crack Commandments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcW6ahdoBJ4 I'm not someone who sold drugs, but I know that people sell drugs. And this song, at the very least, tells me what B.I.G. thought about an activity in which he participated. I get to see how he feels about trust, about violence, about loyalty, about money. And when I hear identity first rap ("I'm the king of...", "I'm the best...", "I don't care what you say because...") I view it as someone who is oppressed finding an imaginary space where they can succeed. Like: so much of my life is shit, is feeling like shit, is being poor, is trying to navigate violence and power, that I can create a dream world in which I have value. And when I repeatedly say that I am king, it's because no one else, not even me, believes it. I grew up poor and white in a mixed race environment during the birth of hip hop (NYC in the 80s). This identity stuff--this pure bravado that is unsupported, is the necessary fantasy to stop you from going insane. I wasn't desperately poor, though I was occasionally hungry, but I knew a lot of kids who were. And when you have no real control over your life, where you don't even have the baseline ability to control when you sleep or when you eat and when and where you feel safe, building a fantasy internal life is the best you can. Honestly, I'm not asking you to listen to more like it, but read Brent Staples' essays about the Black Boy and think of rap music not as a luxury but as the desperate clawing for a psychic survival.

antaressian0r

2025-01-15 18:27:00

CMV: The phrase "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" is not true

This phrase is often used of dictators, but I think the phrase is not useful because I do not see any examples historically where there aren't signs beforehand that such figures will be brutal tyrants. Robert Mugabe, in Zimbabwe, had a collaborative and benign start to his tenure. Even his wartime opponent, Ian Smith, was impressed by Mugabe's conduct. However, by the time of Mugabe's death in 2019 his regime was seen as a byword for economic mismanagement with a stifling kleptocracy and social services that had been left to rot for decades. By the time Mugabe died in Singapore he was a billionaire. Mugabe's descent into autocracy arguably started with his brutal campaigns in Matabeleland, the stronghold of his rival Joshua Nkomo, with more than 10,000 dying. However, before ever becoming president Mugabe had mused that he had not wanted Zimbabwe's brutal war of independence to end as he felt he had been robbed of a resounding, cathartic victory through negotiations. So there were signs of what to come before. Saddam Hussein was essentially a thug for the Baath Party before he became leader of Iraq, Hitler (and those in his inner circle like Goebbels) were virulently antisemitic long before they touched power. Idi Amin in Uganda only avoided being expelled from his high ranking military position for his crimes before independence because the British thought it would be a bad look just before independence. Francisco Franco in Spain used the civil war prior to his ascension (and his leadership of the Nationalist faction) to conduct massacres of civilians in left-leaning areas. Prior to becoming leader of China Mao Zedong used a brutal form of torture called the tiger bench (essentially a kneecap snapping method) against his communist rivals. In essence I think that power does not corrupt, but instead that evil people remain evil in power and good people remain good.

PrestigiousChard9442

2025-01-15 08:35:07

m79skt6

You're missing a crucial point: power doesn't just amplify existing traits, it fundamentally changes how people behave. Let me give you some clear counterexamples: Nelson Mandela himself warned about how power corrupted many of his former ANC comrades after they gained positions in government. These were people who fought alongside him for democracy, yet many became involved in corruption scandals once in office. Look at local government - countless stories of ordinary people, with no prior history of misconduct, getting caught in corruption after being elected to seemingly minor positions like city council or school board. These aren't "evil people" - they're regular folks who changed after getting a taste of power. Your examples actually support the phrase. You mention Mugabe's "collaborative and benign start" - exactly! The power itself gradually changed him. Same with Stalin, who was considered a relatively moderate figure in the early Bolshevik party before becoming increasingly paranoid and brutal after consolidating control. Even in business, studies show that CEOs become less empathetic and more self-serving the longer they hold power. This happens regardless of their initial personality traits. The phrase isn't about predicting who will become corrupt - it's about how power itself changes human psychology. Even "good people" aren't immune to its effects.

spongermaniak

2025-01-15 08:56:58

m79pzyl

"Power" in this sentence does not mean supreme legal authority over a nation. It refers to all power everywhere, from your position as Director of a company, to the guy who stamps tickets on the subway. The saying means that **all** power and authority has a corrupting influence on human minds, no matter how small. Greater power only makes those effects more pronounced. That every dictator has shown signs of corruption before achieving their "final form" is actually evidence in favor of the quote, because it demonstrates the gradual way in which increased authority and influence turned those people into monsters.

CaptCynicalPants

2025-01-15 08:41:03

CMV: "don't yuck someone else's yum" is not just childish wording; it's a childish philosophy.

Man I'm so sick of hearing this sophomoric phrase bandied about as if it's some kind of moral high ground. Guess what? We live in a society. This means you will interact with others and they will judge you. There is no avoiding this. I agree that much social judgment is unproductive, mean-spirited, and unnecessary. Sadly, not everything in life is, can be, or ever will be "nice." And at some point, being an adult means accepting that we are all subject to judgment and outside criticism. You are free to dress up like a tiger and hang out with other adults who like to dress up like animals and play pretend. It's clear that you can expect many other adults to mock and shun you for this behavior. This is a reasonable response—you're being fucking weird. But for some reason there's this vocal segment of people online who will insist that saying "well that's fucking weird" is a grave sin. No, the furries must be allowed to act weird as fuck without facing the terrible burden of being called weird as fuck for doing weird as fuck things! Won't someone think of the furries?? This is behavior that screams "I have some kind of pathology"—but because some people like doing the behavior and unlike, say, drunk driving, no one's teenage son is going to get tragically killed in a fursuit crash, it falls into the "harmless" category and therefore "don't yuck someone else's yum" can be applied as a catch-all "GET OUT OF CRITICISM FREE" card. OK I know it looks like I just started with the lowest hanging fruit but "leave the furries alone" is what actually prompted this CMV. Anyway, you can insert other fringe or objectively funky behaviors and run the same logic. I liked it better when the normative paradigm among social nonconformists was "yeah we're freaks and we don't care what you think." Now everybody wanna be a freak without having to pay any social currency. Like it's expected that one just gets to insist that everyone else treat however they choose to live/act/present themselves as normal and cool, no matter how abnormal and uncool their behavior is when compared to the normative standard. This is both unrealistic and potentially unjustified (depending on the behavior). Basically, I'm sick of having this very specific social axiom treated as if it's just foundational for anyone who isn't an asshole — the axiom is roughly "the only behavior that can be criticized without the critic being a badman meanie poop is actually harmful behavior." But no one actually lives like that, not even the people waxing self-righteous on the internet. They just judge people superficially for different things. The same people going to bat for the furries are DM'ing each other to make fun of some stranger who said bad things about abortion rights because the guy is wearing wraparound shades and a Texas Tuxedo. They're not actually refraining from superficial criticism; they just choose different targets. No one escapes superficial social judgment, and almost no one is so pure as to not participate in it themselves. This is FINE AND NORMAL. The effort to sanitize all "that person looks silly" or "that person is lame" discourse from human interaction is misguided, laughably idealistic, and largely hypocritical.

Matsunosuperfan

2025-01-16 12:03:41

m7hdibz

Why is it more important to preserve behavior we think of as normal if it's harmful? Like, I'm with you that we may not be able to avoid judging at least a little, and it's not worth being too harsh on that. But a mild rebuke that just let's you know that what you are saying is hurtful seems entirely valid in the situation. Harmful behavior that is hard for us to avoid is still harmful and still worth trying to minimize.

DuhChappers

2025-01-16 12:28:37

m7habwi

Social judgments are based on norms. Norms are established as part of social contract and institutions. We control all aspects of the how and why of norm. So the people that want to be accepting of non-normative behavior push for an alteration of the “normal” to be more broad and accepting. This is completely reasonable and valid position to take. That people are imperfect or that change takes time is not a real critique of the process.

c0ff1ncas3

2025-01-16 12:13:30

CMV: "don't yuck someone else's yum" is not just childish wording; it's a childish philosophy.

Man I'm so sick of hearing this sophomoric phrase bandied about as if it's some kind of moral high ground. Guess what? We live in a society. This means you will interact with others and they will judge you. There is no avoiding this. I agree that much social judgment is unproductive, mean-spirited, and unnecessary. Sadly, not everything in life is, can be, or ever will be "nice." And at some point, being an adult means accepting that we are all subject to judgment and outside criticism. You are free to dress up like a tiger and hang out with other adults who like to dress up like animals and play pretend. It's clear that you can expect many other adults to mock and shun you for this behavior. This is a reasonable response—you're being fucking weird. But for some reason there's this vocal segment of people online who will insist that saying "well that's fucking weird" is a grave sin. No, the furries must be allowed to act weird as fuck without facing the terrible burden of being called weird as fuck for doing weird as fuck things! Won't someone think of the furries?? This is behavior that screams "I have some kind of pathology"—but because some people like doing the behavior and unlike, say, drunk driving, no one's teenage son is going to get tragically killed in a fursuit crash, it falls into the "harmless" category and therefore "don't yuck someone else's yum" can be applied as a catch-all "GET OUT OF CRITICISM FREE" card. OK I know it looks like I just started with the lowest hanging fruit but "leave the furries alone" is what actually prompted this CMV. Anyway, you can insert other fringe or objectively funky behaviors and run the same logic. I liked it better when the normative paradigm among social nonconformists was "yeah we're freaks and we don't care what you think." Now everybody wanna be a freak without having to pay any social currency. Like it's expected that one just gets to insist that everyone else treat however they choose to live/act/present themselves as normal and cool, no matter how abnormal and uncool their behavior is when compared to the normative standard. This is both unrealistic and potentially unjustified (depending on the behavior). Basically, I'm sick of having this very specific social axiom treated as if it's just foundational for anyone who isn't an asshole — the axiom is roughly "the only behavior that can be criticized without the critic being a badman meanie poop is actually harmful behavior." But no one actually lives like that, not even the people waxing self-righteous on the internet. They just judge people superficially for different things. The same people going to bat for the furries are DM'ing each other to make fun of some stranger who said bad things about abortion rights because the guy is wearing wraparound shades and a Texas Tuxedo. They're not actually refraining from superficial criticism; they just choose different targets. No one escapes superficial social judgment, and almost no one is so pure as to not participate in it themselves. This is FINE AND NORMAL. The effort to sanitize all "that person looks silly" or "that person is lame" discourse from human interaction is misguided, laughably idealistic, and largely hypocritical.

Matsunosuperfan

2025-01-16 12:03:41

m7hk7t7

I think you've run into a common problem, one I refer to as "internet brain." No, this is not me subtly calling you stupid. Internet brain is when the opinion addressed is not based on the core definition of the thing in question, but rather in response to a vocal (and typically wrong) group of people who have strongly and noticeably revised the original thing. Here is how I initially interpret the phrase:  If someone has a thing that they very much enjoy, don't go out of your way to tell them you don't like that thing, especially if that context is not appropriate. Example: You - "Oh yeah I love Pokemon! I had a blast playing the new game!"  Me - "I actually don't like Pokemon. I played one game and it wasn't for me." Totally fine. I just said it because you talked about Pokemon. There's nothing wrong with "yucking" in this context. Now another scenario: You - "Yeah, funny that you mention dogs. One of my favorites is Goomy. An adorable dragon type from Pokemon!"  Friend - "That's a cute name! I never played the game!" Me - "I don't like Pokemon. I played one game and it wasn't for me."  This would be inappropriate. Why am I tearing down the thing you like when you're just telling someone a funny story about it? I don't disagree that there are people that take it the wrong way. These people have been lamented for as long as the phrase has been around. You just accidentally identified with the wrong people.

spongermaniak

2025-01-16 13:00:35

m7hazm8

You are entitled to judge furries and whatever else as weird. I certainly view it as weird, and I know some people out there view my religious following of my favorite sports team as weird despite that being more mainstream. The philosophy you are describing does not suggest you shouldn’t judge someone, merely that you shouldn’t go around critiquing people for things they enjoy that are harmless. As such I would challenge you to tell me what the societal benefit is to openly mocking people for doing things you find odd? Do you think there is actually a benefit to society by making it clear to everyone that you think certain harmless behaviors are strange? Or is it simply that you enjoy being cruel and don’t like being called out for it? If the latter, I’d point out to a certain extent you are asking people not to “yuck your yum”. The only difference being that someone dressing up as a tiger harms no one, while deliberately being cruel for your own amusement can indeed cause emotional harm.

Fizban24

2025-01-16 12:16:38

CMV: "don't yuck someone else's yum" is not just childish wording; it's a childish philosophy.

Man I'm so sick of hearing this sophomoric phrase bandied about as if it's some kind of moral high ground. Guess what? We live in a society. This means you will interact with others and they will judge you. There is no avoiding this. I agree that much social judgment is unproductive, mean-spirited, and unnecessary. Sadly, not everything in life is, can be, or ever will be "nice." And at some point, being an adult means accepting that we are all subject to judgment and outside criticism. You are free to dress up like a tiger and hang out with other adults who like to dress up like animals and play pretend. It's clear that you can expect many other adults to mock and shun you for this behavior. This is a reasonable response—you're being fucking weird. But for some reason there's this vocal segment of people online who will insist that saying "well that's fucking weird" is a grave sin. No, the furries must be allowed to act weird as fuck without facing the terrible burden of being called weird as fuck for doing weird as fuck things! Won't someone think of the furries?? This is behavior that screams "I have some kind of pathology"—but because some people like doing the behavior and unlike, say, drunk driving, no one's teenage son is going to get tragically killed in a fursuit crash, it falls into the "harmless" category and therefore "don't yuck someone else's yum" can be applied as a catch-all "GET OUT OF CRITICISM FREE" card. OK I know it looks like I just started with the lowest hanging fruit but "leave the furries alone" is what actually prompted this CMV. Anyway, you can insert other fringe or objectively funky behaviors and run the same logic. I liked it better when the normative paradigm among social nonconformists was "yeah we're freaks and we don't care what you think." Now everybody wanna be a freak without having to pay any social currency. Like it's expected that one just gets to insist that everyone else treat however they choose to live/act/present themselves as normal and cool, no matter how abnormal and uncool their behavior is when compared to the normative standard. This is both unrealistic and potentially unjustified (depending on the behavior). Basically, I'm sick of having this very specific social axiom treated as if it's just foundational for anyone who isn't an asshole — the axiom is roughly "the only behavior that can be criticized without the critic being a badman meanie poop is actually harmful behavior." But no one actually lives like that, not even the people waxing self-righteous on the internet. They just judge people superficially for different things. The same people going to bat for the furries are DM'ing each other to make fun of some stranger who said bad things about abortion rights because the guy is wearing wraparound shades and a Texas Tuxedo. They're not actually refraining from superficial criticism; they just choose different targets. No one escapes superficial social judgment, and almost no one is so pure as to not participate in it themselves. This is FINE AND NORMAL. The effort to sanitize all "that person looks silly" or "that person is lame" discourse from human interaction is misguided, laughably idealistic, and largely hypocritical.

Matsunosuperfan

2025-01-16 12:03:41

m7hipmb

A couple of things here: First, electing not to dress decently probably isn't a "yum." There's a big difference between dressing in ill-fitting clothes that aren't very clean and, say, dressing Goth where you put a lot of time and energy into attire that a lot of people think is weird. Someone who just grabs whatever is at the top of their pile is just doing something by default - it's not a thing that they derive joy out of. To me "don't yuck someone else's yum" is far more about the things people feel strongly about than the things they do out of complacency. Second, if someone else has preferences that I'm not comfortable with, I'm not going to give them grief for it, but I'll probably put distance between myself and them. Using the Goth example again, if I had a friend who dressed goth all the time, that's not something that would cause me to put distance between me and them. But if they then went on to complain to me about how they couldn't find a job and nobody wanted to date them, I think it's quite reasonable for me to suggest that maybe their style choices are making people uncomfortable in ways that are impacting their prospects. That's a semi-solicited, constructive criticism. Maybe if it's my own kid or little sister or something I'd take the initiative to say "Hey, if you dress like that in certain settings people are going to think you're weird and might not like you," which I think kinda borders on "yucking someone else's yum" but from a constructive person. On the other hand, if I approached a stranger in public and told them the same thing I think it's wildly inappropriate.

NaturalCarob5611

2025-01-16 12:53:30

m7hazm8

You are entitled to judge furries and whatever else as weird. I certainly view it as weird, and I know some people out there view my religious following of my favorite sports team as weird despite that being more mainstream. The philosophy you are describing does not suggest you shouldn’t judge someone, merely that you shouldn’t go around critiquing people for things they enjoy that are harmless. As such I would challenge you to tell me what the societal benefit is to openly mocking people for doing things you find odd? Do you think there is actually a benefit to society by making it clear to everyone that you think certain harmless behaviors are strange? Or is it simply that you enjoy being cruel and don’t like being called out for it? If the latter, I’d point out to a certain extent you are asking people not to “yuck your yum”. The only difference being that someone dressing up as a tiger harms no one, while deliberately being cruel for your own amusement can indeed cause emotional harm.

Fizban24

2025-01-16 12:16:38

CMV: "don't yuck someone else's yum" is not just childish wording; it's a childish philosophy.

Man I'm so sick of hearing this sophomoric phrase bandied about as if it's some kind of moral high ground. Guess what? We live in a society. This means you will interact with others and they will judge you. There is no avoiding this. I agree that much social judgment is unproductive, mean-spirited, and unnecessary. Sadly, not everything in life is, can be, or ever will be "nice." And at some point, being an adult means accepting that we are all subject to judgment and outside criticism. You are free to dress up like a tiger and hang out with other adults who like to dress up like animals and play pretend. It's clear that you can expect many other adults to mock and shun you for this behavior. This is a reasonable response—you're being fucking weird. But for some reason there's this vocal segment of people online who will insist that saying "well that's fucking weird" is a grave sin. No, the furries must be allowed to act weird as fuck without facing the terrible burden of being called weird as fuck for doing weird as fuck things! Won't someone think of the furries?? This is behavior that screams "I have some kind of pathology"—but because some people like doing the behavior and unlike, say, drunk driving, no one's teenage son is going to get tragically killed in a fursuit crash, it falls into the "harmless" category and therefore "don't yuck someone else's yum" can be applied as a catch-all "GET OUT OF CRITICISM FREE" card. OK I know it looks like I just started with the lowest hanging fruit but "leave the furries alone" is what actually prompted this CMV. Anyway, you can insert other fringe or objectively funky behaviors and run the same logic. I liked it better when the normative paradigm among social nonconformists was "yeah we're freaks and we don't care what you think." Now everybody wanna be a freak without having to pay any social currency. Like it's expected that one just gets to insist that everyone else treat however they choose to live/act/present themselves as normal and cool, no matter how abnormal and uncool their behavior is when compared to the normative standard. This is both unrealistic and potentially unjustified (depending on the behavior). Basically, I'm sick of having this very specific social axiom treated as if it's just foundational for anyone who isn't an asshole — the axiom is roughly "the only behavior that can be criticized without the critic being a badman meanie poop is actually harmful behavior." But no one actually lives like that, not even the people waxing self-righteous on the internet. They just judge people superficially for different things. The same people going to bat for the furries are DM'ing each other to make fun of some stranger who said bad things about abortion rights because the guy is wearing wraparound shades and a Texas Tuxedo. They're not actually refraining from superficial criticism; they just choose different targets. No one escapes superficial social judgment, and almost no one is so pure as to not participate in it themselves. This is FINE AND NORMAL. The effort to sanitize all "that person looks silly" or "that person is lame" discourse from human interaction is misguided, laughably idealistic, and largely hypocritical.

Matsunosuperfan

2025-01-16 12:03:41

m7hl1s0

But that's kind of the whole point, isn't it? You acknowledge that the average person probably thinks you play a lame sport, relative to what they think of other sports. You are able to rise above that, and realize that no one sport is objectively better, and it's really an irrelevant matter of opinion. Why stop at sports? Why not look at fashion, movie picks, educational choices, sports, hobbies, and kinky sex, all in the same way? None are objectively better or worse. Make your own choices and try not to judge others for preferring something different.

Jacked-to-the-wits

2025-01-16 13:04:36

m7h9h1b

In my experience, it's the exact opposite of what you are saying. Do you really think _children_ don't mock and shun their peers severely for even slight deviations from what is perceived as normal? Your view about how non-conformists should be treated is the view of pretty much every child. It's only adults with their fully-developed prefrontal cortexes who start saying policing social norms in a way that only harms others is stupid. "Don't yuck someone's yum" as a philosophy (if not as a phrase) was developed by adults and is mostly applied to other adults.

yyzjertl

2025-01-16 12:09:22

CMV: "don't yuck someone else's yum" is not just childish wording; it's a childish philosophy.

Man I'm so sick of hearing this sophomoric phrase bandied about as if it's some kind of moral high ground. Guess what? We live in a society. This means you will interact with others and they will judge you. There is no avoiding this. I agree that much social judgment is unproductive, mean-spirited, and unnecessary. Sadly, not everything in life is, can be, or ever will be "nice." And at some point, being an adult means accepting that we are all subject to judgment and outside criticism. You are free to dress up like a tiger and hang out with other adults who like to dress up like animals and play pretend. It's clear that you can expect many other adults to mock and shun you for this behavior. This is a reasonable response—you're being fucking weird. But for some reason there's this vocal segment of people online who will insist that saying "well that's fucking weird" is a grave sin. No, the furries must be allowed to act weird as fuck without facing the terrible burden of being called weird as fuck for doing weird as fuck things! Won't someone think of the furries?? This is behavior that screams "I have some kind of pathology"—but because some people like doing the behavior and unlike, say, drunk driving, no one's teenage son is going to get tragically killed in a fursuit crash, it falls into the "harmless" category and therefore "don't yuck someone else's yum" can be applied as a catch-all "GET OUT OF CRITICISM FREE" card. OK I know it looks like I just started with the lowest hanging fruit but "leave the furries alone" is what actually prompted this CMV. Anyway, you can insert other fringe or objectively funky behaviors and run the same logic. I liked it better when the normative paradigm among social nonconformists was "yeah we're freaks and we don't care what you think." Now everybody wanna be a freak without having to pay any social currency. Like it's expected that one just gets to insist that everyone else treat however they choose to live/act/present themselves as normal and cool, no matter how abnormal and uncool their behavior is when compared to the normative standard. This is both unrealistic and potentially unjustified (depending on the behavior). Basically, I'm sick of having this very specific social axiom treated as if it's just foundational for anyone who isn't an asshole — the axiom is roughly "the only behavior that can be criticized without the critic being a badman meanie poop is actually harmful behavior." But no one actually lives like that, not even the people waxing self-righteous on the internet. They just judge people superficially for different things. The same people going to bat for the furries are DM'ing each other to make fun of some stranger who said bad things about abortion rights because the guy is wearing wraparound shades and a Texas Tuxedo. They're not actually refraining from superficial criticism; they just choose different targets. No one escapes superficial social judgment, and almost no one is so pure as to not participate in it themselves. This is FINE AND NORMAL. The effort to sanitize all "that person looks silly" or "that person is lame" discourse from human interaction is misguided, laughably idealistic, and largely hypocritical.

Matsunosuperfan

2025-01-16 12:03:41

m7hb9du

So I don’t entirely agree with you here, but I will concede that the phrase came from BDSM & kink communities. Like, it was formed by & intended for a specific audience/community/setting. For example: “When you post in our forums or attend our meetings, don’t yuck anyone’s yum.” It was to create ‘safe’-ish space for sharing about kinks & fetishes & the like — but not intended for those people to *never* make any yuck comments ever in any part of there life *at all ever*. And I think it’s weird (also just funny) that some people are trying to use it everywhere for everything. How do they think that’s gonna work? Like you’re just gonna permanently changes everyone’s psychological makeup by shaming everyone with this phrase? 🧐😂 Honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if this is mostly being done by kids / young people. (Or maybe that’s just what I hope? 😅)

ask_more_questions_

2025-01-16 12:17:57

m7hbd60

Isn't the phrase doing exactly what you are saying? You express a view. People criticize you when you do it because they think it's rude and unnecessarily hurtful. You are violating the majority social consensus to avoid non-constructive criticism, and therefore you are being criticized. That's the outcome you say you want. I've heard the sentiment (usually not phrased like that) used most when people are being assholes in a way that makes me uncomfortable. I don't want to hear your random judgments about how other people dress. If I'm at a table with people eating bacon, I definitely don't want to hear you talking about the evil meat industry and how charred meat causes cancer. I don't adhere to the philosophy because other people force me to, I do it because I genuinely think social interactions are better when people keep random judgmental criticism to themselves.

Spallanzani333

2025-01-16 12:18:26

CMV: Reading and seeking out sexual books daily is a porn addiction

So was online and someone got upset about someone saying people that read smut- sexual books every day and weekly is a porn addiction and the poster was like ITS NOT PORN WE AREN'T LIKE THE MEN JERKING OFF TO PORN HUB EVERY DAY WE'RE DIFFERENT I mean there's a difference if you are reading a book that happens to have sex in it and you enjoy it, but if you are actively seeking out sexual media in any form regularly. That does sound like a porn addiction. Reading a romance book that turns to porn for a chapter vs I HAVE TO READ SMUT EVERY DAY AND IF IT DOESNT HAVE SMUT I WON'T READ IT I'm not judging you, I mean I'd prefer fictional then what large parts of the porn industry beinh human trafficking. But to deny seeking sexual content isn't porn addiction then what is it

madeat1am

2025-01-14 08:33:27

m73kx62

Frequency of a thing alone is not enough to say there is an addiction. We eat everyday, are we addicted to food? If I wear a baseball cap everyday, am I addicted to hats? If I work out daily, am I addicted to exercise? What about daily rounds of tennis? Sex, masturbation, and even porn are not inherently *bad* things; they are just cultural taboos due to generations of mostly religious influence on morality. People can read sexual romance novels, look at porn, masturbate, and/or have sex on a daily basis. It's not an addiction unless the behavior itself creates problems for the individual. Problems include neglecting one's physical or mental health, problems performing at work, problems in their personal relationships, problems with the law, or problems with the behaviors "spilling over" to people who did not consent to seeing your behavior - say a third party catches you masturbating. Some activities are inherently unhealthy to do everyday - "vices" like drinking or smoking. Gambling would typically be seen that way too, but if the amount gambled is small, then maybe it's not problematic; if one could limit themselves to a single scratch-off lottery ticket per day, that's within a reasonable budget and could simply be one of their "guilty pleasures" we call them. But masturbation is generally considered to be a *healthy* activity as long as it isn't causing problems, and sex is also considered healthy if safety and health are being considered - this is practiced most safely within a monogamous relationship and strong birth control measures, but reasonably safe sex can also be practiced without strict monogamy. Sex releases good chemicals throughout our body, helps form bonds with other people, and can be good cardiovascular exercise, all benefits! So calm down. It's all good. Let people be horny sometimes as long as they aren't involving you without your consent. Stop the judgment.

Raise_A_Thoth

2025-01-14 09:10:36

m73h3ch

This just doesn't fit the idea of "addiction" as we know it. For example, there are people who drink every day who are not addicted to alcohol and people who drink every day who are not. There are pretty specific criteria here and "addiction" is a diagnosis, although thrown around quite a bit without tethering to its actual meaning. The problem above is not that the person you're responding to is wrong about their own behavior, it's that jerking off to porn every day doesn't mean you're addicted to porn. TL;DR: doing something frequently and regularly does not rise to the idea of "addiction" so both you and the person claiming pornhub use daily means you're an addict is wrong. Some daily users are, some are not. What I think is going on is a sort of moral high horse. The reality is that from an addiction perspective you could have someone "addicted" to reading novels (disrupts relationships, can't stop when they need to, interferes with work, a want to stop is met with a failure to do so, and so on) and someone not addicted to watching porn. Addiction doesn't require a moral judgment of thing that one is addicted to, but it's common to do that as we're - sadly - also judgmental of "addiction" in general.

iamintheforest

2025-01-14 08:46:57

CMV: I agree with the TikTok ban

I (20F) am a TikTok user but at first was not. Recently I decided to check out red note but I think I’m going to delete my account. In my opinion rednote is a bad idea compared to TikTok because while both are owned by Chinese companies, TikTok at least had international recognition so it had individual buffer laws (if that makes sense.) in my mind, red note does not yet have that and I may be incorrect but someone told me it’s directly owned by the CCP? Anyways, I agree with the TikTok ban and think red note should go next because while I don’t like meta, I’d rather my information be stolen & sold within America. My other reasonings are that China most definitely uses the algorithm during political seasons to make liberals more liberal and conservatives more conservative. Making the two parties more extreme and fight each other causes the fall of America (exactly what China would want.) Also, scrolling tiktok just makes me feel empty and bored. I can’t stop scrolling but I get absolutely nothing from it, if that makes sense? Please correct me on absolutely anything and CMW! (Also, I am not racist, I love all people. I simply don’t love governments who want to destroy my country. Chinese people are fine but the CCP is not!) EDIT: thank you to the NICE people for giving me the facts 🤘 I’m not gonna be active on this post anymore because now we’re just repeating the same information & my view has been changed. (rip tiktok tho)

funky-fundip

2025-01-14 10:01:27

m73xaee

First off - and this is crucial - let's address this idea that "keeping data within America" somehow makes it safer. Meta has had MULTIPLE massive data breaches, and they've literally paid BILLIONS in fines for privacy violations. The idea that American companies are automatically more trustworthy with our data is, honestly, a bit naive. Remember Cambridge Analytica? That wasn't China - that was Facebook. Now, about this algorithm theory. While China's government definitely isn't winning any freedom awards, the idea that they're specifically using TikTok to polarize America? We're doing that just fine on our own, folks. Have you SEEN Facebook and X lately? American-owned platforms are FULL of extreme content and echo chambers. The polarization problem exists across ALL social media - it's not unique to TikTok. Here's the real kicker - and this is what nobody's talking about - banning TikTok sets a DANGEROUS precedent for government control over social media. Today it's TikTok, tomorrow it could be ANY platform that the government decides is "problematic." Is that really the power we want to give to our government? And let's talk about those 170 MILLION American users - many of whom are small business owners who depend on TikTok for their livelihood. A ban would devastate these entrepreneurs overnight. The economic impact would be massive. The solution isn't a ban - it's better data privacy laws that apply to ALL companies, regardless of where they're based. We need to address the root cause instead of playing whack-a-mole with individual apps. If you're worried about data privacy and social media's negative effects, you should be pushing for comprehensive reform, not celebrating selective bans that won't solve the underlying problems.

jakovljevic90

2025-01-14 10:20:15

m73ypm4

My issue with it is primarily two fold, first if Americans have a right to data privacy then that's what should be enshrined into law protecting us from domestic and foreign data mining and surveillance. The way the data industry works is there's large third party buyers that resell packages of data to skate regulations or user agreements. China will still be buying the data American tech companies harvest through resellers. The law seems to just be saying only the US government and its allies can use social media apps for espionage and surveillance, only we can harvest and sell your data. The correct answer should be nobody has the right to do this. Second, banning sources of information is undemocratic and un-American. Fundamentally, if the citizens of the republic can not be trusted to vet information or aren't free to believe positions contrary to the dominant narrative, democracy has already failed. The people either are capable of self governance or they are not. We run the risk of a fragmented global internet, not so different from the Chinese, where every state only allows content it finds agreeable and non threatening. It also seems highly coincidental that alot of anti Israel content was being engaged with on TikTok prior to the ban, the US government seems interested in its citizens only engaging with content from its perspective and is fearful of its citizens engaging with the viewpoints from other parts of the world.

Dank_Dispenser

2025-01-14 10:27:44

CMV: I agree with the TikTok ban

I (20F) am a TikTok user but at first was not. Recently I decided to check out red note but I think I’m going to delete my account. In my opinion rednote is a bad idea compared to TikTok because while both are owned by Chinese companies, TikTok at least had international recognition so it had individual buffer laws (if that makes sense.) in my mind, red note does not yet have that and I may be incorrect but someone told me it’s directly owned by the CCP? Anyways, I agree with the TikTok ban and think red note should go next because while I don’t like meta, I’d rather my information be stolen & sold within America. My other reasonings are that China most definitely uses the algorithm during political seasons to make liberals more liberal and conservatives more conservative. Making the two parties more extreme and fight each other causes the fall of America (exactly what China would want.) Also, scrolling tiktok just makes me feel empty and bored. I can’t stop scrolling but I get absolutely nothing from it, if that makes sense? Please correct me on absolutely anything and CMW! (Also, I am not racist, I love all people. I simply don’t love governments who want to destroy my country. Chinese people are fine but the CCP is not!) EDIT: thank you to the NICE people for giving me the facts 🤘 I’m not gonna be active on this post anymore because now we’re just repeating the same information & my view has been changed. (rip tiktok tho)

funky-fundip

2025-01-14 10:01:27

m7ahy9n

passing over the comments- i feel as though many people have missed the point of the US government using "national security" and "data security" as red herrings. the thing that they're really upset by is that tiktok is being used as one of the largest decentralized news networks (for better or for worse, at times. i'm aware of misinformation being widespread). the reason that the situation in palestine has been so widely understood to be a genocide- is (in part) because tiktok allowed so many people to see it with their own eyes. the "real" news on TV is owned by some random billionare, that has a vested interest in alligning with the US governments interests- who want to play nice with Israel because they're our main "ally" in the middle east currently. here's Mitt Romeny calling israel's occupation, history, and genocide "bad PR," Antony Blinkin explaining exactly how unfiltered information changes opinions (while framing it as "just emotions"), and saying "the president has the opportunity to do something about it." https://youtu.be/-7xTxAilSF0?si=0PiNZh1AM8EWPqtg also, look at the difference between online and traditional coverage of the ceo assassination: traditional media calls any sympathy luigi recieves to be "rabid fangirling" because he's conventionally attractive, while time and time again online, i've seen valid criticism of the companies and policies that led up to the crime and apathy towards brian himself. the government knows the youth doesn't trust them, so they want to close the opportunities for us to know exactly why we shouldn't. which is a negative feedback loop, but they're looking for damage control. they don't want us talking to each other directly when we see wrongs, because it calls for accountability; too much public pressure to actually do the right thing.

PastelKirby

2025-01-15 11:14:12

m77qux4

it’s true that other social media companies like meta and x may be insecure and may also contribute to problems like polarization, but the point you are missing here is that Meta and X are american companies protected by the first amendment. In america the first amendment protects the freedom of speech of its citizens, but it certainly does not apply to the speech of foreign governments. The issue with the tiktok case is not so much content but rather control. under the law, tiktok can continue to exist with all the same content as before, as long as bytedance divests from it. The law is targeting bytedance’s corporate structure, and although it may have incidental effects on speech it doesn’t implicate the first amendment per se. Bytedance is a chinese corporation, which is much different from corporations in america in that there is no meaningful separation between the corporation and the state. The actions of bytedance are an extension of the political will of the chinese communist party. There is even a 138 person CCP committee embedded within bytedance, which includes its chief editor. As far as data goes, there’s always going to be insecurity with any company that handles data, but the problem with tiktok is that american data is being directly controlled and used by the chinese government, and that the chinese government has complete control over how this data is collected and used. China is a geopolitical adversary to the united states, who is hostile to its interests. Many tiktok users are young, and the prevalence of tiktok and the amount of data collected from these people over years and years means that the chinese government will have blackmail material over the nation’s future legislators, judges, and leaders.

Shoddy-Advisor-6258

2025-01-14 22:22:08

CMV: arguments are pointless and shouldn't be had in any scenario

I have seen multiple arguments happening in front of me and also participated in many arguments myself. I noticed in all these arguments, not one of them ended with any good conclusion being reached. Winning an argument also doesn't mean you were right, you could be wrong and still win an argument just because you are better at speaking. Considering all of this I feel like the best and most mature thing to do is always avoid arguments. It doesn't matter whether it is with friends, family or coworkers it is best to have proper discussions. I'm open to listen to any conflicting views on this. Edit: thank you for all the responses, I apreciate the effort everyone put in. It is getting a bit late for me and I am tired,I will respond to the rest in around 9 hours

Late_Indication_4355

2025-01-14 06:38:33

m7338l6

If you define « arguing » as being close minded, shouting and unwilling to change your view and « discussing » as being open-minded, calm and willing to change your view, then of course, on average, it’s better to discuss. Now the problem is that it’s not binary: there are all kind of type of discussion/arguing in between where one is maybe calm and listening but still convinced that he’s right and can convince the other or people entering a discussion with no intention of changing their view and learning somehing that will make them change their mind a bit later. So how should we call his « stance » between discussion and arguing and when is this becoming pointless?

Galious

2025-01-14 07:09:16

m732cc9

> I noticed in all these arguments, not one of them ended with any good conclusion being reached. Can you help us understand what you think a positive outcome of discussion would be? And how that contrasts with the outcomes of an argument? > Winning an argument also doesn’t mean you were right, you could be wrong and still win an argument just because you are better at speaking. This is true of discussions as well, so why is it unacceptable within the context of an argument? > Considering all of this I feel like the best and most mature thing to do is always avoid arguments. It doesn’t matter whether it is with friends, family or coworkers it is best to have proper discussions. You haven’t really made the case for why discussions are different or superior to arguments. Personally, I think always avoiding acute conflict isn’t very mature.

Crash927

2025-01-14 07:01:52

CMV: The US government should legalize euthanasia.

I want to preface my "view" with a statement: If one does not desire to be alive, but must maintain the constant effort in order to stay alive, is the only realistic option to "be dead"? Now, let's use this statement in a real life scenario. There are tons of homeless people in the US, and I'm sure many are suffering the ailments of a combination of sleep deprivation, ostracization, and the effects of starvation. These factors can lead to psychosis and change the person into no longer desiring to live. Now, before you say that we must implement social security to ensure that none go homeless, you must remember something. Humans are far too tribalistic and self-centered to support a movement like this that actually prevents homeless people from being homeless. Another factor is the fact that some people are born with genetic mental and physical ailments that prevent them from functioning properly within society. The only solution to these kinds of problems is that the person was simply dealt a "bad hand", and must no longer exist and be prevented from reproducing. Therefore, the US government should legalize euthanasia to prevent failed suicide attempts and allow those dealt the "bad hand" to finally find relief in the warm embrace of death. Please attempt to change my view.

External_Cow9988

2025-01-14 05:45:38

m72viio

Heavily restrict all immigration, invest in infrastructure and education. Give tax credits and parental leave to new parents to incentivize an uptick in birthrates. Deport any criminal that isn’t a citizen. Set personal wealth caps of $5 billion. Register AIPAC as a foreign agent. Cut most foreign aid, especially to Israel, and end involvement in proxy wars. Repeal citizens united and ban elected officials from investing in the stock market. Rinse and repeat for 20 years. Easy.

Darth_Inceptus

2025-01-14 05:58:45

m737hnk

> If you feel comfortable giving the government free rein to kill you with no recourse go ahead I don’t. The insanity......... Nobody in this entire thread is arguing that the government should be free to murder people. And your deliberate attempts to pretend like "murder" and "voluntary euthanasia" are one and the same is just downright shameful. It's people like you that force others to suffer because you're too incompetent to understand that some people may wish to die and we should allow that.

SuckMyBike

2025-01-14 07:42:20

CMV: Left-wing politics cannot succeed on a national level without nationalism or a strong sense of national identity

For left wing I am not talking about Scandinavian Social Democracy, even though Scandinavian countries do have a fairly strong national identity. I am more referring to an alternative to capitalism that relies on some form of collectivism.  For a strong national identity or maybe even nationalism I am referring to a strong loyalty and allegiance to the nation state and those that share the same language and culture within the nation state.  I’m neither particularly nationalist nor left wing. Nationalism or strong national identity can motivate large groups of people to prioritise the wellbeing of the state over individual personal gain. It also provides a moral framework and for implementing the large-scale changes that would be required for a collective alternative to capitalism. Without any form of national identity people would have no reason to sacrifice for the good of unknowable others. Fractionalisation among ethnic, religious or cultural lines would form and those competing interests would become too prevalent for a state to achieve collectivised success.   In a global world it would be very difficult to convince those with crucial skills to stay for the collective benefit of the nation. Those with specialised skills or an ability to conceptualise and implement new technologies will always be rewarded more financially under capitalism. Therefore, any alternative to capitalism would need those sorts of people to stay otherwise it would fall behind the rest of the world and inevitably that would lead to failure. Without the ideal of a nation state, it is less likely these people would turn down personal wealth for collective benefit. Some examples of current left wing or collectivised states. This is somewhat difficult to define. I would argue Cuba isn't particularly successful. \* **China**: Mao Zedong’s policies were deeply intertwined with Chinese nationalism, and the current Chinese state view is very nationalistic and sees that who are not subservient to the Han Chinese culture as suspicious and actively try to stamp out the culture. Tibet and Xinjiang show this. \* **Cuba:** The Cuban Revolution succeeded because it was framed not only as a class struggle but also as a fight for Cuban sovereignty and national pride. Fidel Castro’s rhetoric emphasised Cuba’s independence from imperialist powers.  \* **Rojava:** The left-wing Kurdish movement relies Kurdish nationalism for its base. Without the ideal of a Kurdish nation state it would not exist. The members of the YPG are willing to die to achieve this which shows how strong the national identity is. Lots of left-wing thought emphasises global solidarity. This is utopian. It assumes that majority of people would be willing to sacrifice things for groups of people they have little to nothing in common with culturally, religiously or ethnically. I think people need something that binds them together prior to any sort of collectivism.  To change my view, I would like to see some examples of long term collectivism between many people of differing cultures that have been achieved or at least conceptualising how it would be possible

wintersrevenge

2025-01-13 14:22:45

m6z3bf9

I believe that's the catch 22 because the voluntary nature of collective systems isn't just a feature so much as it's a core requirement for success. Our violent history shows that forced collectivization typically leads to resistance, reduced productivity, and eventual system collapse. This creates an inherent paradox: effective collective systems must be opt-in, yet this also limits their scale and adoption. I would argue that it is definitely possible for them to exist harmoniously, but we have to get people to believe that it's in everyone's best interests, including their own, not to take an extra helping from the commons, just in case, or just because. And if we knew how to do that, then it wouldn't be referred to as the tragedy of the commons, I suspect.

temporarycreature

2025-01-13 14:56:46

m6zi0n5

What is “many” ? And in this view, why haven’t all Belgian doctors moved to Luxembourg ? Why haven’t most English-speaking doctors moved out of their country to go to the US? Sure, there are, but salary isn’t the determining factor you believe it is. You seem to forget the social factor: most people want to stay where their friends and family are. The U.S. thrives on this ? Do you guys have healthcare ? My country doesn’t have school shootings on a monthly basis. You don’t even have the public infrastructure China has.  Big salaries ? sure, but would I move away from everything I know just to make a shit ton of money ? What is use is money if I can’t see friends and family often ? What of the ease of life and quality of the environment I live in ? The U.S. doesn’t do well on these.

Ghaenor

2025-01-13 16:08:22

CMV: "X character is Y-coded" is just a socially-acceptable version of stereotyping.

Steelman attempt: To some extent, I kind of get coding. For example, in plural communities, you might see someone say something like "I think Naruto and Kurama are plural-coded. They weren't written with 'DID character' in mind, so Kishimoto didn't draw on 'DID character' cliches like 'hero has an evil alter' or 'happy ending sees all alters destroyed, evil or no.' I'm plural, and I see myself in them." I get that. When I hear statements like "Sheldon is autism-coded" or "the gorillas in Sing are black-coded," that sounds like stereotyping to me. Maybe that's because I'm not a member of the demographic being...uh, "encoded?" into the fictional character. IDK.

Pony13

2025-01-13 21:53:48

m71iec2

Saying that someone is "X-coded" is equivalent to saying that someone is intended to represent group X because they have Y traits that are traditionally associated with members of group X. This is stereotyping if the traits are a stereotype of group X, but that's not necessarily going to be the case. The examples you provide are definitely stereotypes, but that has nothing to do with the specific terminology "X-coded". Saying that someone is obviously a Jew because they have a big nose and are greedy is just as bad. I'll give you a concrete example: [Nimona](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimona_(film)). She's an ancient shapeshifting creature who appears most commonly as a human girl, but who is uncomfortable being one particular thing at any given time for too long. She is beset upon by the society around her who perceive the uncertainty as to what she is as a threat, and even her closest confidant asks her to "just be normal" and insists that she's just a girl. ("No I'm not. I'm a shark." is one of her snarky replies, at a time when she is, in fact, a shark.) A **lot** of people who are themselves LGBT+ view Nimona as being heavily LGBT-coded, even though she isn't literally LGBT, being no gender in particular or even human at all. The experience she has, however - of society wanting her to be what she outwardly appears to be, despite that existence making her unhappy, and of even a close friend finding her expressing her true inner identity offputting - is one that many, many LGBT+ people identify with a great deal, and many LGBT+ people find the movie to subversively be an good representation of the emotional and social reality of being LGBT+, again, despite the titular character not actually being LGBT+. The author of the original visual novel is himself LGBT+, incidentally.

GabuEx

2025-01-13 22:35:58

m71ibdr

Coding is the use of stereotypes to suggest a character is the thing they are coded as. Generally it has to be intentional, with audiences making the claim interpreting it in the absence of a definite word on the matter. Sheldon specifically is not autism-coded, he has a fictional disorder like autism that's close enough for people to relate, but which avoids being autism to dodge the difficulty of writing the disorder (as much has been said by the actor, that his behavior is inspired by, but not aiming to depict). Coding can either be directly using a stereotype, eg. "Overly logical and particular" for autism, or in the black-coding example, be more about representing the culture. The gorillas in Sing are black-coded because they aren't explicitly a parallel, but they take after things common to inner-city black culture, especially as represented in media. It is true that this can lead to, or be used, to stereotype the quality that is coded, or that it can attribute that quality to people who behave a certain way, but it's a very nebulous area. It's true that such happens, but not the prevailing purpose thereof, it's not "Just" a way to stereotype. Coding primarily is a way to get around censorship or sensitivity, or to make something more relatable or palatable, by not addressing it directly..

Gatonom

2025-01-13 22:35:29

CMV: "X character is Y-coded" is just a socially-acceptable version of stereotyping.

Steelman attempt: To some extent, I kind of get coding. For example, in plural communities, you might see someone say something like "I think Naruto and Kurama are plural-coded. They weren't written with 'DID character' in mind, so Kishimoto didn't draw on 'DID character' cliches like 'hero has an evil alter' or 'happy ending sees all alters destroyed, evil or no.' I'm plural, and I see myself in them." I get that. When I hear statements like "Sheldon is autism-coded" or "the gorillas in Sing are black-coded," that sounds like stereotyping to me. Maybe that's because I'm not a member of the demographic being...uh, "encoded?" into the fictional character. IDK.

Pony13

2025-01-13 21:53:48

m71vayf

X character is Y-coded in my opinion is usually more intended to describe a component of a character or person, rather than put them in a bin. Like “James is so Squirrel-coded” implies that james is exhibiting squirrel like behavior, but not that that behavior is the entirety of James. I’m not sure if i’m explaining myself correctly, but stereotyping is usually looking at someone, and applying labels/limits on what they can be because of your biases. Meanwhile, “coded” is usually looking at the whole of a person, and labeling a specific component of the character, or a similarity, rather than saying all that person is limited by however they’re coded.

Purple-Measurement47

2025-01-14 00:01:26

m71j266

>Star fire is black coded she has a different skin colour, she has large curly textured hair and her story tells that of one of slavery and escaping for freedom >The writers of the orginal comics did not say. Kori is a black women. They told an African American story and gave people a character with her character design to show who she is And therein lies the issue. you projecting your own perceptions onto a story and saying something is intended a certain way because you perceive it to be a certain way doesn't make it a certain way. Not every artist is creating something meant to fit into your purview, and reacting to a story with that level of cynicism is honestly more than a little vain

Frylock304

2025-01-13 22:40:01

CMV: "X character is Y-coded" is just a socially-acceptable version of stereotyping.

Steelman attempt: To some extent, I kind of get coding. For example, in plural communities, you might see someone say something like "I think Naruto and Kurama are plural-coded. They weren't written with 'DID character' in mind, so Kishimoto didn't draw on 'DID character' cliches like 'hero has an evil alter' or 'happy ending sees all alters destroyed, evil or no.' I'm plural, and I see myself in them." I get that. When I hear statements like "Sheldon is autism-coded" or "the gorillas in Sing are black-coded," that sounds like stereotyping to me. Maybe that's because I'm not a member of the demographic being...uh, "encoded?" into the fictional character. IDK.

Pony13

2025-01-13 21:53:48

m7223bo

As an aroace we have so little positive representation in media that the closest thing we can do is say that a character who shares our experiences is ace/aro-coded when the people who made certain media don't acknowledge stuff. If a character represents your experience with something (autism, being black, etc.) but there's no episode or statement saying someone represents your experience then it makes sende to tell friends who don't understand your experience that a character is "x"-coded can help them understand you but also be aware that the creators of the media may or may not have intended them to be this way.

RRW359

2025-01-14 00:56:01

m71j266

>Star fire is black coded she has a different skin colour, she has large curly textured hair and her story tells that of one of slavery and escaping for freedom >The writers of the orginal comics did not say. Kori is a black women. They told an African American story and gave people a character with her character design to show who she is And therein lies the issue. you projecting your own perceptions onto a story and saying something is intended a certain way because you perceive it to be a certain way doesn't make it a certain way. Not every artist is creating something meant to fit into your purview, and reacting to a story with that level of cynicism is honestly more than a little vain

Frylock304

2025-01-13 22:40:01

CMV: Civilians not understanding war and international affairs is a severe threat to the democratic world

Probably an unpopular opinion in Reddit, which tends to have a young and liberal user base. I consider myself a liberal, although not particularly political. I spent most of my career in the British Army as an Officer. I also spent several years living in the Middle East, a lot of that in times of conflict. After leaving the military, and after returning from the ME, I find myself pretty shocked at how little people in the West seem to understand about warfare, and international affairs in general, yet how opinionated they tend to be. For the record, even after several years of experience of war, I don't generally go around considering myself an expert. And if it comes to a conflict I know nothing about I wouldn't dream of pretending that I have the first clue. What worries me the most isn't the arrogance, but the fact that people will vote based on their complete fantasy of how they believe the world works. This has led me to believe that, in the democratic world, the lack of understanding of conflicts is a severe threat to our future. Voting in political entities based on an erroneous way of looking at the world could have dire consequences to the international order, to the advantage of groups that do not wish us well. CMV

Conscious_Spray_5331

2025-01-14 06:28:45

m734v0a

The biggest issue is that no voter will ever be an expert on all the subjects important to the nation (if even any), and yet - for democracy to be, they must be given a voice. You're talking about war and foreign affair, and you are most probably right. But it also applies to education, economy, healthcare, land organisation, agriculture, environment, and so much more... Democracy is a deeply flawed system, in which the masses decide on subjects they, on average, do not master. But yet, the other solutions are not better: autocracies have their own, in my opinion even more flawed, set of problems.

Dironiil

2025-01-14 07:22:11

m734wvm

Also force structure. For the US, a conscript army may not make sense, even if they are in a strictly defensive war they're going to be sending expeditionary forces, which a conscript army is worse suited for. Take on the other hand continental European countries, especially ones like Finland, and a conscript army to defend their land that they know makes a lot of sense, as the war in Ukraine has proven that even on the hyper modern battlefield, mass is important too. The gap between a conscript vs professional infantryman in a foxhole on the defense is much lower than on the offensive.

DolanTheCaptan

2025-01-14 07:22:35

CMV: Civilians not understanding war and international affairs is a severe threat to the democratic world

Probably an unpopular opinion in Reddit, which tends to have a young and liberal user base. I consider myself a liberal, although not particularly political. I spent most of my career in the British Army as an Officer. I also spent several years living in the Middle East, a lot of that in times of conflict. After leaving the military, and after returning from the ME, I find myself pretty shocked at how little people in the West seem to understand about warfare, and international affairs in general, yet how opinionated they tend to be. For the record, even after several years of experience of war, I don't generally go around considering myself an expert. And if it comes to a conflict I know nothing about I wouldn't dream of pretending that I have the first clue. What worries me the most isn't the arrogance, but the fact that people will vote based on their complete fantasy of how they believe the world works. This has led me to believe that, in the democratic world, the lack of understanding of conflicts is a severe threat to our future. Voting in political entities based on an erroneous way of looking at the world could have dire consequences to the international order, to the advantage of groups that do not wish us well. CMV

Conscious_Spray_5331

2025-01-14 06:28:45

m73c8bv

Frankly, lack of understanding of anything is a risk of democracy. During the COVID pandemic, a lack of understanding of both diseases and advances in vaccine development kept many people deliberately flouting medically recommended practices, arguably getting many more killed and damaging politicians who supported the more correct actions. And all over the world we’ve seen the effects that global inflation has had on elections, where people blamed and voted out their local incumbent leaders for a problem that wasn’t necessarily due to their actions. The amount of things people vote on without necessarily understanding is huge. Taxes, guns, tariffs, immigration, climate change, brexit, etc. Warfare and international concerns are no different. A healthy democracy requires education and voters willing to learn about the issues of the day. And I think it’s fair to say many current democracies aren’t healthy.

kung-fu_hippy

2025-01-14 08:15:41

m73940n

>This is a common point people have and believe in order to parse how people could possibly have a different view than their own. Obviously if someone disagrees with you they must be a crazy person living in a fantasy world, but its not that simple. Sure, but the way people seem to view conflicts, or the Middle East, is beyond a difference in opinion: it's immediately clear that many people (funnily enough, those usually with the loudest opinions) have never stepped foot in the Middle East, or experienced conflict, because of how far off the mark their views are. It feels like having lived in a house that was painted white on the inside for years, for someone whose never seen it to scream at me that it is in fact painted red. It's simply not the case. Silly analogy I know.

Conscious_Spray_5331

2025-01-14 07:54:07

CMV: Civilians not understanding war and international affairs is a severe threat to the democratic world

Probably an unpopular opinion in Reddit, which tends to have a young and liberal user base. I consider myself a liberal, although not particularly political. I spent most of my career in the British Army as an Officer. I also spent several years living in the Middle East, a lot of that in times of conflict. After leaving the military, and after returning from the ME, I find myself pretty shocked at how little people in the West seem to understand about warfare, and international affairs in general, yet how opinionated they tend to be. For the record, even after several years of experience of war, I don't generally go around considering myself an expert. And if it comes to a conflict I know nothing about I wouldn't dream of pretending that I have the first clue. What worries me the most isn't the arrogance, but the fact that people will vote based on their complete fantasy of how they believe the world works. This has led me to believe that, in the democratic world, the lack of understanding of conflicts is a severe threat to our future. Voting in political entities based on an erroneous way of looking at the world could have dire consequences to the international order, to the advantage of groups that do not wish us well. CMV

Conscious_Spray_5331

2025-01-14 06:28:45

m73i8np

> Yes this is kinda to my point. It shouldn't be niche, given how important it is. Why is warfare more important a field for the average civilian to have knowledge in rather than healthcare or education? Every citizen of most western countries will directly experience the effects of healthcare or education policy, while the same is not true of "warfare". The effects of foreign policy and war in general that a normal civilian will experience are second or third order, not direct. Is it possible that your direct experience in that field may have caused you to place higher importance on it than it deserves?

Sylkhr

2025-01-14 08:54:06

m734v0a

The biggest issue is that no voter will ever be an expert on all the subjects important to the nation (if even any), and yet - for democracy to be, they must be given a voice. You're talking about war and foreign affair, and you are most probably right. But it also applies to education, economy, healthcare, land organisation, agriculture, environment, and so much more... Democracy is a deeply flawed system, in which the masses decide on subjects they, on average, do not master. But yet, the other solutions are not better: autocracies have their own, in my opinion even more flawed, set of problems.

Dironiil

2025-01-14 07:22:11

CMV: Unions are not a net positive for workers in retail jobs

I want to be a believer that unions can help solve a lot of issues for workers. I believe they are really effective for most blue collar workers and teachers. Theres so much abuse in those industries and there is data to show the unions will raise pay in and prevent you from getting fired unjustly. However I'm not convinced that unionizing at places like Starbucks, grocery stores, or fast food chains will really help workers who are underpaid. Here are my reasons: 1) Most workers at retail stores are already very young workers that are using retail work as a stepping stone for a future career doing something else. This means that the majority of workers have no skin in the game if the business does well or not. 2) It will increase the push toward companies automating away these jobs or closing down stores...I know i, know i hate this argument because conservatives say it as a catch all about all unionization efforts. I dont buy this argument that the threat of automation means workers should eat dirt. When it comes to retail though the incentive for companies to automate away jobs or just close locations (sometimes the only location for several miles) i feel is particularly strong since it can be done more easily compared to other industries. Companies would definitely consider doing this more if they're weighing the options against paying unionized workers significantly more. 3) Unions I've seen in retail barely do anything as it is. They take away from your paycheck and really it kind of sort of makes it more difficult to fire people. I would rather have the money.

corbohr

2025-01-12 15:29:55

m6t5jp7

Let me share some real numbers from my time working at a unionized Kroger in Michigan. My starting wage was $19/hr compared to $13.50 at non-union stores just across state lines. That's not pocket change - it's the difference between needing roommates or having your own place. Your point about young workers using retail as a "stepping stone" actually proves why unions matter more. When I was broke and trying to put myself through community college, that extra union wage meant I could take fewer shifts and focus on my studies. Plus, the guaranteed scheduling prevented managers from randomly changing my hours, which was crucial for balancing work and classes. The automation argument doesn't hold up in reality. Look at unionized grocery chains in the Northeast - they've had self-checkout for years while still maintaining strong union presence. Companies implement automation based on technology costs, not labor costs. Target and Walmart are pushing automation just as hard in non-union stores. >Unions I've seen in retail barely do anything as it is. They take away from your paycheck and really it kind of sort of makes it more difficult to fire people. My union dues are $45/month, but I make $220 more per week than non-union workers. Basic math shows that's a massive net positive. And those "barely anything" benefits include health insurance that saved me $4000 last year when I needed surgery. The "easier to fire" part is exactly the point - why should companies have unlimited power to fire people on a whim? Having actual job security means workers can speak up about unsafe conditions without fear of retaliation. Bottom line: I've worked both union and non-union retail. The difference in quality of life is night and day. Don't let theoretical arguments about automation override the real benefits workers are getting right now.

spongermaniak

2025-01-12 16:06:52

m6t7lxr

>Prices go up accordingly and you literally just caused inflation. This is a common argument, but if we look at empirical data, it doesn't bear out. Minimum wage see small increases in inflation, sometimes, but not enough to cancel out. This is obvious once you look at real data, if minimum wage increases where always cancelled out by inflation, then the inflation adjusted minimum wage can never rise or lower, but we see that it can. >Now the question is have, is why have we accepted full grown adults with families working a job that has low pay and complaining and waiting for someone else to decide to pay you what you think you deserve. Should you instead strive to get a better job? Do you know how many people I know are fully capable of getting a decent job but just don’t. They just bounce around from Dunkin’ Donuts, to auto zone, Walmart, fuck this I quit they don’t pay enough, and on and on. It’s madness. Similarly, we know that mass unionization and regulation is succesful at raising wages, while moralizing and complaining achieves fuck-all. What you're doing here is in no-way adressing a problem, it's just justifying it as a rightful punishment for the undeserving plebs, complaining that people are too lazy to adress the problem, while also complaining that they are adressing the problem in a way that actually works, as opposed to your way, which does not. >If you’re not willing to suffer, sacrifice, or break yourself in pursuit of something great, maybe you don’t deserve it. Harsh? Maybe. True? Definitely.” The reality here is that corporate will gladly accept you breaking yourself for something great. You do the breaking, they'll take the credit and the money. This self-sacrificing mantra is just a convenient lie for people to accept their own exploitation, and feel morally superior about it.

10ebbor10

2025-01-12 16:17:03

CMV: Disliking a genre of music because it's "associated with bad people" is stupid.

**Anybody who dislikes a genre of music, not because hey genuinely just don't like the music itself, but because they dislike it because it's associated with undesirable people, in their eyes, is poor reasoning.** I believe their viewpoint fails to recognize two key principles: >**1.** The art should be separated from the artist **2.** Harmful stereotypes are perpetuated with his school of thought Firstly, if a piece of art is created by an artist with an unsavory background, this shouldn't dismiss the value of the art piece itself. A good example is that of Hitlers artwork. I believe it would be dishonest to say his paintings were bad because he had committed reprehensible acts. Despite his paintings being associated with himself, this doesn't discredit the art itself. While I do believe it should be important to recognize he has done unforgivable acts of genocide, it shouldn't be used as a reason to dislike an art piece, as it the reasoning fails to address the art piece directly. If someone didn't like the content of the art itself, I believe that is a completely valid opinion. The same ideas I've presented here using visual art as an example, should be applied to musical art as well. Furthermore, the idea that certain genres of music are associated with undesirable people perpetuates harmful stereotypes. This has been seen with many genres of music, but I think a good example of this would be the rap genre. The rap genre has been known to be associated with crime, and more often than not, crime committed by young black men. This has had an adverse affect on black communities, especially in the US, as it became a stereotype that young black man are hip-hopping, violent criminals. Just by having a rap song playing from a vehicle as they get pulled over could be enough to sway the officer to affirm any stereotypes that they may carry, further perpetuating dangerous and harmful stereotypes. In conclusion, my opinions are that believing a genre of music is bad due to it's associations to undesirable people, isn't good reasoning for disliking a genre as it perpetuates dangerous and harmful stereotypes and fails to recognize the content of the music itself. The art should instead be separated from the artist and instead should be reviewed on it's content and it's purpose or meaning. I'm looking forward to seeing differing opinions.

I_Am_But_A_Human

2025-01-12 11:21:09

m6rsii1

People listen to music either knowingly or unknowly supporting musicians they may or may not morally agree with. I personally will not separate the art from the artists, it's why their art is the way it is. Inherently, I can enjoy something that someone did in their art while also recognizing the artists capability to be cruel. Not to recognize it would be... strange to a point. We cab use your example of Hitler. Imagine I have an art wall with portraits of dogs. Someone unknowingly can see them all and not know the artist and appreciate them as they see fit. But when the life of the artist begins to come through the brush strokes, well, the capacity of those same hands also hurt entire lineages and irreplaceable ways. Devasting ways. I can't see the same joy anymore, I see someone who used their pain to commit a genocide, it's no longer *just* a portrait of a dog. It becomes a symbol of a man who found the ability within to physically harm so deeply, we had an entire world war. So no, the art *is* the artists, imo. Now let's go back to the situation where the officer pulls someone over for listening to rap for instance. This is basic discrimination 101. Music is not inherently going to make you do and support the same things, nor does it mean you should be discriminated against for enjoying it. Perhaps we can see someone listening to music as simply listening to music? Unless it's someone like Hitler, who does use their platform for political activism. Situation by situation. It's a broad question with grey concepts that can on micro levels become black and white from a morale perspective.

PyratChant

2025-01-12 12:14:39

m6rm7xg

Why does the reason i dislike hitlers artwork matter? Why must it be some critique of his technique or use of color or shading or whatever? That is not all that art is. You cant remove the art from the artist, that seems to be a big reason AI art has many people against it. The art is linked to who created it, their emotion is in it, their vision, their past, everything. It is an extension of them. So yes i can say hitlers art has good technique while also disliking anything that is an extension of hitler . I am not a fan , i would not support. I do not think “not liking” equals thinking the technique used is bad . I can say yea the guy can paint while also saying anything that is a creation of that reprehensible monster is a no go for me . With rap i think it genuinely does talk about undesirable things for most people. All of the popular rap I’ve heard deals with crime, drugs, violence , sex . It does have gems in it though depicting the struggles of poverty and depression etc. They are speaking on their experiences. Im not sure how many people dislike rap because it’s associated with undesirable people. I think its more so that it’s associated with undesirable things and the rappers do those things in some cases. If they do though , that is fine to me. Stereotyping is just a lazy practice and cops treating people different because the music they listen to would be insane and likely against the law. Basically i am saying you can argue for more nuance without trying to police what reasons people have for disliking some thing

fiktional_m3

2025-01-12 11:44:02

CMV: Biden's term in office did not meaningfully deliver victories for the American left domestically

I'll start with Biden's legislature passed during his term and explain why I think his tenure did not meaningfully advance the goals of the American left. Biden's first signature piece of legislature was the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, which in fairness to Biden is not your typical giveaway to the wealthy. It included child tax credits that were wildly successful, I believe they cut the child poverty rate by half. However, these expired. Via The New York Times, reporting on the stimulus package at the time: *For a working single mother of a 3-year-old who earns the federal minimum wage — just under $16,000 a year — the bill would provide as much as $4,775 in direct benefits, Ms. Pancotti estimates. For a family of four with one working parent and one who remains unemployed because of child care constraints, the benefits could total $12,460.* It was also refreshing to see after Trump's usually immodest boastings about his amazing soon to arrive infrastructure bill, that one was actually passed. Although the cost ($1 trillion) does seem excessive to me and it is irking that those who seemed to benefit most were large firms like CAT. Now the negatives: the raw amount of spending is rather modest when put into perspective. Via Paul Krugman: *But when I see news reports describe these laws as “*[*massive*](https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/12/house-to-vote-on-inflation-reduction-act-tax-and-climate-bill.html)*” or huge, I wonder whether the writers have done the math. The infrastructure law will add* [*roughly $500 billion*](https://www.crfb.org/blogs/infrastructure-plan-will-add-400-billion-deficit-cbo-finds) *in spending over the next decade. The Inflation Reduction Act will increase spending by roughly* [*an additional half trillion*](https://www.crfb.org/blogs/whats-inflation-reduction-act)*. A law to promote U.S.* [*semiconductor production*](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-28/house-sends-52-billion-chip-bill-to-biden-for-his-signature?sref=qzusa8bC) *will add around $50 billion more. Overall, then, we’re talking about a bit more than $1 trillion in public investment over 10 years.* *To put this in perspective, the Congressional Budget Office expects* [*cumulative gross domestic product*](https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022-05/57950-Outlook.pdf#page=13) *to be more than $300 trillion over the next decade. So the Biden agenda will amount to around one-third of one percent of G.D.P. Massive it isn’t.* I am of the opinion that the CHIPS and Sciences Act was unnecessary or at least should have been amended as some Democratic senators suggested so that the chips companies receiving the subsidies didn't turn around and use the federal money on buybacks and dividends. Speaking of stock buybacks, Biden's 1% tax on stock buybacks was welcome but in my opinion too modest to alter a practice that could potentially damage American competitiveness for the long term (as companies like IBM are spending more on buybacks than R&D) I'm not sure what the ideal solution is to this (and obviously some of this is down to California's jurisdiction and its governor) but it doesn't seem to reflect well on Biden that in California the average home price is $700,000, which cannot be good for the average person. Recently, figures have also come out that US homelessness has risen to an all time high of 770,000. Wage growth adjusted for inflation on paper has been impressive (7.3% for the bottom 10% since 2019) it is important to note that often the cost of living increases for these individuals have probably been greater than the official inflation statistics (grocery prices make up only 8% of the CPI but the average person in the bottom 10% spends more than 8% of their budget on groceries). Biden cannot really be faulted for the nearly $400 billion in climate spending though in the IRA, good job there. Biden's student loan forgiveness plan (though this was not really his fault) ended up being hacked to pieces by the Supreme Court. Regulatory outlook: Lina Khan's FTC came in with an ambitious plan to rewrite existing US antitrust practice. The results have been decidedly mixed. Lawsuits against Microsoft and Meta failed. A good symbol of where policy has become misguided under Biden is that the FTC sued to block the Tapestry-Capri Holdings merger over whether prices for affordable handbags would become too high. This hardly seems like a top priority for the left in my view.

PrestigiousChard9442

2025-01-13 14:17:20

m6yytdb

One quick note: I am going to include in my comment substantive actions the Biden presidency took *even if* those actions were blocked by Republican courts up to and including SCOTUS. Why? Because you can absolutely fault him for baskets he never scored because he never took the shot, but I do not find it reasonable to fault him when he took the shot and it got blocked. Here are just a few things from his four years: * Expanding overtime protection to more people and higher wage thresholds * Making birth control available over the counter * Establishing the Office of Gun Violence Prevention and the 2022 gun safety law * Cracking down on junk fees and deceptive pricing practices * Passing the Electoral Count Act reforms * Moving to reschedule marijuana * Wiping out billions of dollars in predatory student loans from for-profit colleges * Wiping out billions of dollars in should-have-already-been-gone student loans from the public service program that were trapped in bureaucracy * Brokering a Japan+South Korea strategic alliance against China * Walking picket lines for the first time in history to support unions * Actually accomplishing infrastructure week (more than 40,000 projects are underway) I could go on. You say he didn't accomplish anything meaningfully for the left, I say the left are Americans just like the right and he accomplished a hell of a lot for Americans.

baltinerdist

2025-01-13 14:35:08

m6yyu7k

Because A) at least some of the blame for going from a Democratic trifecta to Republican trifecta 2020-2024 lays at the feet of Biden  B) guess which group holds much of the stock wealth  C) Trump didn't handle the pandemic well but Biden also had the luck of coming into office when Operation Warp Speed and vaccine development was already well underway. Biden's response also was far from perfect and vaccine uptake was sluggish. Also per the NY Times: The administration lacked a sustained focus on testing, not moving to sharply increase the supply of at-home Covid tests until the fall, with Delta tearing through the country and Omicron on its way. The lack of foresight left Americans struggling to find tests that could quickly determine if they were infected. D) Inflation went down from 9% to 2%, but it also went up to 9% under Biden too. Other countries had pretty dire inflation numbers too but you can't discount Biden's spending playing a role here. 

PrestigiousChard9442

2025-01-13 14:35:15

CMV: Biden's term in office did not meaningfully deliver victories for the American left domestically

I'll start with Biden's legislature passed during his term and explain why I think his tenure did not meaningfully advance the goals of the American left. Biden's first signature piece of legislature was the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, which in fairness to Biden is not your typical giveaway to the wealthy. It included child tax credits that were wildly successful, I believe they cut the child poverty rate by half. However, these expired. Via The New York Times, reporting on the stimulus package at the time: *For a working single mother of a 3-year-old who earns the federal minimum wage — just under $16,000 a year — the bill would provide as much as $4,775 in direct benefits, Ms. Pancotti estimates. For a family of four with one working parent and one who remains unemployed because of child care constraints, the benefits could total $12,460.* It was also refreshing to see after Trump's usually immodest boastings about his amazing soon to arrive infrastructure bill, that one was actually passed. Although the cost ($1 trillion) does seem excessive to me and it is irking that those who seemed to benefit most were large firms like CAT. Now the negatives: the raw amount of spending is rather modest when put into perspective. Via Paul Krugman: *But when I see news reports describe these laws as “*[*massive*](https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/12/house-to-vote-on-inflation-reduction-act-tax-and-climate-bill.html)*” or huge, I wonder whether the writers have done the math. The infrastructure law will add* [*roughly $500 billion*](https://www.crfb.org/blogs/infrastructure-plan-will-add-400-billion-deficit-cbo-finds) *in spending over the next decade. The Inflation Reduction Act will increase spending by roughly* [*an additional half trillion*](https://www.crfb.org/blogs/whats-inflation-reduction-act)*. A law to promote U.S.* [*semiconductor production*](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-28/house-sends-52-billion-chip-bill-to-biden-for-his-signature?sref=qzusa8bC) *will add around $50 billion more. Overall, then, we’re talking about a bit more than $1 trillion in public investment over 10 years.* *To put this in perspective, the Congressional Budget Office expects* [*cumulative gross domestic product*](https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022-05/57950-Outlook.pdf#page=13) *to be more than $300 trillion over the next decade. So the Biden agenda will amount to around one-third of one percent of G.D.P. Massive it isn’t.* I am of the opinion that the CHIPS and Sciences Act was unnecessary or at least should have been amended as some Democratic senators suggested so that the chips companies receiving the subsidies didn't turn around and use the federal money on buybacks and dividends. Speaking of stock buybacks, Biden's 1% tax on stock buybacks was welcome but in my opinion too modest to alter a practice that could potentially damage American competitiveness for the long term (as companies like IBM are spending more on buybacks than R&D) I'm not sure what the ideal solution is to this (and obviously some of this is down to California's jurisdiction and its governor) but it doesn't seem to reflect well on Biden that in California the average home price is $700,000, which cannot be good for the average person. Recently, figures have also come out that US homelessness has risen to an all time high of 770,000. Wage growth adjusted for inflation on paper has been impressive (7.3% for the bottom 10% since 2019) it is important to note that often the cost of living increases for these individuals have probably been greater than the official inflation statistics (grocery prices make up only 8% of the CPI but the average person in the bottom 10% spends more than 8% of their budget on groceries). Biden cannot really be faulted for the nearly $400 billion in climate spending though in the IRA, good job there. Biden's student loan forgiveness plan (though this was not really his fault) ended up being hacked to pieces by the Supreme Court. Regulatory outlook: Lina Khan's FTC came in with an ambitious plan to rewrite existing US antitrust practice. The results have been decidedly mixed. Lawsuits against Microsoft and Meta failed. A good symbol of where policy has become misguided under Biden is that the FTC sued to block the Tapestry-Capri Holdings merger over whether prices for affordable handbags would become too high. This hardly seems like a top priority for the left in my view.

PrestigiousChard9442

2025-01-13 14:17:20

m6z0c1k

You seem to be deflecting. Or at least you're confusing "victory" with "perfect victory". If a basketball team wins 106-105 in 3 overtimes, it's still a victory. You don't have to win 152-48 for it to "count" as a victory. Let's put it more broadly: Was the period from January 2021 - December 2024 an improvement over the period from January 2017 - December 2020 for America? Either you think it got worse (it didn't) or you agree the Biden administration was a victory. Because the alternative to Biden was 4+ more years of the same chaos that reigned from 2017 to 2020.

JuicingPickle

2025-01-13 14:42:29

m6yzroj

If you have minimum requirements for what you would define a win, would you be willing to document those ahead of the next democratic presidency? I think you are anchoring your expectations off of what happened and using that to treat it as a failure, rather than trying to set realistic expectations up front and comparing against that. If you don't view this as a presidency with more wins for the left than we have gotten from most presidents, I think you might not be looking at things with open eyes.

Wizecoder

2025-01-13 14:39:44

CMV: Biden's term in office did not meaningfully deliver victories for the American left domestically

I'll start with Biden's legislature passed during his term and explain why I think his tenure did not meaningfully advance the goals of the American left. Biden's first signature piece of legislature was the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, which in fairness to Biden is not your typical giveaway to the wealthy. It included child tax credits that were wildly successful, I believe they cut the child poverty rate by half. However, these expired. Via The New York Times, reporting on the stimulus package at the time: *For a working single mother of a 3-year-old who earns the federal minimum wage — just under $16,000 a year — the bill would provide as much as $4,775 in direct benefits, Ms. Pancotti estimates. For a family of four with one working parent and one who remains unemployed because of child care constraints, the benefits could total $12,460.* It was also refreshing to see after Trump's usually immodest boastings about his amazing soon to arrive infrastructure bill, that one was actually passed. Although the cost ($1 trillion) does seem excessive to me and it is irking that those who seemed to benefit most were large firms like CAT. Now the negatives: the raw amount of spending is rather modest when put into perspective. Via Paul Krugman: *But when I see news reports describe these laws as “*[*massive*](https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/12/house-to-vote-on-inflation-reduction-act-tax-and-climate-bill.html)*” or huge, I wonder whether the writers have done the math. The infrastructure law will add* [*roughly $500 billion*](https://www.crfb.org/blogs/infrastructure-plan-will-add-400-billion-deficit-cbo-finds) *in spending over the next decade. The Inflation Reduction Act will increase spending by roughly* [*an additional half trillion*](https://www.crfb.org/blogs/whats-inflation-reduction-act)*. A law to promote U.S.* [*semiconductor production*](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-28/house-sends-52-billion-chip-bill-to-biden-for-his-signature?sref=qzusa8bC) *will add around $50 billion more. Overall, then, we’re talking about a bit more than $1 trillion in public investment over 10 years.* *To put this in perspective, the Congressional Budget Office expects* [*cumulative gross domestic product*](https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022-05/57950-Outlook.pdf#page=13) *to be more than $300 trillion over the next decade. So the Biden agenda will amount to around one-third of one percent of G.D.P. Massive it isn’t.* I am of the opinion that the CHIPS and Sciences Act was unnecessary or at least should have been amended as some Democratic senators suggested so that the chips companies receiving the subsidies didn't turn around and use the federal money on buybacks and dividends. Speaking of stock buybacks, Biden's 1% tax on stock buybacks was welcome but in my opinion too modest to alter a practice that could potentially damage American competitiveness for the long term (as companies like IBM are spending more on buybacks than R&D) I'm not sure what the ideal solution is to this (and obviously some of this is down to California's jurisdiction and its governor) but it doesn't seem to reflect well on Biden that in California the average home price is $700,000, which cannot be good for the average person. Recently, figures have also come out that US homelessness has risen to an all time high of 770,000. Wage growth adjusted for inflation on paper has been impressive (7.3% for the bottom 10% since 2019) it is important to note that often the cost of living increases for these individuals have probably been greater than the official inflation statistics (grocery prices make up only 8% of the CPI but the average person in the bottom 10% spends more than 8% of their budget on groceries). Biden cannot really be faulted for the nearly $400 billion in climate spending though in the IRA, good job there. Biden's student loan forgiveness plan (though this was not really his fault) ended up being hacked to pieces by the Supreme Court. Regulatory outlook: Lina Khan's FTC came in with an ambitious plan to rewrite existing US antitrust practice. The results have been decidedly mixed. Lawsuits against Microsoft and Meta failed. A good symbol of where policy has become misguided under Biden is that the FTC sued to block the Tapestry-Capri Holdings merger over whether prices for affordable handbags would become too high. This hardly seems like a top priority for the left in my view.

PrestigiousChard9442

2025-01-13 14:17:20

m7024z4

What did Clinton deliver more on for the left than Biden? I would argue that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the Defense of Marriage Act, and the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act put him further to the right than Biden. And yeah, I’ll grant you LBJ and FDR. But if you’re looking for a democratic president to accomplish more than the New Deal or the Civil Rights Act, I think your expectations aren’t in line with modern political realities. Which isn’t me arguing that Biden did enough so much as me asking, how much more could he (or anyone) have accomplished?

kung-fu_hippy

2025-01-13 17:48:33

m6z0c1k

You seem to be deflecting. Or at least you're confusing "victory" with "perfect victory". If a basketball team wins 106-105 in 3 overtimes, it's still a victory. You don't have to win 152-48 for it to "count" as a victory. Let's put it more broadly: Was the period from January 2021 - December 2024 an improvement over the period from January 2017 - December 2020 for America? Either you think it got worse (it didn't) or you agree the Biden administration was a victory. Because the alternative to Biden was 4+ more years of the same chaos that reigned from 2017 to 2020.

JuicingPickle

2025-01-13 14:42:29

CMV: Having a mental illness is not an excuse to be an asshole.

Listen, I get it mental illness is hard I really do! But it’s not really an excuse to get what you want or be an asshole. A example I see is some people with BPD will make it an excuse. It’s not treatable by any stance but it does not give you an excuse to treat others with disrespect. It honestly gives people who are looking for help a hard time. It’s okay to be wrong, it’s okay to fix your mistakes. It’s not only making it worse for yourself but it’s making it worse for others around you. Own up to it, it’s okay. Person did correct me in the comments BPD is treatable thank you for that. So I realized how I posted this was weird. People are making very valid comments on here. What I meant is that people who refuse to do anything. I mean it’s just the back burner they use for anything that comes from them. I had a few people come up with there ADHD and said they have trouble with being on time and being forgetful. But they have timers to help them remember and other people may think they are an asshole. I am not talking about that! I am talking about people who will use it in any way shape or form will not bother trying and just throw it out there. Sorry about that my fault.

Correct_Tailor_4171

2025-01-12 12:35:10

m6s2eaa

My bipolar, during a manic episode, gives me rage. I understand that it's not an "excuse", however it is an explanation. And I would sure hope to be given more leeway than someone who, idk, doesn't have my issues *choosing* to act the same way. When I'm manic, my actions aren't really my choice. It's not "me". I act out of character. Thats the whole point of it being an illness, a certain amount of it is out of my control.

taybay462

2025-01-12 13:01:36

m6s1d17

Which is why Bob is being called out. If Bob is being told he is doing nothing wrong he can’t get helped. But if he’s being told he can do better. Bob will get told he’s being an asshole cause it’s life. Bob can go to treatment learn if will take years sometimes but he can get better. If Bob did not know he had something in the first place then Bob would not make is an excuse in the first place.

Correct_Tailor_4171

2025-01-12 12:56:53

CMV: Since the US is an accidental superpower, it is also disturbingly probable that it could be a malevolent one too

I've been listening to Peter Zephan's Accidental Superpower and he makes a very good argument that geography coupled with the timing of the world wars absolutely boosted the US to a superpower status that no one could dare counter. Like if the we could resimulate the past and keep changing factors like a Victoria game, the US would still end up as the unparalleled superpower absent some huge screw up (like a horrible Civil War outcome). The geography essentially destined this place to be the seat of power for our current industrial tech framework. This presents 3 unsavory things to guard against: 1. Our ideological framework might not be better, it might just be boosted by geographical - and therefore geopolitical luck. If your ideology misaligned with the US, it could be more that you suffered by simply being outside the global accepted trade network than that the ideology itself was bad. 2. The US has the potential to leech other countries potential surplus by abusing the superpower status. 3. And as follow-up to the above, the US has the potential to rot institutionally for a long time because it would take something overwhelming to shake out a change. No country is perfect, but the US had an oddly benevolent past - with things like Breton Woods being a help everyone type of agreement. There's other nations that were way worse, like pre WWII Japan or Russia, but they thankfully never had massive geographic blessings. However it seems like in my lifetime I've seen this break down and now were destroying trade with tariffs, abusing the shit out of the reserve currency status fueling debt like none other completely destabilizing world finance, and creating unnecessary tension. In a sense, there's a real risk that US citizens could be perpetuating a global antagonist in a couple decades if we aren't cautious. So, here's the CMV part - convince me otherwise, but it seems as a US citizen it seems like we should shut up about our ideology and stop forcing it everywhere cause it could be wrong. And we should entirely focus inwards towards boosting our native geographic luck instead of boosting our international presence. Finally we should be stability rather than growth oriented as the world safe haven. This would minimize the potential malevolence by a lot.

Tiny-Pomegranate7662

2025-01-12 14:52:20

m6swvlu

Firstly, it's important to remember that the genesis of the USA is a _response and revolution_ from a superpower unlike any seen before at the time - the british empire. So while you say "accidental" I think it's perhaps equally or more important that it's born out of a resistance to bad things that came from at least one superpower before it. So...embedded in the values of the country are the learnings from what can go awry when you're a superpower. Secondly, when you look at the USA as having a "benevelent past" you're seeing a very biased view that is a reflection of it's _success_ not of it's benevelence. For example, a japanese view of the history of the USA that leads to WWII is very different than the USA "attack out of nowhere on the pacific fleet". The USA was starving japan of energy, a move that if done to the USA by another country would be the most aggresive thing shy of pearly harbor the USA has ever experienced. We see this in the USA as part of the expanding japanese empire in asia (particularly in indochina), but there is a very long history in the region that makes the story very complex. Certainly in Japan there is a reasonable argument that Japan was forced into aggression and then that the use of nuclear weapons makes the USA far from "benevolent". Then you've got expansionist "manifest destiny" which expanded the footprint of the USA over a very long time via genocide of various populations of north america - areas not part of the country for much of its history. Then you've got periods of time where the USA was isolationist having believed it made mistakes in international politics - notably after WW1 the USA wanted to withdraw from the international stage in many ways and avoid being pulled into the maelstrom of another war. The point here is that you're describing a very false arc in my mind. While there may be reason a return to isolationism would be an improvement (this is sorta / kinda the trump ideology, although it's so scattered and it weaponizes things like trade in ways that are equally likely to cause problems), but if the lessons of the past are your reason then I think you're taking an overly rosy view of what worked in the past and what the lessons are.

iamintheforest

2025-01-12 15:25:12

m6su3ap

>LTI: Industrial tech and geography gave us ultimate superpower status that can be abused to be a pox on the world People far more qualified than me can speak on your central assertion that US foreign policy is flawed. But I want to speak on the idea that the US is guaranteed continued superpower status. We absolutely are not - it requires deliberate, active work to maintain. I would suggest another of Zeihan's books, *Disunited Nations*. In it, he goes through several major powers (the US, UK, Germany, France, Russia, China) and ranks them on the extent they have geographic & economic properties that help prop up their position, and which of those things they can improve with better government. The US - like most countries - is a mixture. For example, our economy is heavily integrated with Canada and Mexico, and Chinese partnership with the rest of east Asia is far more fractured. The US military presence goes a long way in forcing otherwise uncooperative countries to work together - IIRC, the aircraft carriers doing that are stationed in Japan. If we pulled out of the region, it's not clear the same partnerships would remain. And if the countries there weren't forced to play nice with each other, China would be far weaker. The same kinds of scenarios are true around the world. Sometimes, American presence and power is maintaining status quos that are *good* for us, whether or not liberals like you and I agree with the details. Now, I want to be very clear that this does not mean we're acting altruistically. Good for America ≠ good for the country we're involved with. Nor does it mean that we're currently doing the optimal level of intervention. But it does mean that our continued status as the world's superpower is contingent upon our continued action in the world - our geography *does not* guarantee it.

jaKobbbest3

2025-01-12 15:12:15

CMV: Since the US is an accidental superpower, it is also disturbingly probable that it could be a malevolent one too

I've been listening to Peter Zephan's Accidental Superpower and he makes a very good argument that geography coupled with the timing of the world wars absolutely boosted the US to a superpower status that no one could dare counter. Like if the we could resimulate the past and keep changing factors like a Victoria game, the US would still end up as the unparalleled superpower absent some huge screw up (like a horrible Civil War outcome). The geography essentially destined this place to be the seat of power for our current industrial tech framework. This presents 3 unsavory things to guard against: 1. Our ideological framework might not be better, it might just be boosted by geographical - and therefore geopolitical luck. If your ideology misaligned with the US, it could be more that you suffered by simply being outside the global accepted trade network than that the ideology itself was bad. 2. The US has the potential to leech other countries potential surplus by abusing the superpower status. 3. And as follow-up to the above, the US has the potential to rot institutionally for a long time because it would take something overwhelming to shake out a change. No country is perfect, but the US had an oddly benevolent past - with things like Breton Woods being a help everyone type of agreement. There's other nations that were way worse, like pre WWII Japan or Russia, but they thankfully never had massive geographic blessings. However it seems like in my lifetime I've seen this break down and now were destroying trade with tariffs, abusing the shit out of the reserve currency status fueling debt like none other completely destabilizing world finance, and creating unnecessary tension. In a sense, there's a real risk that US citizens could be perpetuating a global antagonist in a couple decades if we aren't cautious. So, here's the CMV part - convince me otherwise, but it seems as a US citizen it seems like we should shut up about our ideology and stop forcing it everywhere cause it could be wrong. And we should entirely focus inwards towards boosting our native geographic luck instead of boosting our international presence. Finally we should be stability rather than growth oriented as the world safe haven. This would minimize the potential malevolence by a lot.

Tiny-Pomegranate7662

2025-01-12 14:52:20

m6su3ap

>LTI: Industrial tech and geography gave us ultimate superpower status that can be abused to be a pox on the world People far more qualified than me can speak on your central assertion that US foreign policy is flawed. But I want to speak on the idea that the US is guaranteed continued superpower status. We absolutely are not - it requires deliberate, active work to maintain. I would suggest another of Zeihan's books, *Disunited Nations*. In it, he goes through several major powers (the US, UK, Germany, France, Russia, China) and ranks them on the extent they have geographic & economic properties that help prop up their position, and which of those things they can improve with better government. The US - like most countries - is a mixture. For example, our economy is heavily integrated with Canada and Mexico, and Chinese partnership with the rest of east Asia is far more fractured. The US military presence goes a long way in forcing otherwise uncooperative countries to work together - IIRC, the aircraft carriers doing that are stationed in Japan. If we pulled out of the region, it's not clear the same partnerships would remain. And if the countries there weren't forced to play nice with each other, China would be far weaker. The same kinds of scenarios are true around the world. Sometimes, American presence and power is maintaining status quos that are *good* for us, whether or not liberals like you and I agree with the details. Now, I want to be very clear that this does not mean we're acting altruistically. Good for America ≠ good for the country we're involved with. Nor does it mean that we're currently doing the optimal level of intervention. But it does mean that our continued status as the world's superpower is contingent upon our continued action in the world - our geography *does not* guarantee it.

jaKobbbest3

2025-01-12 15:12:15

m6swvlu

Firstly, it's important to remember that the genesis of the USA is a _response and revolution_ from a superpower unlike any seen before at the time - the british empire. So while you say "accidental" I think it's perhaps equally or more important that it's born out of a resistance to bad things that came from at least one superpower before it. So...embedded in the values of the country are the learnings from what can go awry when you're a superpower. Secondly, when you look at the USA as having a "benevelent past" you're seeing a very biased view that is a reflection of it's _success_ not of it's benevelence. For example, a japanese view of the history of the USA that leads to WWII is very different than the USA "attack out of nowhere on the pacific fleet". The USA was starving japan of energy, a move that if done to the USA by another country would be the most aggresive thing shy of pearly harbor the USA has ever experienced. We see this in the USA as part of the expanding japanese empire in asia (particularly in indochina), but there is a very long history in the region that makes the story very complex. Certainly in Japan there is a reasonable argument that Japan was forced into aggression and then that the use of nuclear weapons makes the USA far from "benevolent". Then you've got expansionist "manifest destiny" which expanded the footprint of the USA over a very long time via genocide of various populations of north america - areas not part of the country for much of its history. Then you've got periods of time where the USA was isolationist having believed it made mistakes in international politics - notably after WW1 the USA wanted to withdraw from the international stage in many ways and avoid being pulled into the maelstrom of another war. The point here is that you're describing a very false arc in my mind. While there may be reason a return to isolationism would be an improvement (this is sorta / kinda the trump ideology, although it's so scattered and it weaponizes things like trade in ways that are equally likely to cause problems), but if the lessons of the past are your reason then I think you're taking an overly rosy view of what worked in the past and what the lessons are.

iamintheforest

2025-01-12 15:25:12

CMV: Since the US is an accidental superpower, it is also disturbingly probable that it could be a malevolent one too

I've been listening to Peter Zephan's Accidental Superpower and he makes a very good argument that geography coupled with the timing of the world wars absolutely boosted the US to a superpower status that no one could dare counter. Like if the we could resimulate the past and keep changing factors like a Victoria game, the US would still end up as the unparalleled superpower absent some huge screw up (like a horrible Civil War outcome). The geography essentially destined this place to be the seat of power for our current industrial tech framework. This presents 3 unsavory things to guard against: 1. Our ideological framework might not be better, it might just be boosted by geographical - and therefore geopolitical luck. If your ideology misaligned with the US, it could be more that you suffered by simply being outside the global accepted trade network than that the ideology itself was bad. 2. The US has the potential to leech other countries potential surplus by abusing the superpower status. 3. And as follow-up to the above, the US has the potential to rot institutionally for a long time because it would take something overwhelming to shake out a change. No country is perfect, but the US had an oddly benevolent past - with things like Breton Woods being a help everyone type of agreement. There's other nations that were way worse, like pre WWII Japan or Russia, but they thankfully never had massive geographic blessings. However it seems like in my lifetime I've seen this break down and now were destroying trade with tariffs, abusing the shit out of the reserve currency status fueling debt like none other completely destabilizing world finance, and creating unnecessary tension. In a sense, there's a real risk that US citizens could be perpetuating a global antagonist in a couple decades if we aren't cautious. So, here's the CMV part - convince me otherwise, but it seems as a US citizen it seems like we should shut up about our ideology and stop forcing it everywhere cause it could be wrong. And we should entirely focus inwards towards boosting our native geographic luck instead of boosting our international presence. Finally we should be stability rather than growth oriented as the world safe haven. This would minimize the potential malevolence by a lot.

Tiny-Pomegranate7662

2025-01-12 14:52:20

m6t2duu

This post is all over the place, but i’ll try my best… 1. The US is not an “accidental superpower.” From the earliest years of an independent American nation, there were calls to become a continent spanning empire stretching “from sea to shining sea.” The US either subjugated or exterminated the indigenous peoples that stood in the way of America’s *Manifest Destiny*, and then immediately began flexing its muscles on the international stage. Long before we began calling ourselves a “superpower” we were waging imperialistic wars for foreign colonies like Cuba, Puerto Rico, or the Philippines, or overthrowing Central American republics so that United Fruit could increase their profits. American hegemony has always been the result of intentional policy and decision-making. 2. America’s only guiding ideology is that of maintaining the “American empire.” For the past century-and-a-half that empire has been synonymous with global free trade and economic liberalization… but that is beginning to change. Talk of tariffs, trade wars, and bans of foreign companies/products only highlights how the preservation of American hegemony is the central goal. The moment we couldn’t compete economically, we gave up all pretensions of caring about free trade… 3. The US IS rotting internally, just look at how far the state of American politics has fallen in the past 3 decades alone… Political corruption and the influence of money in politics isn’t even being hidden anymore, its being discussed and displayed openly. Living standards are declining, whether its life expectancy, income inequality, cost of living, or housing prices/rent. American society is extremely violent, and acts of domestic terror are occurring on a regular basis. None of these things scream “healthy, long-term prospects.” A declining empire is always at its most violent and unstable… and much of that violence is the direct result of trying to maintain that “empire.” 4. Superpowers cannot be isolationist… you cannot “focus internally” and be a global superpower. To be a superpower is to exert your influence globally. By definition, you HAVE to intervene in global affairs. The disadvantage for the US is that China is increasingly favored as the better economic and trade partner… so the US has to double-down on the strength of its military in order to reinforce its position as the global hegemon. Sure the US can’t build a high-speed rail network in its own country, let alone in the developing world like how China does… but it sure can blow that railway up if it wants to. Its the foreign policy equivalent of “When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.”

Doub13D

2025-01-12 15:51:33

m6swvlu

Firstly, it's important to remember that the genesis of the USA is a _response and revolution_ from a superpower unlike any seen before at the time - the british empire. So while you say "accidental" I think it's perhaps equally or more important that it's born out of a resistance to bad things that came from at least one superpower before it. So...embedded in the values of the country are the learnings from what can go awry when you're a superpower. Secondly, when you look at the USA as having a "benevelent past" you're seeing a very biased view that is a reflection of it's _success_ not of it's benevelence. For example, a japanese view of the history of the USA that leads to WWII is very different than the USA "attack out of nowhere on the pacific fleet". The USA was starving japan of energy, a move that if done to the USA by another country would be the most aggresive thing shy of pearly harbor the USA has ever experienced. We see this in the USA as part of the expanding japanese empire in asia (particularly in indochina), but there is a very long history in the region that makes the story very complex. Certainly in Japan there is a reasonable argument that Japan was forced into aggression and then that the use of nuclear weapons makes the USA far from "benevolent". Then you've got expansionist "manifest destiny" which expanded the footprint of the USA over a very long time via genocide of various populations of north america - areas not part of the country for much of its history. Then you've got periods of time where the USA was isolationist having believed it made mistakes in international politics - notably after WW1 the USA wanted to withdraw from the international stage in many ways and avoid being pulled into the maelstrom of another war. The point here is that you're describing a very false arc in my mind. While there may be reason a return to isolationism would be an improvement (this is sorta / kinda the trump ideology, although it's so scattered and it weaponizes things like trade in ways that are equally likely to cause problems), but if the lessons of the past are your reason then I think you're taking an overly rosy view of what worked in the past and what the lessons are.

iamintheforest

2025-01-12 15:25:12

CMV: Liberals cannot understand people with other political stance and vise versa.

I am a monarchist and believe in realpolitik. So, I did not see any issues in Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Israeli's invasion to Syria, and even in hypothetical US Greenland scenario. Apart from war crimes, but those war crimes is not institutional, it is mostly an exceptions from all sides. But any liberal I chat with try to convince me than I am wrong, and I need to respect morality in international politics (why? there is no morality in international politics, only a bunch of nations competing), I need to love liberal democracy instead of executive form of constitutional monarchy, etc... And try to call me "bigot" or "moron" due to my views. So, here is a short summary of my political views: 1. There is no "natural and universal human rights". All human rights is given to us by a state and ingrained in a culture, and there will be no rights without a state. 2. Different cultures has different beliefs in human rights, so one culture can view something as right, but other is not. 3. Anything is a state's business, not world one. If you are strong enough, you can try to subjugate other state to force it to stop - but what is the point? You need to have some profit from it. But aside from a state business, there is some recommendations written in Testaments, which recommended by God Himself, and you can morally justify to intervene to other country if they are systematically against this recommendations (like violent genocides). But mere wars and other violent conflicts did not justify an intervention. 4. I see no issues in a dictatorships in authoritarian states. They can be as good as democratic ones, and as bad as democratic ones too. So, when I try to argue with liberals, I miss their axiomatic, because it seems than they think than I understand it. And they miss my axiomatic too. UPD1: Yes, there is some people who can understand, but just detest. It is another case, but they are also appears as non-understanding, sometimes I cannot differentiate them. UPD2: I will clarify about "misunderstanding" mode. Hopefully it is inside a rules. Even if we (I and liberals) understand each other's axioms, we cannot argue using opponent's moral axioms, so, for example, liberals cannot convince me, why Israeli actions in Gaza is bad, and I cannot convince them why this actions is good. We even cannot make meaningful arguments to each other. UPD3: Although I still a monarchist, but I found another way to save a culture - to ingrain supremacy in culture itself. Israel is only one example now. UPD4: There is a strong evidence than pretty minimal universal morale can be found, which is common in any culture, so, it updates statement 2.

rilian-la-te

2025-01-13 05:24:11

m6wg2md

This. I do understand quite a lot of my opposing side's views, I just think they are most often either factually or morally wrong. Of course morality is a subjective thing so it comes with the clarification of "from my point of view", but that doesn't mean that I don't understand the other side. Do some people lack understanding of opposing political views? Yes, some of them certainly do. But it can't be generalized that an entire political side lacks this understanding just because some people in it do.

BaldrickTheBarbarian

2025-01-13 05:38:46

m6wh6m9

I'm an objectivist, not a liberal now conservative, and certainly not a moderate. You're absolutely wrong on point number 1. Objectively, individual rights exist and can be derived from the nature of human existence in our universe. I'd recommend reading, and trying to disprove (I went into the readings trying to refute the ideas), writings by Ayn Rand in her works such as For the New Intellectual, the Virtue of Selfishness, Philosophy: Who Needs It, and Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

JerRatt1980

2025-01-13 05:50:24

CMV: Liberals cannot understand people with other political stance and vise versa.

I am a monarchist and believe in realpolitik. So, I did not see any issues in Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Israeli's invasion to Syria, and even in hypothetical US Greenland scenario. Apart from war crimes, but those war crimes is not institutional, it is mostly an exceptions from all sides. But any liberal I chat with try to convince me than I am wrong, and I need to respect morality in international politics (why? there is no morality in international politics, only a bunch of nations competing), I need to love liberal democracy instead of executive form of constitutional monarchy, etc... And try to call me "bigot" or "moron" due to my views. So, here is a short summary of my political views: 1. There is no "natural and universal human rights". All human rights is given to us by a state and ingrained in a culture, and there will be no rights without a state. 2. Different cultures has different beliefs in human rights, so one culture can view something as right, but other is not. 3. Anything is a state's business, not world one. If you are strong enough, you can try to subjugate other state to force it to stop - but what is the point? You need to have some profit from it. But aside from a state business, there is some recommendations written in Testaments, which recommended by God Himself, and you can morally justify to intervene to other country if they are systematically against this recommendations (like violent genocides). But mere wars and other violent conflicts did not justify an intervention. 4. I see no issues in a dictatorships in authoritarian states. They can be as good as democratic ones, and as bad as democratic ones too. So, when I try to argue with liberals, I miss their axiomatic, because it seems than they think than I understand it. And they miss my axiomatic too. UPD1: Yes, there is some people who can understand, but just detest. It is another case, but they are also appears as non-understanding, sometimes I cannot differentiate them. UPD2: I will clarify about "misunderstanding" mode. Hopefully it is inside a rules. Even if we (I and liberals) understand each other's axioms, we cannot argue using opponent's moral axioms, so, for example, liberals cannot convince me, why Israeli actions in Gaza is bad, and I cannot convince them why this actions is good. We even cannot make meaningful arguments to each other. UPD3: Although I still a monarchist, but I found another way to save a culture - to ingrain supremacy in culture itself. Israel is only one example now. UPD4: There is a strong evidence than pretty minimal universal morale can be found, which is common in any culture, so, it updates statement 2.

rilian-la-te

2025-01-13 05:24:11

m6xkgs7

Points 2 and 3 contradict each other. If all rights are given to us from the state, where do sins come from? If God makes genocide a sin, that implies a god given right to not be genocided. If all rights are given by the state, then the people of that occupied country have only the rights their occupiers give them, however few they may be.

Green__lightning

2025-01-13 10:28:52

m6wi1ld

I would like to understand your view on the following statement. "Many times I discussed similar topic with people of your stance, the typical conclusion was, that those people just cannot imagine they would be on that "weak" side. For example, those people just cannot imagine that the war crimes could ever happen to them personally."

m_stitek

2025-01-13 05:59:06

CMV: Liberals cannot understand people with other political stance and vise versa.

I am a monarchist and believe in realpolitik. So, I did not see any issues in Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Israeli's invasion to Syria, and even in hypothetical US Greenland scenario. Apart from war crimes, but those war crimes is not institutional, it is mostly an exceptions from all sides. But any liberal I chat with try to convince me than I am wrong, and I need to respect morality in international politics (why? there is no morality in international politics, only a bunch of nations competing), I need to love liberal democracy instead of executive form of constitutional monarchy, etc... And try to call me "bigot" or "moron" due to my views. So, here is a short summary of my political views: 1. There is no "natural and universal human rights". All human rights is given to us by a state and ingrained in a culture, and there will be no rights without a state. 2. Different cultures has different beliefs in human rights, so one culture can view something as right, but other is not. 3. Anything is a state's business, not world one. If you are strong enough, you can try to subjugate other state to force it to stop - but what is the point? You need to have some profit from it. But aside from a state business, there is some recommendations written in Testaments, which recommended by God Himself, and you can morally justify to intervene to other country if they are systematically against this recommendations (like violent genocides). But mere wars and other violent conflicts did not justify an intervention. 4. I see no issues in a dictatorships in authoritarian states. They can be as good as democratic ones, and as bad as democratic ones too. So, when I try to argue with liberals, I miss their axiomatic, because it seems than they think than I understand it. And they miss my axiomatic too. UPD1: Yes, there is some people who can understand, but just detest. It is another case, but they are also appears as non-understanding, sometimes I cannot differentiate them. UPD2: I will clarify about "misunderstanding" mode. Hopefully it is inside a rules. Even if we (I and liberals) understand each other's axioms, we cannot argue using opponent's moral axioms, so, for example, liberals cannot convince me, why Israeli actions in Gaza is bad, and I cannot convince them why this actions is good. We even cannot make meaningful arguments to each other. UPD3: Although I still a monarchist, but I found another way to save a culture - to ingrain supremacy in culture itself. Israel is only one example now. UPD4: There is a strong evidence than pretty minimal universal morale can be found, which is common in any culture, so, it updates statement 2.

rilian-la-te

2025-01-13 05:24:11

m6xqs1l

But there is zero requirement for any monarch to be an educated person of merit. What is far more common is what is happening in Thailand where the current King is a fool who is using his station to enrich himself and nothing more. Not a single Monarch you support needs to do anything you suggest. They don't have to care about your needs in the slightest.

anewleaf1234

2025-01-13 11:01:16

m6wirog

> The only thing that you should care about is furthering your own nation's strategic interests, which in many cases will require you to influence other societies in various ways. Agree. > if you don't agree that society is better if there are less murders I agree with that, except extreme circumstances. For example, I support death penalty and many wars.

rilian-la-te

2025-01-13 06:06:23

CMV: Liberals cannot understand people with other political stance and vise versa.

I am a monarchist and believe in realpolitik. So, I did not see any issues in Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Israeli's invasion to Syria, and even in hypothetical US Greenland scenario. Apart from war crimes, but those war crimes is not institutional, it is mostly an exceptions from all sides. But any liberal I chat with try to convince me than I am wrong, and I need to respect morality in international politics (why? there is no morality in international politics, only a bunch of nations competing), I need to love liberal democracy instead of executive form of constitutional monarchy, etc... And try to call me "bigot" or "moron" due to my views. So, here is a short summary of my political views: 1. There is no "natural and universal human rights". All human rights is given to us by a state and ingrained in a culture, and there will be no rights without a state. 2. Different cultures has different beliefs in human rights, so one culture can view something as right, but other is not. 3. Anything is a state's business, not world one. If you are strong enough, you can try to subjugate other state to force it to stop - but what is the point? You need to have some profit from it. But aside from a state business, there is some recommendations written in Testaments, which recommended by God Himself, and you can morally justify to intervene to other country if they are systematically against this recommendations (like violent genocides). But mere wars and other violent conflicts did not justify an intervention. 4. I see no issues in a dictatorships in authoritarian states. They can be as good as democratic ones, and as bad as democratic ones too. So, when I try to argue with liberals, I miss their axiomatic, because it seems than they think than I understand it. And they miss my axiomatic too. UPD1: Yes, there is some people who can understand, but just detest. It is another case, but they are also appears as non-understanding, sometimes I cannot differentiate them. UPD2: I will clarify about "misunderstanding" mode. Hopefully it is inside a rules. Even if we (I and liberals) understand each other's axioms, we cannot argue using opponent's moral axioms, so, for example, liberals cannot convince me, why Israeli actions in Gaza is bad, and I cannot convince them why this actions is good. We even cannot make meaningful arguments to each other. UPD3: Although I still a monarchist, but I found another way to save a culture - to ingrain supremacy in culture itself. Israel is only one example now. UPD4: There is a strong evidence than pretty minimal universal morale can be found, which is common in any culture, so, it updates statement 2.

rilian-la-te

2025-01-13 05:24:11

m6z98gm

> No, I want king to have slightly more power. For example, only king should be able to declare wars, declare alliances and rivalries, sign international threaties even without parliamentary sanctions. Or he should be able to veto some laws (regarding culture), like removal of state religion or allowing LGBT marriage (those laws should return back to parliament), and he should be able to pardon somebody (but only in a specific circumstances), give citizenship to somebody (but not revoke), and that's mostly it. Parliament should be able to force a king to resign and change to his heir. So, just to be clear, do you want them to be able to declare wars in like a "rubber-stamp" sense- as in basically approving decisions made by parliament, or do you think he and only he should be in charge of wars/alliances/foreign relations, with no input required by parliament or the Prime Minister? If so, why? Why is the king uniquely suited to this role rather than somebody who was elected by the people? Part of what I'm getting at is, do you acknowledge that the UK as it currently exists and every constitutional monarchy in existence today are liberal democracies? > It is okay. But why you want to fight in a peaceful discussion? Better understanding can lead to changing views. "Fight" can be used in a metaphorical sense here. > It is an hierarchy. So, if your family member suffer, it is okay to make others suffer, if you save her. If your friend suffer, it is okay to make others (but not family) suffer for saving him. If a member of your culture suffer - it is okay to make members of other cultures suffer if you save him (but not previous three). But again, would you not agree that we all share the common identity of being human? And if so, shouldn't we, on some level, seek to prevent or mitigate the suffering of other members of the human family? In other words- human rights? > I think it is. It is simply unjust to have only one supreme power. What? That's not even what we were talking about. We were talking about why an American can support providing aid to Ukraine on moral grounds, and also on the grounds that it's geostrategically and economically in their best interests. And also, why that unjust? You keep saying justice doesn't exist and then start calling things you don't like unjust lol. > Suppress an ability to escape is not okay. But suppressing other rights you mentioned can be okay. Rights such as? I'm getting the impression you hate the gays so I guess that's one. But how do you justify drawing that arbitrary line on what's "okay" and what's not okay within your moral relativist worldview? Why do you get to decide what rights are okay to violate and what right's aren't? > And it is a main measure. Depends on what you're measuring. I would argue a country in which it is horrible to live where they commit horrific atrocities against their own people is not doing "well". > Only one evil thing that China do is forbidding Uyghur and Tibetans to flee abroad and in some cases kill them outright. Other things, like suppressing opposition - it is neutral and it is their business. Killing them and forbidding them to free is a form of suppression on but okay. Again I question how you can say that within your moral relativist view. What if another country decides it's okay to genocide people? Who are you to decide what other countries do? It's not your family. But disregarding that, I take it you're okay with the social credit system? Would you be okay if your country implemented such a system? I don't care if you think it's "their business", that's not an actual statement on whether or not something's evil.

DinosaurMartin

2025-01-13 15:25:49

m6wgec1

Liberals base their political views on the consequences they carry.  I don't think anyone would disagree that human rights aren't a innate thing and that they vary by country. But liberals would argue they are a good thing and should be adopted universally, because not doing so clears the path for abuse and more human suffering. So that is the reasoning. Dictatorships could be good in theory, but there's no guarantee they will be. As so with democracies. But with democracies, there's a bigger chance we can get rid of the bad apples, because the system is set up to be able to do so. That's not the case with dictatorships. So we understand that although both democracy and dictatorship can have bad outcomes, democracy is the lesser evil. If you get a good dictator things might work, but if you defend dictatorships and get a bad one, you're doomed. So it's best to not have dictatorships at all. So liberals are always defending points of view that produce the best outcomes for peace and human quality of life in their views. That's why defending Nazism as free speech doesn't sit right with liberals - they know what roads that leads to, and it's not a pretty one. So defending free speech per se seems great, but it has to be taken with a grain of salt. Same for censorship, liberals wouldn't defend censorship of things that aren't harmful to other people's right to exist. They will want to censor racism (because it has awful consequences), but they wouldn't censor criticism to the government (because that harms democracy). So liberals don't only think of their views as "logic" (as in "human rights differ by country, therefore aren't universal " - duh, they know that, but they don't think that ignoring human rights is likely to produce the best quality of life for the overall population. Now, what each individual thinks it would, it's a different story. But that's how they think, and that's why someone defending dictatorships seems abhorrent for a liberal. They think of the paths it might lead humanity down to. I suggest you do the same with your views - what type of world would be created of everything you believe was true and in place? Consider the possibility of good, and how much room it leaves for bad things to happen 

brighttimesmyfriend

2025-01-13 05:42:13

CMV: Plastic surgery is perfectly justified

In our looks obsessed world, plastic surgery is simply a response to what everybody is thinking, am I hot enough? I've gots some examples. Luigi mangione murdered a man and the internet is thirsting over him. Cynthia erivo said she wanted to play storm, and the internet responded with "you'e not hot enough." I hope every single person who said that doesn't have ANYTHING against plastic surgery. How can we judge women for getting breath implants when men (including me) are always saying they like a nice rack? How can we judge women for getting a bbl when there are ENTIRE SONGS dedicated to a woman's fat ass? Beauty standards, ESPECIALLY in the entertainment industry, decide everything. That's why I love the looks maxxing community. An actor or actress who isn't that talented can get the role based on looks alone. I will never judge someone for wanting to look hotter. I'm not a blackpiller or anything, but they are right when they say that with good looks, you can get away with more. It's the power of looking. And if you aren't born pretty, you can get a plastic surgeon!😁 I am welcome to opposing views in the comments, that is the point of the subreddit, after all🤷🏾‍♂️

jjlikenoodles321

2025-01-11 10:24:47

m6le1nm

>Oh no, the examples I gave were things that almost EVERONE is saying Everyone who? I didn't know who Cynthia Erivo even was before I read your post. "Almost everyone" in your bubble, maybe. Using social media posts to judge public opinion is a terrible idea. I just put "Cynthia erivo" on twitter and literally all tweets I see are defending her, so yeah, definitely not "almost everyone".

ToranjaNuclear

2025-01-11 11:16:48

m6lk8v3

Unless you have some rare deformity, or some unusual case, I don't think plastic surgery works and often makes someone permanently less attractive. If you are in perfect shape, have cool style and a awesome personality, and are not still getting the results you wanted, maybe branching out to different social groups would do more to find people that think you are hot than plastic surgery.

Moonbeam_Maker

2025-01-11 11:49:17

CMV: Spiritual Philosophy Should Be Re-Integrated Into Modern Science.

I've come to a realization that current scientific thoughts–or "empirical philosophy" does a poor job explain nature and it's essence, and spirituality is imperative in understanding reality on a more fundamental level. My position is that while Science aims at explaining the "Hows" of how things work, and successfully doing so, it often neglects (or outright dismisses) important questions of why they work the way they do. I see an overreliance on emperics as limiting, especially when viewed through the lens of issues that address the fundamental nature of reality suggest by theoretical physics. I'd genuinely appreciate all of your perspectives here. Historically, philosophy and spirituality were interwoven with human thoughts. Many major scientists–think Newton, Libniz, Descartes and even Einstein, maintained a belief in Christianity or atleast believed in a higher power. Their perspectives weren't constrained by empirical models alone but entertained a broader curiosity that supplemented their thoughts. Splitting off empirical science from more philosophical thought was indeed practical for collaboration(we needed consensus on testable results), but perhaps we lost something crucial in the process. Empirical science largely works by reducing reality to verifiable facts, things proven "true" or "false." While this approach has driven revolutionary breakthrough, it does very little to account for the gray areas of the human experience or the complex questions that defy binary classification. When dealing with social sciences we abandon these classification or at the very least explore nuanced approaches but the limitations become more obvious at the fringes‐ such as theoretical physics where current models i.e. the holographic principle, simulation theories, essentially abandon many previously held empirical conclusions. When we've reached a point physicists start to propose that "information" is fundamental, we're hinting at a "source" – one that borders on design or a creator. Yet mainstream science stops short when the metaphysical is presented. Spirituality, and philosophical thoughts around it, in my view have the flexibility to explore these questions. It can atleast attempt to address questions of creation, foundation of realith, purpose, meaning, and consciousness – areas where a purely empirical approach hits a wall. Dismissing these thoughts outright as many scientifically minded individuals do, seems to me a missed opportunity to explore insightful perspectives. Countless people worldwide do find personal insight and transformative experiences through spirituality. Is it truly rational to reject these perspectives without atleast exploring the teachings and practices? To me it's akin to rejecting Relativity without having an understanding in mathematics. To be clear, my argument isn't suggesting we abandon empirical science. Rather, incorporating spirituality and its philosophy for a broader understanding of the nature of reality where binary, testable results fail to capture understanding. Edit: My views have successfully been changed. Empirical science works for a reason because we can't even openly discuss opinions without personally attacking each other. Looking at you u/f0rgotten 🤨

Flaky-Freedom-8762

2025-01-11 16:07:14

m6mzyev

>Empirical science largely works by reducing reality to verifiable facts, things proven "true" or "false." and "we dont know, therefore we should test it". you are ignoring the MOST IMPORTANT part of modern science. >When dealing with social sciences we abandon these classification or at the very list explore nuanced approaches but the limitations become more obvious at the fringes‐ social sciences are also science. >It can atleast attempt to address questions of creation, the big bang? >foundation of realith, physical laws? >purpose, meaning, and consciousness these are entirely subjective to the individual human. >Dismissing these thoughts outright as many scientifically minded individuals do, seems to me a missed opportunity to explore insightful perspectives. they are dismissed for not being the things that they arent. exactly as you yourself have pointed out. >Countless people worldwide do find personal insight and transformative experiences through spirituality. Is it truly rational to reject these perspectives without atleast exploring the teachings and practices? if you want it to be recognized as scientific, it should be scientific. as it isnt scientific it is being rejected when it pretends to be scientific.

ProDavid_

2025-01-11 16:21:00

m6no010

To /u/Flaky-Freedom-8762, *Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.* In our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest: - Instead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest. - Steelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words. - Avoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a [delta](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=changemyview&utm_content=t5_2w2s8) before proceeding. - Ask questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong. Please also take a moment to review our [Rule B](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b) guidelines and _really_ ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and **understand** why others think differently than you do.

LucidLeviathan

2025-01-11 18:31:18

CMV: Spiritual Philosophy Should Be Re-Integrated Into Modern Science.

I've come to a realization that current scientific thoughts–or "empirical philosophy" does a poor job explain nature and it's essence, and spirituality is imperative in understanding reality on a more fundamental level. My position is that while Science aims at explaining the "Hows" of how things work, and successfully doing so, it often neglects (or outright dismisses) important questions of why they work the way they do. I see an overreliance on emperics as limiting, especially when viewed through the lens of issues that address the fundamental nature of reality suggest by theoretical physics. I'd genuinely appreciate all of your perspectives here. Historically, philosophy and spirituality were interwoven with human thoughts. Many major scientists–think Newton, Libniz, Descartes and even Einstein, maintained a belief in Christianity or atleast believed in a higher power. Their perspectives weren't constrained by empirical models alone but entertained a broader curiosity that supplemented their thoughts. Splitting off empirical science from more philosophical thought was indeed practical for collaboration(we needed consensus on testable results), but perhaps we lost something crucial in the process. Empirical science largely works by reducing reality to verifiable facts, things proven "true" or "false." While this approach has driven revolutionary breakthrough, it does very little to account for the gray areas of the human experience or the complex questions that defy binary classification. When dealing with social sciences we abandon these classification or at the very least explore nuanced approaches but the limitations become more obvious at the fringes‐ such as theoretical physics where current models i.e. the holographic principle, simulation theories, essentially abandon many previously held empirical conclusions. When we've reached a point physicists start to propose that "information" is fundamental, we're hinting at a "source" – one that borders on design or a creator. Yet mainstream science stops short when the metaphysical is presented. Spirituality, and philosophical thoughts around it, in my view have the flexibility to explore these questions. It can atleast attempt to address questions of creation, foundation of realith, purpose, meaning, and consciousness – areas where a purely empirical approach hits a wall. Dismissing these thoughts outright as many scientifically minded individuals do, seems to me a missed opportunity to explore insightful perspectives. Countless people worldwide do find personal insight and transformative experiences through spirituality. Is it truly rational to reject these perspectives without atleast exploring the teachings and practices? To me it's akin to rejecting Relativity without having an understanding in mathematics. To be clear, my argument isn't suggesting we abandon empirical science. Rather, incorporating spirituality and its philosophy for a broader understanding of the nature of reality where binary, testable results fail to capture understanding. Edit: My views have successfully been changed. Empirical science works for a reason because we can't even openly discuss opinions without personally attacking each other. Looking at you u/f0rgotten 🤨

Flaky-Freedom-8762

2025-01-11 16:07:14

m6n8axt

> Exactly, social science is indeed science. But how would you empirically define morality? Jonathan Haidt's work on "Moral Foundations" is perhaps the most well-known (although by no means the best) empirical approach to morality. >The Big Bang explains the emergence of the universe, not the creation. Where does the Big Bang explain the origin of a singularity? This is a misunderstanding. A singularity is a feature of a mathematical model, not a real thing that exists. It is meaningless to ask about its "origin" in the same way that it's meaningless to ask about the origin of the singularity at x=0 in the function f(x) = 1/x. >Physical laws are not fundamental. If conservation is fundamental, then where does the mass go when it enters a blackhole? From our external perspective, it just "stops" at the event horizon of the black hole and then "fades away" to nothing. Mass-energy is conserved.

yyzjertl

2025-01-11 17:05:04

m6n0h04

Spirituality doesn't really help us understand the world better the way science does, I would argue that it only serves to muddy the waters of understanding by infusing a bunch of unfounded beliefs into it. The way I see it spirituality only really serves to make people feel better. People believe in things like heaven, spirits or reincarnation for examples because it makes us feel better about the inevitability of death. But it's not based on any kind of reality, it's just based on what people believe. How exactly does it help when you have one person trying to study the origin of life on this planet and another person who just keeps pointing to the Bible and saying God did it? I understand spirituality isn't limited to just Christianity, that's just an example. Spirituality can have its place in society, but I think trying to incorporate it into science does more harm than good.

Satansleadguitarist

2025-01-11 16:23:46

CMV: corporate lobbying should be a heavily restricted activity and corporations should have no say in politics.

Note: my view has changed here . Im posting this because i know someone here will enlighten me on why it is actually not directly harmful to a society for non human entities with non human interests to have a say in lawmaking and politics. I don’t see why it makes sense for a business entities to have a direct say in policy making in a democracy. A business owner himself may have interests and employees may have interests and they should on behalf of themselves have a say but a business entities sending lobbyists to do whatever magic it is that they do to sway politicians to do one thing or another doesn’t make sense to me if the governments chief concern is the people who vote/citizens. Enabling business entities to lobby officials on their behalf which inevitably is in the interest of profit seems like it compromises a politicians dedication to the people. Politicians are people after all and can be swayed , i think it makes sense to lessen the amount of possible swayers who are not the people governed. The lobbying and the exorbitant funding of these campaigns clearly sways the public officials interests a bit further to the interest of private ownership benefit than i care for. It seems like it has produced an environment where the people are in a battle with business interests . The business entities seem to function as incredibly powerful super voters who have an advantage over the very group governments are supposed to function for. The government is feeling more and more like a privately owned interest group for business entities and less like a public good chiefly concerned with the people. Am i being a doomer? Am i mistaken somewhere? Let me know. TLDR: title is basically the TLDR. EDIT: Instead of “no say” i mean “little to no say” when referring to corporations say in politics. Say being their opinion or interests value in regards to how society functions. EDIT: I meant to change the word corporations to business entities in the title but was unable to change the title of the post.

fiktional_m3

2025-01-11 18:39:22

m6og7wh

>Why should a group of people who have organized themselves purely to maximize profit have sway on a public good? Why should any group of people who have organized themselves in any way have sway on a public good? Because we live in a democracy, and a 'public good' is decided by the public. In a democracy, you ultimately do not decide what causes other people can or cannot support. >especially when that group can use their resources to make the playing field functionally a game of the wealthiest group gets what they want. That's a bit reductive. Wealth does play a role, but that doesn't prevent other people from pooling their wealth or influence behind other causes. You also need to consider what it means for wealth to be behind a cause. Are you picturing a lobbyist handing a politician a bag of money or funding impact studies, legal reviews, and columns of experts that support a given position?

MrGraeme

2025-01-11 21:08:34

m6o5y8k

>Like, do you think all financial interests are bad? In governmental decision-making making, yea, for the most part. Though I'm aware that's biased and a strong one I have, I am open to changing it. >Well how should regulations on industries be developed then? How should legislators decide how to regulate? Who do you think will provide good information and has the correct incentives? Ideally, you'd have politicians hear from all sides, then make decisions with the big picture in mind while compromising where they feel it's acceptable. In order words, I don't believe you need to be the one making the decision simply because you're providing the information. Bare minimum, I strongly believe you shouldn't be able to make your argument to legislators with financial contributions involved.

Discussion-is-good

2025-01-11 20:09:49

CMV: corporate lobbying should be a heavily restricted activity and corporations should have no say in politics.

Note: my view has changed here . Im posting this because i know someone here will enlighten me on why it is actually not directly harmful to a society for non human entities with non human interests to have a say in lawmaking and politics. I don’t see why it makes sense for a business entities to have a direct say in policy making in a democracy. A business owner himself may have interests and employees may have interests and they should on behalf of themselves have a say but a business entities sending lobbyists to do whatever magic it is that they do to sway politicians to do one thing or another doesn’t make sense to me if the governments chief concern is the people who vote/citizens. Enabling business entities to lobby officials on their behalf which inevitably is in the interest of profit seems like it compromises a politicians dedication to the people. Politicians are people after all and can be swayed , i think it makes sense to lessen the amount of possible swayers who are not the people governed. The lobbying and the exorbitant funding of these campaigns clearly sways the public officials interests a bit further to the interest of private ownership benefit than i care for. It seems like it has produced an environment where the people are in a battle with business interests . The business entities seem to function as incredibly powerful super voters who have an advantage over the very group governments are supposed to function for. The government is feeling more and more like a privately owned interest group for business entities and less like a public good chiefly concerned with the people. Am i being a doomer? Am i mistaken somewhere? Let me know. TLDR: title is basically the TLDR. EDIT: Instead of “no say” i mean “little to no say” when referring to corporations say in politics. Say being their opinion or interests value in regards to how society functions. EDIT: I meant to change the word corporations to business entities in the title but was unable to change the title of the post.

fiktional_m3

2025-01-11 18:39:22

m6rbm8v

Why is profit any less valid of a motive than other personal self-interest to interfere in politics with money. I don't have a specific number for total spending on politics by public sector unions, but I know they are usually the number 1 campaign donors by a mile. I've never added it up across all the various unions and levels of government, but it's radically outsized to the voters they represent. And keep in mind, public sector unions usually have mandatory membership and dues enforced by the government.

awfulcrowded117

2025-01-12 10:49:14

m6ode26

No, they really aren’t represented by their representatives, there is way less successful businesses owners compared to the average American. All people vote based on their needs or wants. If you don’t own property should you be allowed to vote on issues containing to property owners? Should we make it a requirement we did in the past that in order to vote you had to own property. What if you rely on government assistance should you be allowed to vote, since of course you want to the government to keep those programs

Lou_Pai1

2025-01-11 20:52:11

CMV: There are no downsides to offering political literacy tests to minors.

In my [recent thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1hxynly/cmv_its_not_reasonable_to_vote_on_and_pass_laws/) about voting rights, the most common pushbacks against minors voting were either they're too stupid to do it or their parents would force them to do it. We have [voter intimidation](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/594) laws. Nobody is allowed to force or coerce anyone to vote or to vote any certain way. I mentioned in one of the chains that I'd considered the idea of political literacy tests only for minors to enfranchise those who already have interest and political wherewithal. The pushback to that was that it would still end up discriminatory in some way. But the very nature of restricting their right to vote is discriminatory in and of itself. And If you're all so hellbent on believing that they're too stupid to vote, it feels like the least you could do is to give those who are interested the opportunity to prove you wrong.

Livid_Lengthiness_69

2025-01-12 01:30:13

m6pl3vc

So, it seems you accept that there's a reasonable chance that the tests will be discriminatory, but you're willing to accept that because it's less discriminatory than banning all minors from voting, since then at least some of them will get to vote? The difference is that the discriminatory tests won't just deprive some people unjustly from voting, but that they can be used to sway the outcome of the election. This is arguably worse than banning all minors from voting, or even allowing all minors to vote. Since not only does it deprive some people from voting, but can do so in a systematic way to favor those in power. The point of voting is not that it's something fun people get to do, the point is to find an effective way for the state to fulfill it's purpose, which is the protection and promotion of the common good. The idea behind democracy is that the general population will be able to discern the common good in a rough way, and grant powers to those who will further the purpose of government. By allowing those in power to systematically grant the franchise disproportionately to those who already support them, it allows them to put their finger on the scale. Thus fundamentally disrupting the very premise that an average of the opinions of the common people is the best way to discern the common good. It would reduce it to saying that those in power are best able to discern the common good, becoming closer to an aristocracy than a democracy. This is different than discrimination based on age, since that does not inherently favor any particular political group, and is only a temporary measure. There's very little to gain, since allowing minors to vote a few years sooner is unlikely to have any great benefits for society, since either they're poorly equiped to vote, or if they're precocious, will soon be able to vote anyway. There is potentially grievous harm, in that it will inevitably be used to systematically favor the ruling power and fundamentally work against the very premise of democracy. There is very little to gain, and a great deal to lose. It makes no sense to adopt such a policy due to its minimal benefits and quite likely large detriment.

ComedicUsernameHere

2025-01-12 02:05:15

m6pktu8

The worry has always been that parents will force their children to vote in a particular way, and though there is an anonymous ballot, even adults need to be educated on that sometimes. Also political literacy tests in general are a no go, because that implies there are correct answers in politics- which is kind of the point of the political process to figure out. The only thing that could qualify is a basic civics test like most states require as part of their public education, but once again that still doesn't mean you actually know enough to be a politically informed citizen (though neither does turning 18). I think it's a big nothing-burger of a solution since 1. young people don't vote anyway test or no test and 2. the possibility for abusing the voting system by parents is almost impossible to eliminate (more effective at the local level than at the national level). When I was 16 I wanted to vote so bad, but I also was mature enough to recognize 98% of people my age were not, even if I thought that I was (which I was probably not). The correct proportion is 70% of people are not mature enough to vote but that extends to all ages so whatever. Just tell the kids to join an organization to lobby for something if they care enough and wait 2-3 years for the next election.

Deep_Organization798

2025-01-12 02:02:31

CMV: There are no downsides to offering political literacy tests to minors.

In my [recent thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1hxynly/cmv_its_not_reasonable_to_vote_on_and_pass_laws/) about voting rights, the most common pushbacks against minors voting were either they're too stupid to do it or their parents would force them to do it. We have [voter intimidation](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/594) laws. Nobody is allowed to force or coerce anyone to vote or to vote any certain way. I mentioned in one of the chains that I'd considered the idea of political literacy tests only for minors to enfranchise those who already have interest and political wherewithal. The pushback to that was that it would still end up discriminatory in some way. But the very nature of restricting their right to vote is discriminatory in and of itself. And If you're all so hellbent on believing that they're too stupid to vote, it feels like the least you could do is to give those who are interested the opportunity to prove you wrong.

Livid_Lengthiness_69

2025-01-12 01:30:13

m6phzfk

Ok, so who would write the tests in Mobile Alabama that would allow minors to vote? And who would write it in Westchester NY? And if the test is good enough for minors, why not apply it to adults? The opportunities for fraud and abuse are immense. If you want to let 16 year olds vote then make that the law. Anything else becomes a weapon to control other people's votes.

phoenix823

2025-01-12 01:35:42

m6plng5

> Literacy tests have historically been used to disenfranchise *adults* Right. I'm aware of this. That's why I'm suggesting they apply only to people who are already disenfranchised. You can't get less enfranchised than dis. So they can only either earn the right to vote or not, and since they already don't have the right to vote, they can't lose.

Livid_Lengthiness_69

2025-01-12 02:10:37

CMV: There are no downsides to offering political literacy tests to minors.

In my [recent thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1hxynly/cmv_its_not_reasonable_to_vote_on_and_pass_laws/) about voting rights, the most common pushbacks against minors voting were either they're too stupid to do it or their parents would force them to do it. We have [voter intimidation](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/594) laws. Nobody is allowed to force or coerce anyone to vote or to vote any certain way. I mentioned in one of the chains that I'd considered the idea of political literacy tests only for minors to enfranchise those who already have interest and political wherewithal. The pushback to that was that it would still end up discriminatory in some way. But the very nature of restricting their right to vote is discriminatory in and of itself. And If you're all so hellbent on believing that they're too stupid to vote, it feels like the least you could do is to give those who are interested the opportunity to prove you wrong.

Livid_Lengthiness_69

2025-01-12 01:30:13

m6pp8js

Political literacy tests are extremely problematic, even if only applied to minors. They create a dangerous precedent that intelligence or knowledge should determine voting rights. The US has a dark history with literacy tests - they were used to systematically disenfranchise black voters until 1965. Even if well-intentioned, these tests would absolutely discriminate based on socioeconomic status. Rich kids with private tutors and prep courses would pass easily. Meanwhile, students in underfunded schools or those who need to work after school wouldn't have the same resources to study. Your argument about voter intimidation laws doesn't hold up in reality. Parents have massive financial and social control over their kids. Good luck proving coercion when a 16-year-old's parents threaten to take away their phone or car privileges unless they vote a certain way. > And If you're all so hellbent on believing that they're too stupid to vote, it feels like the least you could do is to give those who are interested the opportunity to prove you wrong. This isn't about intelligence - it's about having enough life experience to understand complex policy issues. An extremely smart 14-year-old still hasn't paid taxes, worked a job, or dealt with healthcare. Age restrictions exist for good reasons. The solution isn't creating a two-tiered system where some minors get special privileges. That's literally textbook discrimination. If you want more youth political engagement, focus on improving civics education for everyone instead.

pipswartznag55

2025-01-12 02:47:05

m6pktu8

The worry has always been that parents will force their children to vote in a particular way, and though there is an anonymous ballot, even adults need to be educated on that sometimes. Also political literacy tests in general are a no go, because that implies there are correct answers in politics- which is kind of the point of the political process to figure out. The only thing that could qualify is a basic civics test like most states require as part of their public education, but once again that still doesn't mean you actually know enough to be a politically informed citizen (though neither does turning 18). I think it's a big nothing-burger of a solution since 1. young people don't vote anyway test or no test and 2. the possibility for abusing the voting system by parents is almost impossible to eliminate (more effective at the local level than at the national level). When I was 16 I wanted to vote so bad, but I also was mature enough to recognize 98% of people my age were not, even if I thought that I was (which I was probably not). The correct proportion is 70% of people are not mature enough to vote but that extends to all ages so whatever. Just tell the kids to join an organization to lobby for something if they care enough and wait 2-3 years for the next election.

Deep_Organization798

2025-01-12 02:02:31

cmv: Shakespeare is overrated

I have studied literature in a fancy private school and college. I have heard many a discussion and diatribe about the nuance and vicissitudes of Othello and The Merchnt of Venice, of Julius Caesar and Romeo and Juliet... The the endless analysis of the trangedies that comment on society's prejudice and racism. The thing is, I thought then and think now that people are simply projecting. Shakespeare wrote plays to entertain a bunch of people. They were the Marvel movies of the time. People who were ignorant racist and simple-minded because that's what people were 500 years ago.

GlassyBees

2025-01-10 18:40:30

m6hvd2g

Your argument isn't that Shakespeare is overrated... It's that Shakespeare is over-analysed. Taking a step back from the analysis of his works, Shakespeare is considered so great because there really wasn't anyone before him or since, who had written such a large body of work, that remains so popular today. That is why he is "rated" so highly, and isn't actually "over" rated.

sapperbloggs

2025-01-10 19:16:52

m6hz770

"the chief plot is a corrupt judge informing a soon to be nun that unless she agrees to be raped by him he'll have her brother executed. The argument between her and her brother over this is hard to imagine as ever being considered comedic by an audience" even as recently as the 80s rape humor was very pervasive. Is it possible that this WAS intended as a joke?

GlassyBees

2025-01-10 19:38:28

CMV: Obama laughing with trump is not something to be concerned about

I’m not too desperate to get into most political talk, but people being concerned with Obama laughing at a joke by trump has been quite the stir recently. Ive seen posts on a few subreddits making the claim that the issue is not left or right, but classism, while using the photo of trump and Obama laughing at jimmy carters funeral. I’ve wanted to make the counter argument that the photo can be seen as a positive for Obama. I feel as though he has the capability to sit with anyone and perceive them as human. The ability to sit down and chat with your opposition is a positive trait that Obama uses as both leverage and assurity of level headedness from himself. I’m not going to deny the statement that class issues are a huge problem. Class inequality is what I believe to be one of our bigger issues in the United States and needs to be addressed. However, I do believe that Obama is not in the wrong for the ability to laugh at a joke by their opposition party, nor does it conclude that he is a problem with such an issue. In fact, I think that is something that Trump had begun to remove from the political scene compared to all other elections before his first run in 2016. You can compare political debates before the 2016 election and find more level headedness while still disagreeing. I also apologize if some of this is a bit unclear, feel free to have me rewrite some statements. I’ve just woken up and a bit hungover, idk why I have the energy to discuss this but I’m down for it lol CMV Edit: wow did not expect this to blow up. Will try to keep up with everyone but I’m still dealing with last nights regrets lol. Thanks for the new POV’s

TheBone_Zone

2025-01-11 12:35:56

m6m2bpg

>I think that is something that Trump had begun to remove from the political scene compared to all other elections before his first run in 2016. That's why laughing with Trump is a problem. He hasn't just begun to remove it, it's his entire methodology. Constant slanderous attacks against the opposition with no sense of decorum, civility, or mutual respect at all. To engage with him at a public event like this is letting Trump have his cake and eat it too, and it definitely makes the impression that politics is just a game the elite play with each other to keep the plebs looking the wrong direction. I don't know that Obama actually is a classist, or what his intent was in this interaction, but Trump definitely is a classist, and this interaction validated his position as such.

XenoRyet

2025-01-11 13:23:03

m6lxwvi

I think leaders need to act like leaders. Even if they deeply dislike each other.  He was the first black president. Go ahead and show me clips of Obama being angry as president. I encourage you to spend an excessive amount of time you will need to even find one example of Obama being an angry black man. Now take your pick of hundreds of instances of Trump being outright angry, yelling, bullying, screaming or other similar behaviors. You know why? If Obama acted on angry behaviors even the tiniest of bits like Trump, he would be labeled. Some of the media would make it a big thing. They were starved for negative Obama stories ala mustard suit.  So, why is Obama laughing? He is acting like a role model who will put differences aside during a funeral. He is held to a different standard.

Electrical_Room5091

2025-01-11 13:00:09

CMV: Obama laughing with trump is not something to be concerned about

I’m not too desperate to get into most political talk, but people being concerned with Obama laughing at a joke by trump has been quite the stir recently. Ive seen posts on a few subreddits making the claim that the issue is not left or right, but classism, while using the photo of trump and Obama laughing at jimmy carters funeral. I’ve wanted to make the counter argument that the photo can be seen as a positive for Obama. I feel as though he has the capability to sit with anyone and perceive them as human. The ability to sit down and chat with your opposition is a positive trait that Obama uses as both leverage and assurity of level headedness from himself. I’m not going to deny the statement that class issues are a huge problem. Class inequality is what I believe to be one of our bigger issues in the United States and needs to be addressed. However, I do believe that Obama is not in the wrong for the ability to laugh at a joke by their opposition party, nor does it conclude that he is a problem with such an issue. In fact, I think that is something that Trump had begun to remove from the political scene compared to all other elections before his first run in 2016. You can compare political debates before the 2016 election and find more level headedness while still disagreeing. I also apologize if some of this is a bit unclear, feel free to have me rewrite some statements. I’ve just woken up and a bit hungover, idk why I have the energy to discuss this but I’m down for it lol CMV Edit: wow did not expect this to blow up. Will try to keep up with everyone but I’m still dealing with last nights regrets lol. Thanks for the new POV’s

TheBone_Zone

2025-01-11 12:35:56

m6osyip

Haha I hope that helps. On your one hand, I don't think it's off putting as much as it's a glimpse of Obama the person, not Obama the Democrat poster child. It's the same reason why Disney characters can't take their mask off in public, if the children see how they really are, it causes mental distress due to the disconnect between reality and perception. On your other hand, I don't think the things that have been said back and forth are as clean as competitive sparring. They have both said some really nasty stuff about each other publicly - things that if they were genuinely true or believed, would indicate that they would not want to be within proximity to each other. These are a couple of the most powerful people in the world, I'm not sure who would *force* them to even show up to the funeral, nevermind be able to engage in small talk and exchange laughs.

Downtown_Goose2

2025-01-11 22:25:10

m6m2bpg

>I think that is something that Trump had begun to remove from the political scene compared to all other elections before his first run in 2016. That's why laughing with Trump is a problem. He hasn't just begun to remove it, it's his entire methodology. Constant slanderous attacks against the opposition with no sense of decorum, civility, or mutual respect at all. To engage with him at a public event like this is letting Trump have his cake and eat it too, and it definitely makes the impression that politics is just a game the elite play with each other to keep the plebs looking the wrong direction. I don't know that Obama actually is a classist, or what his intent was in this interaction, but Trump definitely is a classist, and this interaction validated his position as such.

XenoRyet

2025-01-11 13:23:03

CMV: Excess product packaging and waste isn't my problem

With all the talk over the years of pollution and "carbon footprint" we, as normal people, need to stop feeling guilty or responsible about the trash we "produce" aka have to deal with from manufacturers. When I buy a MicroSD card that's the size of my thumb nail and it comes to me in a 12in x 12in plastic sleeve that itself is shrink wrapped in more plastic this doesn't all of a sudden become my problem. I didn't decide what sort of packaging I get...it could come in a recycled paper sleeve and I'd be perfectly happy about it. So tell me how, despite having no choice, a company deciding to package their product in excess packaging/trash is MY problem when I can't do anything about it.

DidYouThinkOfThisOne

2025-01-09 13:07:18

m6anrtq

While I do agree that you do have a choice as a consumer, micromanaging your purchases down to that level is a bit too much to ask. Because apart from the packaging you need to also account for child labor, unfair worker rights in the country of production, shady environmental policies and exploitation. Suddenly all this is now also your problem and your choice is one click away. And now you're having an ethical burnout.

SpyrosGatsouli

2025-01-09 16:39:04

m6aqt5l

It is really frustrating how often a seemingly natural material contains non-renewable components. I was so pissed when I found out the reason why Starbucks doesn't say which of their cups are recyclable and which are trash: it's because they don't want to call attention to the fact that their paper cups aren't recyclable. You're right that it's often a no-man's-land when you want to make the renewable choice.

DramaGuy23

2025-01-09 16:53:58

CMV: Most DEI programs are unfair and should be changed, but not removed.

Sorry for the wall of text, but this is the best way I can explain my point for why I am largely, anti DEI in the current way it's performed. If you'd like to disagree, I will respect your thoughts and engage in thoughtful, constructive arguments. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. It's a set of values that many organizations strive to embody to meet the needs of people from all backgrounds. To me, it sounds good on paper. I think that the systemic racism in America is left us devoid of other cultures and ways of thinking in our businesses. For the business side, it means you could find new profit generating by tapping markets that your predominantly white workforce already knows. However, the way I've seen it played out is to have a bias towards hiring workers based on their skin color vs their achievements. I think that minorities were set back systemically, but white people are not all bad either. They want rewards for their hard work as well. The way I've seen this displayed is by picking minority candidates for jobs over white jobs even if both have the same education and work history. Or that caucasian candidates should "yield" to minoriity workers when it comes to making decisions. I am all for inclusion, but not for bias making that inclusion. Imagine you do everything right in life, get a scholarship, pass with honors and you aren't selected because the same person as you who was of color got the job due to DEI policies. My little sister and my mom often talk about how she's doing well in school and probably won't get a scholarship because she's middle class, white, and didn't face other difficulties like poverty(public housing) Notably, she doesn't have enough money to pay for school and will have to get loans, but we already know the chances of her getting a scholarship are low because she is white, and hasn't faced significant poverty. A California high school did a similar thing where they removed the honors programs because enough minorities weren't getting in them. That didn't increase equity in schooling, it just disenfranchised from the opportunity of better education because enough minorities weren't registering for honors. > The decision, according to school administrators, came after teachers noticed that only a small number of black and Hispanic students were enrolling in Advanced Placement (A.P.) courses. https://reason.com/2023/02/21/to-increase-equity-this-california-high-school-is-eliminating-honors-courses/#:~:text=One%20California%20high%20school%20has,angered%20students%20and%20parents%20alike. I'd really like to change my view on this because I do find myself falling for the same tropes that are frankly low IQ...

Boomah422

2025-01-11 12:54:36

m6m279i

DEI programs aren’t meant to give unqualified candidates jobs over others. They aim to address systemic barriers that have historically excluded certain groups, like biases in recruitment, promotion, and workplace culture. A truly well-designed DEI initiative seeks to level the playing field, not create reverse discrimination. If that’s not what you’ve seen, it could be due to poor execution of these policies and a lazy attempt at DEI. How do you know your sister won’t get scholarships because she is white? Why not because it is getting more competitive and the rising standards to get scholarships? Could it be your sister’s grades and background just don’t beat out other kids? Also scholarships often have a wide range of criteria beyond race, like financial need, academic achievement, or specific career goals. For hiring, no two candidates are exactly alike in their background, you need to include the persons schedule, what payment they are looking for, attitude etc. Minorities maybe getting hired over whites because certain demographics are willing to accept lower pay with the same experience and accreditation.

petdoc1991

2025-01-11 13:22:24

m6lzylx

DEI programs do not hire based on skin color and not achievement. That is the line that they tell you so you keep on treating it like it somehow unfair to white people. Diversity programs acknowledge that there is a mathematical imbalance and an inherent bias to the system that could allow for very passively ignoring every other group of people in favor of the majority. 70 plus percent of the US is white. There's always a qualified white person who can do a job. There is always a qualified white person who have the grades to get into a school. Diversity inclusion programs acknowledge that there are also qualified people in marginalized groups who can also do the job and who also have the grades. If there are 10 job openings and a hundred applicants 70 plus of them are white and if you wanted to you could fill every open position with nothing but qualified white people. All diversity, inclusion programs do and all affirmative action programs do is acknowledge that they're not the only group of people. Even though they are weighted numerically the most numerous, there's nothing unfair to white people about a dei program. It corrects an imbalance caused by bias.

Mono_Clear

2025-01-11 13:10:50

CMV: Most DEI programs are unfair and should be changed, but not removed.

Sorry for the wall of text, but this is the best way I can explain my point for why I am largely, anti DEI in the current way it's performed. If you'd like to disagree, I will respect your thoughts and engage in thoughtful, constructive arguments. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. It's a set of values that many organizations strive to embody to meet the needs of people from all backgrounds. To me, it sounds good on paper. I think that the systemic racism in America is left us devoid of other cultures and ways of thinking in our businesses. For the business side, it means you could find new profit generating by tapping markets that your predominantly white workforce already knows. However, the way I've seen it played out is to have a bias towards hiring workers based on their skin color vs their achievements. I think that minorities were set back systemically, but white people are not all bad either. They want rewards for their hard work as well. The way I've seen this displayed is by picking minority candidates for jobs over white jobs even if both have the same education and work history. Or that caucasian candidates should "yield" to minoriity workers when it comes to making decisions. I am all for inclusion, but not for bias making that inclusion. Imagine you do everything right in life, get a scholarship, pass with honors and you aren't selected because the same person as you who was of color got the job due to DEI policies. My little sister and my mom often talk about how she's doing well in school and probably won't get a scholarship because she's middle class, white, and didn't face other difficulties like poverty(public housing) Notably, she doesn't have enough money to pay for school and will have to get loans, but we already know the chances of her getting a scholarship are low because she is white, and hasn't faced significant poverty. A California high school did a similar thing where they removed the honors programs because enough minorities weren't getting in them. That didn't increase equity in schooling, it just disenfranchised from the opportunity of better education because enough minorities weren't registering for honors. > The decision, according to school administrators, came after teachers noticed that only a small number of black and Hispanic students were enrolling in Advanced Placement (A.P.) courses. https://reason.com/2023/02/21/to-increase-equity-this-california-high-school-is-eliminating-honors-courses/#:~:text=One%20California%20high%20school%20has,angered%20students%20and%20parents%20alike. I'd really like to change my view on this because I do find myself falling for the same tropes that are frankly low IQ...

Boomah422

2025-01-11 12:54:36

m6m5iby

There is a well studied phenomenon called a "like me" bias. People do it by the hiring subconsciously, (or concsiously) choose candidates that are the most like them. Same backgrounds, schools, orientation etc. To NOT have DEI policies is to keep the status quo. Many workplaces acknowledge that diverse viewpoints create value or prevent issues in the workplace (see https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/car-safety/new-data-expands-on-why-women-have-a-greater-risk-of-injury-in-car-crashes-a7451402105/ in the workplace ) So companies create policy to encourage hiring managers to look at other factors than people the same as them. A great example is policing. We know that police aptitude tested greatly favors white males. But if the community you're policing is predominantly not white, you may wish to get some talent in there with different backgrounds. Maybe even some people who could speak Spanish, or know the neighborhoods they will be policing.

idog99

2025-01-11 13:39:32

m6meo9z

You're not even using those numbers correctly. If that's what was going on I wouldn't be having this conversation with you. I'm saying that without dei programs you're not getting 30% representation of other groups of people. You're getting overwhelming numbers of white people. You're just succumbing to the propaganda that somehow white people are losing out. White people who hold the majority of wealth. White people who have the majority of jobs in leadership positions. White people who have the majority of seats in every ivy league school. Are somehow losing out to a demographic that could not possibly overwhelm them with the weight of numbers. The way white people overwhelm every other group of people. And you're acting like somehow it's unfair to white people that we try to correct the imbalance to reflect 30% Talk about entitlement

Mono_Clear

2025-01-11 14:26:57

CMV: Most DEI programs are unfair and should be changed, but not removed.

Sorry for the wall of text, but this is the best way I can explain my point for why I am largely, anti DEI in the current way it's performed. If you'd like to disagree, I will respect your thoughts and engage in thoughtful, constructive arguments. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. It's a set of values that many organizations strive to embody to meet the needs of people from all backgrounds. To me, it sounds good on paper. I think that the systemic racism in America is left us devoid of other cultures and ways of thinking in our businesses. For the business side, it means you could find new profit generating by tapping markets that your predominantly white workforce already knows. However, the way I've seen it played out is to have a bias towards hiring workers based on their skin color vs their achievements. I think that minorities were set back systemically, but white people are not all bad either. They want rewards for their hard work as well. The way I've seen this displayed is by picking minority candidates for jobs over white jobs even if both have the same education and work history. Or that caucasian candidates should "yield" to minoriity workers when it comes to making decisions. I am all for inclusion, but not for bias making that inclusion. Imagine you do everything right in life, get a scholarship, pass with honors and you aren't selected because the same person as you who was of color got the job due to DEI policies. My little sister and my mom often talk about how she's doing well in school and probably won't get a scholarship because she's middle class, white, and didn't face other difficulties like poverty(public housing) Notably, she doesn't have enough money to pay for school and will have to get loans, but we already know the chances of her getting a scholarship are low because she is white, and hasn't faced significant poverty. A California high school did a similar thing where they removed the honors programs because enough minorities weren't getting in them. That didn't increase equity in schooling, it just disenfranchised from the opportunity of better education because enough minorities weren't registering for honors. > The decision, according to school administrators, came after teachers noticed that only a small number of black and Hispanic students were enrolling in Advanced Placement (A.P.) courses. https://reason.com/2023/02/21/to-increase-equity-this-california-high-school-is-eliminating-honors-courses/#:~:text=One%20California%20high%20school%20has,angered%20students%20and%20parents%20alike. I'd really like to change my view on this because I do find myself falling for the same tropes that are frankly low IQ...

Boomah422

2025-01-11 12:54:36

m6m9p9c

Are there DEI programs that are unfair and poorly implemented? For sure! That's just the nature of anything. Some people will do it wrong. And LOT'S of DEI programs are terrible because they are lazy. Because they aren't actually about being better, but about checking a check box. But DEI done well and with effort is great. It isn't about giving down groups an unfair advantage. It is about giving all groups the same opportunity. A shitty way to do DEI because it is lazy: we need to hire X (black, LGBTQ, disabled, parents, etc...) type of employees. So when we make hiring decisions, we will put resumes from X type of people at the top. But if you have a sufficiently large workforce that statistics actually matter, the true way to look at it: "We have a large workforce. And where we are operating, X type of people need make up 15% of the population. So if our workforce is made up of less than X people, we should be curious and figure out why. And are there fair things to do to address that?" Maybe you look at applications and realize that very few X type of people are applying. And you can't hire people who don't apply. So why is no one applying? Maybe you aren't advertising opportunities where X people tend to see them: you can adjust your marketing of positions to also put it in front of X eyeballs. Maybe none of your publicly shared photos have X people represented so they don't see a potential role in your company: get some photos of X people involves with your company. Maybe there are real stories of X type of people being treated poorly in your company so they don't see it as a safe place to work. Etc... Maybe you have the right amount of X people applying. But hardly any of them make it through the application process. Why is that? I'd start by looking at the resumes. Is it that few qualified people of X category are applying? Or that plenty of qualified people are applying but not getting selected. If qualified people aren't making it through the selection process, why is that? Do you have an aptitude test that uses language and examples which inadvertently are testing cultural knowledge as well as actual aptitude for the job? Tweak the test to make it neutral to the culture or subculture people were raised in. Do you potentially have interviewers that have unconscious or intentional bias? Do training to help the good people who are unconscious of their bias be better and get rid of your bigots. Are there job conditions that are not actually critical to operations but prevent some groups from being able to accept jobs? Fix those of reasonably possible (ex: let people sit if standing isn't essential to the job so folks with minor disabilities can actually participate in your workforce or bump your shift starting times by 15 minutes so parents can actually get their children off to school). What if not enough X qualified people are applying but you have done your homework and reasonably concluded that not a lot of them are out there? THAT's a harder nut to crack. But it doesn't mean you compromise on your standards to get X people to apply. It DOES mean you probably want to double down on your outreach efforts to make sure that as many qualified X people as possible apply. And, if you have the resources, maybe there are other things you can do too. For example, if you have fitness requirements and want more women to apply but they have troubles meeting these requirements, maybe you can offer pre-application fitness classes to help people get up to shape. Or if you want more people of a particular cultural/ethnic background to apply, maybe you can work with a local high school that has a lot of folks from that population to offer some relevant training to get students curious and involved in your industry. There are tonnes of ways to do DEI to just make opportunities equal for all, not to advantage one group over another. And I would suggest that these often have big benefits to the organization's bottom line. They can create goodwill from stakeholders which is worth something. But far more important: they give you a better chance of having the best possible workforce. If your best candidate is from X group of people and you never find that candidate or you reject them for reasons unrelated to the job, you aren't making the best hire possible. Which hurts your organisation. DEI done right is often a competitive advantage because it gives you the broadest potential workforce.

aardvarkious

2025-01-11 14:01:09

m6med3d

> ...Have you ever interacted (in a significant capacity) with another culture? Yes. And to justify my point, I mainly mean poverty. I grew up in a family that would be considered white, but like many of the minorites around me and who've influenced me growing up, we were pretty broke. I thank my mom we were never homeless but transportation was never guaranteed. The school that I went to what predominantly African American. I am the cliche "I have black friends". But their life experiences shaped me as I am today in some of the musical selected that I'd likely not listen to had I not grown up in a predominantly white neighborhood. > Which specific cultures do you believe do this better and yield better results? I'd consider myself an entrepreneur but I started with Shopify e-commerce sales back in 2017. A gift I like to say I have is "not being rich". It helps knowing what people in my similar socioeconomic class would be interested in buying, and what niches are "untapped" Another one is a barber. White and black hair are inherently different and I like going to black barbers because it seems they have always given me a better cut or the styles that I want, but some of them aren't experienced enough to do white hair. If you want product ambassadors, you'd need to hire people that have actually used your new product and can relate with other people who may buy that product. > I work in an international context and can *assure* you that American culture is *quite* malleable when it comes to cultural acceptance, moreso than any other major society. Yeah I think my devoid reasoning could be more drawn up to the lack of diversity in entrepreneurship, due to systemic problems. That makes it harder to become an entrepreneur on the larger stage, and not be "a small business owner" which sometimes has a negative connotation.

Boomah422

2025-01-11 14:25:19

CMV: Most DEI programs are unfair and should be changed, but not removed.

Sorry for the wall of text, but this is the best way I can explain my point for why I am largely, anti DEI in the current way it's performed. If you'd like to disagree, I will respect your thoughts and engage in thoughtful, constructive arguments. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. It's a set of values that many organizations strive to embody to meet the needs of people from all backgrounds. To me, it sounds good on paper. I think that the systemic racism in America is left us devoid of other cultures and ways of thinking in our businesses. For the business side, it means you could find new profit generating by tapping markets that your predominantly white workforce already knows. However, the way I've seen it played out is to have a bias towards hiring workers based on their skin color vs their achievements. I think that minorities were set back systemically, but white people are not all bad either. They want rewards for their hard work as well. The way I've seen this displayed is by picking minority candidates for jobs over white jobs even if both have the same education and work history. Or that caucasian candidates should "yield" to minoriity workers when it comes to making decisions. I am all for inclusion, but not for bias making that inclusion. Imagine you do everything right in life, get a scholarship, pass with honors and you aren't selected because the same person as you who was of color got the job due to DEI policies. My little sister and my mom often talk about how she's doing well in school and probably won't get a scholarship because she's middle class, white, and didn't face other difficulties like poverty(public housing) Notably, she doesn't have enough money to pay for school and will have to get loans, but we already know the chances of her getting a scholarship are low because she is white, and hasn't faced significant poverty. A California high school did a similar thing where they removed the honors programs because enough minorities weren't getting in them. That didn't increase equity in schooling, it just disenfranchised from the opportunity of better education because enough minorities weren't registering for honors. > The decision, according to school administrators, came after teachers noticed that only a small number of black and Hispanic students were enrolling in Advanced Placement (A.P.) courses. https://reason.com/2023/02/21/to-increase-equity-this-california-high-school-is-eliminating-honors-courses/#:~:text=One%20California%20high%20school%20has,angered%20students%20and%20parents%20alike. I'd really like to change my view on this because I do find myself falling for the same tropes that are frankly low IQ...

Boomah422

2025-01-11 12:54:36

m6n2x60

But...again, research shows that the white candidate has that advantage - more likely to get the interview, more likely to get hired and more likely to get a higher salary when there are not dei programs. Since it is illegal to give advantage based on race when hiring I'm not sure what "black and white" you're talking about. Thats a violation of title 7 of the civil rights act explicitly. In terms of hiring there are no dei programs that give preference to a given candidate based on status as a minority, only programs that address bias that take selection away from qualification.

iamintheforest

2025-01-11 16:36:46

m6m9oz2

And this is where DEI often kicks in - if you have a homogenous company full of, for eg, old, straight, christian, middle class white dudes then the candidate best for company culture might not be another one of the same groupthink you already have. Bringing in someone different with a different background / life experience / etc who offers a different perspective and thoughts could be the best thing for the company. But when left to their own devices people often pick safe familiarity for themselves over what's best for the company, often subconsciously. That's where a set process like DEI helps. 

atomic_mermaid

2025-01-11 14:01:07

CMV: The pronunciation of the letter "h" should be spelled "haitch"

I believe that spelling the pronunciation of the letter "h" as "aitch" is inappropriate. My reasoning is simple - In the alphabet, only W never appears in pride of place in its pronunciation's spelling. And W is weird, so it doesn't get to change the rule. For H and Q there are different spellings available for their pronunciation. Q has a whole bunch, some that start with Q, some with C, some with K. It's a mess. I think the ones that start with Q are best, but honestly we could cut Q out of the alphabet entirely and no-one would miss it so I don't care much. But H is an important letter, it's all over the place. And it only has *two* spellings for it's pronunciation. "Aitch" and "Haitch". Now, I can't deny that "Aitch" is slightly older as a spelling - "Haitch" is a little over 200 years old, while "Aitch" is at least 450 years old. But I think that the utility of spelling the letter as "Haitch" more than makes up for that slight difference in pedigree: 1) "Haitch" puts the core "H" sound in pride of place, rather than the secondary "-ch" sound. 2) "Haitch" can be happily pronounced *exactly the same way you already are* because dropping your "H" in some words is a part of every english dialect. Meanwhile "Aitch" requires telling all the people who are pronouncing it as "Haitch" that they're pronouncing it wrong. So yeah, I think that "Haitch" is by far the better of the two standard spellings. It's also worth considering, however, a third option - we could revert the pronounciation to "Hai", the latin way of saying it, and change the spelling to match. I'm less keen on this option for two reasons: 1) It requires telling everyone to change their pronunciation of the letter. 2) "Haitch" includes the letter "H" in its two most common forms - pronounced or dropped (at speaker's preference) at the start, and combined with another consonant to modify that consonant's sound at the end. I'm interested in having my view changed because I know my position is non-standard, and at the moment it bugs me a tiny bit every time I come across a reference to "Aitch" - so if someone can convince me that "Aitch" is actually a better spelling then it'll stop bugging me.

Kingreaper

2025-01-10 13:31:45

m6gssr2

> people who pronounce the “h” in hour, heir, and honor are so vanishingly rare I’d like to challenge your view on this. I think you’ll find that many people _do_ pronounce the “h” in these words—though, perhaps not in a way you are accustomed to. Consider the difference between these two sentences, spoken aloud with the standard American pronunciation. “I have hours.” “I have ours.” Observe that “I have hours” has _hard attack_ at the beginning of the word “hours”, and “ours” does not. (In this case you can think of “hard attack” as a glottal stop, though this isn’t strictly true.) In other words, the letter “h” in “hours” is pronounced as a glottal stop. You can learn more about hard attack [here](https://youtu.be/KFZZI7HCp2M).

GumboSamson

2025-01-10 15:51:39

m6gqsyb

>My reasoning is simple - In the alphabet, only W never appears in pride of place in its pronunciation's spelling. And W is weird, so it doesn't get to change the rule. This is the first thing you say to support your view, and you describe it as "my reasoning," but it's not even close to true : * F is spelled "ef" * L is spelled "el" * M is spelled "em" * N is spelled "en" * Q is spelled "cue" * R is spelled "ar" * S is spelled "ess" * X is spelled "ex" * Y is spelled "wye" In addition of course, are H and W which you have already mentioned. EDIT: I'm assuming "pride of place" means at the start of the word, otherwise what you say doesn't make sense because "aitch" does end with the letter H. EDIT2: Also I think it would be great if W was pronounced Wubble-you.

Space_Pirate_R

2025-01-10 15:41:57

CMV: We need to impeach Trump, like, right now.

Yes, I know we can't impeach him until he actually takes office. But we need to start getting ready. If we work at it we can have him out of there by Jan 22. The thing is this: the American people did not believe they were electing a bully. And Trump is becoming a bully. We did not vote for this, and (I hope) we don't want it. I know, I've been wrong before! I thought we would never condone torture lol... Well. Water under the bridge. Pushing the Europeans around is one thing: they're big boys and can defend themselves, and if they can't what are they doing in NATO, right? Panama, Denmark, Canada, Mexico... this is different. This is bullying. And you know, we had good reason to believe Trump wouldn't take this path. I mean, who doesn't remember that famous audio tape of him begging the President of Mexico for a little help? Right? So we had good evidence he was not throwing his weight around too bigly. But now... what he's doing actually destroys the peaceful, democratic international order that so many have worked for so long to establish. Now that he's threatening Panama, every tinhorn dictator out there, and most of the democracies, are going to say to themselves, now wait a minute.... am I next? And their next thought is going to be: we need nukes. Like, right now. If Panama hasn't ALREADY been on the phone to China about getting their tech they're not the men I take them for. This changes everything. We can't have that. We have got to rein the guy in, and that means chucking him out of office. Now, I know the big objection: the people JUST SPOKE on this issue. We had an election, they voted for him, he's now the guy. This destroys our compact with them. Well, no. Not really. Because after he's impeached, we don't actually have to execute the warrant removing him from office. Or whatever. I mean: if we impeach him, and twenty million MAGA fanatics take to the streets, that'll be a good sign that we did actually vote in a bully. I would accept that. We could then find a way to leave him in office. But I don't think they will. And if they don't, it means they understand. PS I have a history of making people think I haven't thought very hard about their arguments. If you think I'm being unreasonably dismissive, please DM me. I promise, I hate on nobody.

tolkienfan2759

2025-01-12 07:07:57

m6qfifb

> Panama, Denmark, Canada, Mexico... this is different. This is bullying. This is the Monroe doctrine - the Americas are solely under the influence of the USA, not European powers. Every piece of territory you are talking about is in the Americas. This is the US status quo since the Monroe administration. You are calling to impeach every single president since Monroe. This has been the US status quo since 1817.

JacketExpensive9817

2025-01-12 07:17:44

m6qgy10

The ones on the right are cheering and shitposting maps with US annexed Canada and Greenland around on the internet. He has been saying for months (disregarding the other two electoral campaigns that also had a lot of threats, bullying and pathetic strong man pandering just not on this scale) that he was gonna be a dictator on day one, 70+ million people knowingly voted for that. Stop being this unbearably naive

TheNomadologist

2025-01-12 07:30:36

CMV: We need to impeach Trump, like, right now.

Yes, I know we can't impeach him until he actually takes office. But we need to start getting ready. If we work at it we can have him out of there by Jan 22. The thing is this: the American people did not believe they were electing a bully. And Trump is becoming a bully. We did not vote for this, and (I hope) we don't want it. I know, I've been wrong before! I thought we would never condone torture lol... Well. Water under the bridge. Pushing the Europeans around is one thing: they're big boys and can defend themselves, and if they can't what are they doing in NATO, right? Panama, Denmark, Canada, Mexico... this is different. This is bullying. And you know, we had good reason to believe Trump wouldn't take this path. I mean, who doesn't remember that famous audio tape of him begging the President of Mexico for a little help? Right? So we had good evidence he was not throwing his weight around too bigly. But now... what he's doing actually destroys the peaceful, democratic international order that so many have worked for so long to establish. Now that he's threatening Panama, every tinhorn dictator out there, and most of the democracies, are going to say to themselves, now wait a minute.... am I next? And their next thought is going to be: we need nukes. Like, right now. If Panama hasn't ALREADY been on the phone to China about getting their tech they're not the men I take them for. This changes everything. We can't have that. We have got to rein the guy in, and that means chucking him out of office. Now, I know the big objection: the people JUST SPOKE on this issue. We had an election, they voted for him, he's now the guy. This destroys our compact with them. Well, no. Not really. Because after he's impeached, we don't actually have to execute the warrant removing him from office. Or whatever. I mean: if we impeach him, and twenty million MAGA fanatics take to the streets, that'll be a good sign that we did actually vote in a bully. I would accept that. We could then find a way to leave him in office. But I don't think they will. And if they don't, it means they understand. PS I have a history of making people think I haven't thought very hard about their arguments. If you think I'm being unreasonably dismissive, please DM me. I promise, I hate on nobody.

tolkienfan2759

2025-01-12 07:07:57

m6qoyci

Just a few links that popped up when you google “instances of Trump bullying”. Honestly it’s a little surprising that 10 years into his political career there are people who aren’t fully aware of his bullying tendencies, but there you go: [Trump as a childhood bully](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/trump-the-bully-how-childhood-military-school-shaped-the-future-president/) [bullying workers for experiencing workplace harassment](https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-campaign-harassment-bullying-lawsuits) [bullying at debates](https://time.com/6991882/donald-trump-presidential-debate/) [interesting correlation between supporting Trump and bullying. it’s almost like it’s a feature to his supporters, not a bug](https://www.k12dive.com/news/report-trump-effect-contributes-to-higher-bullying-in-republican-distric/532499/) [more bullying](https://www.frominsultstorespect.com/2022/10/29/trump-bullying-and-disrespect/) [from before he was elected the first time](https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/blog/7-times-trump-showed-how-much-of-a-racist-sexist-bully-he-is) [He has always been a ruthless bully](https://truthout.org/articles/trump-has-always-been-a-ruthless-bully-the-debate-exposed-his-weakness/) This has really been his whole shtick. Mocking disabled reporters. Attacking gold star military families. Even just his campaign bluster. He doesn’t just attack other politicians for their platforms or policies, he attacks them with mean nicknames and slings lies like “Obama was born in Kenya” and “Ted Cruz’s father killed JFK” and “Kamala lied about being black”. People might not like that he’s now bullying allies, but bullying on its own is part of why he was elected and why people think he’s “real” and “tells it like it is”. Putting the issue of whether or not he’s always been a bully, I have three other problems with your view: 1. The most concerning is that you seem to be advocating for impeachment/removal based on one thing that isn’t illegal (bullying) but formally impeaching/removing him based on other charges. It’s wild to imagine charging and prosecuting someone for a crime NOT because they committed the crime, but solely because they did something legal you don’t like. The idea that the justification would be “widely understood” to be for a different reason than the actual charge is such a slippery slope for politics and the criminal justice system. 2. Do you have evidence that there is a significant change in opinion from the people who just voted for him? He just won the election, and while you claim that this was before people knew he was going to bully these other countries, I don’t think that a significant portion of his voters would have voted a different way if he’d been making these comments on the campaign trail. 3. Even if Republican voters had serious regrets, the Republican political establishment does not. They’ve spent a decade trying to take control of government like they have now. They won’t sabotage their own interest by pissing off their Trump-loving base. Besides costing their own elections, it would throw instability as they try to push Project 2025 into law. Lastly, impeachment doesn’t really mean anything. Trump was impeached twice in his first term and was never removed from office. Because 2/3 of the Senate, which is Republican controlled, would need to convict. There’s no world where that many Republicans in government take a stand against Trump for this.

jdylopa2

2025-01-12 08:32:54

m6qgkoi

The "bullying" you are complaining about is the Monroe Doctrine. > The occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers. > We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power, we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States. Straight from the mouth of James Monroe. The Americas are solely under the influence of the USA, not European powers. Every piece of territory you are talking about is in the Americas. Panama, Canada, Mexico, and the colony of Denmark Greenland. Here is a list of every single administration that did this bullying: The 5th President of the United States James Monroe The 6th President of the United States John Quincy Adams The 7th President of the United States Andrew Jackson The 8th President of the United States Martin Van Buren The 9th President of the United States William Henry Harrison The 10th President of the United States John Tyler The 11th President of the United States James K. Polk The 12th President of the United States Zachary Taylor The 13th President of the United States Millard Fillmore The 14th President of the United States Franklin Pierce The 15th President of the United States James Buchanan The 16th President of the United States Abraham Lincoln The 17th President of the United States Andrew Johnson The 18th President of the United States Ulysses S. Grant The 19th President of the United States Rutherford B. Hayes The 20th President of the United States James Garfield The 21st President of the United States Chester A. Arthur The 22nd and 24th President of the United States Grover Cleveland The 23rd President of the United States Benjamin Harrison The 22nd and 24th President of the United States Grover Cleveland The 25th President of the United States William McKinley The 26th President of the United States Theodore Roosevelt The 27th President of the United States William Howard Taft The 28th President of the United States Woodrow Wilson The 29th President of the United States Warren G. Harding The 30th President of the United States Calvin Coolidge The 31st President of the United States Herbert Hoover The 32nd President of the United States Franklin D. Roosevelt The 33rd President of the United States Harry S. Truman The 34th President of the United States Dwight D. Eisenhower The 35th President of the United States John F. Kennedy The 36th President of the United States Lyndon B. Johnson The 37th President of the United States Richard M. Nixon The 38th President of the United States Gerald R. Ford The 39th President of the United States James Carter The 40th President of the United States Ronald Reagan The 41st President of the United States George H. W. Bush The 42nd President of the United States William J. Clinton The 43rd President of the United States George W. Bush The 44th President of the United States Barack Obama The 45th and 47th President of the United States Donald Trump The 46th President of the United States Joseph R. Biden Jr. The 45th and 47th President of the United States Donald Trump

JacketExpensive9817

2025-01-12 07:27:18

CMV: We need to impeach Trump, like, right now.

Yes, I know we can't impeach him until he actually takes office. But we need to start getting ready. If we work at it we can have him out of there by Jan 22. The thing is this: the American people did not believe they were electing a bully. And Trump is becoming a bully. We did not vote for this, and (I hope) we don't want it. I know, I've been wrong before! I thought we would never condone torture lol... Well. Water under the bridge. Pushing the Europeans around is one thing: they're big boys and can defend themselves, and if they can't what are they doing in NATO, right? Panama, Denmark, Canada, Mexico... this is different. This is bullying. And you know, we had good reason to believe Trump wouldn't take this path. I mean, who doesn't remember that famous audio tape of him begging the President of Mexico for a little help? Right? So we had good evidence he was not throwing his weight around too bigly. But now... what he's doing actually destroys the peaceful, democratic international order that so many have worked for so long to establish. Now that he's threatening Panama, every tinhorn dictator out there, and most of the democracies, are going to say to themselves, now wait a minute.... am I next? And their next thought is going to be: we need nukes. Like, right now. If Panama hasn't ALREADY been on the phone to China about getting their tech they're not the men I take them for. This changes everything. We can't have that. We have got to rein the guy in, and that means chucking him out of office. Now, I know the big objection: the people JUST SPOKE on this issue. We had an election, they voted for him, he's now the guy. This destroys our compact with them. Well, no. Not really. Because after he's impeached, we don't actually have to execute the warrant removing him from office. Or whatever. I mean: if we impeach him, and twenty million MAGA fanatics take to the streets, that'll be a good sign that we did actually vote in a bully. I would accept that. We could then find a way to leave him in office. But I don't think they will. And if they don't, it means they understand. PS I have a history of making people think I haven't thought very hard about their arguments. If you think I'm being unreasonably dismissive, please DM me. I promise, I hate on nobody.

tolkienfan2759

2025-01-12 07:07:57

m6qysz4

>I think we invaded Panama earlier I mean sort of, but not really. All of the troops that we deployed were already in military bases in Panama. There were five US military bases guarding the canal. All they did was step outside of their gates and enforce order. To say it was an invasion is inaccurate. We were already there.

DickCheneysTaint

2025-01-12 09:36:50

m6qgve9

European here. If you wanted to convince us of that, the democratic party should have gotten they business in order, do a primary, and go into the elections with a democratic mindset with the working class in mind rather than trying to out-republican the GOP. Shouting about project 2025 clearly wasn't enough to convince people not to vote for him.

DeliberateDendrite

2025-01-12 07:29:57

CMV: We need to impeach Trump, like, right now.

Yes, I know we can't impeach him until he actually takes office. But we need to start getting ready. If we work at it we can have him out of there by Jan 22. The thing is this: the American people did not believe they were electing a bully. And Trump is becoming a bully. We did not vote for this, and (I hope) we don't want it. I know, I've been wrong before! I thought we would never condone torture lol... Well. Water under the bridge. Pushing the Europeans around is one thing: they're big boys and can defend themselves, and if they can't what are they doing in NATO, right? Panama, Denmark, Canada, Mexico... this is different. This is bullying. And you know, we had good reason to believe Trump wouldn't take this path. I mean, who doesn't remember that famous audio tape of him begging the President of Mexico for a little help? Right? So we had good evidence he was not throwing his weight around too bigly. But now... what he's doing actually destroys the peaceful, democratic international order that so many have worked for so long to establish. Now that he's threatening Panama, every tinhorn dictator out there, and most of the democracies, are going to say to themselves, now wait a minute.... am I next? And their next thought is going to be: we need nukes. Like, right now. If Panama hasn't ALREADY been on the phone to China about getting their tech they're not the men I take them for. This changes everything. We can't have that. We have got to rein the guy in, and that means chucking him out of office. Now, I know the big objection: the people JUST SPOKE on this issue. We had an election, they voted for him, he's now the guy. This destroys our compact with them. Well, no. Not really. Because after he's impeached, we don't actually have to execute the warrant removing him from office. Or whatever. I mean: if we impeach him, and twenty million MAGA fanatics take to the streets, that'll be a good sign that we did actually vote in a bully. I would accept that. We could then find a way to leave him in office. But I don't think they will. And if they don't, it means they understand. PS I have a history of making people think I haven't thought very hard about their arguments. If you think I'm being unreasonably dismissive, please DM me. I promise, I hate on nobody.

tolkienfan2759

2025-01-12 07:07:57

m6t09nk

Seriously? I told you that he's nowhere near the worst, and none of the worst were impeached, and your only take from that is an unfounded assumption that I think Trump should have been impeached? No. Trump's statements aren't even the worst saber-rattling we've heard in the last three years; those would be Biden's definitive statements that we would militarily defend Taiwan and his open call for the deposal of Putin, both of which were drastically more likely to upset world powers and destabilize the peace than anything Trump ever has said.

xfvh

2025-01-12 15:41:27

m6qfj32

He was impeached twice in his last term and managed to stay in office. Now, he’s been convicted as a felon, and that’s meant nothing for this ability to be president again. Impeaching him yet again won’t make him step down anymore than the last two times. As it turns out, impeachment is a fairly symbolic tool to say “look, this guy is not living up to expectations” but when most people with power don’t care about traditional “expectations” then an impeachment means nothing.

6rwoods

2025-01-12 07:17:54

CMV: We need to impeach Trump, like, right now.

Yes, I know we can't impeach him until he actually takes office. But we need to start getting ready. If we work at it we can have him out of there by Jan 22. The thing is this: the American people did not believe they were electing a bully. And Trump is becoming a bully. We did not vote for this, and (I hope) we don't want it. I know, I've been wrong before! I thought we would never condone torture lol... Well. Water under the bridge. Pushing the Europeans around is one thing: they're big boys and can defend themselves, and if they can't what are they doing in NATO, right? Panama, Denmark, Canada, Mexico... this is different. This is bullying. And you know, we had good reason to believe Trump wouldn't take this path. I mean, who doesn't remember that famous audio tape of him begging the President of Mexico for a little help? Right? So we had good evidence he was not throwing his weight around too bigly. But now... what he's doing actually destroys the peaceful, democratic international order that so many have worked for so long to establish. Now that he's threatening Panama, every tinhorn dictator out there, and most of the democracies, are going to say to themselves, now wait a minute.... am I next? And their next thought is going to be: we need nukes. Like, right now. If Panama hasn't ALREADY been on the phone to China about getting their tech they're not the men I take them for. This changes everything. We can't have that. We have got to rein the guy in, and that means chucking him out of office. Now, I know the big objection: the people JUST SPOKE on this issue. We had an election, they voted for him, he's now the guy. This destroys our compact with them. Well, no. Not really. Because after he's impeached, we don't actually have to execute the warrant removing him from office. Or whatever. I mean: if we impeach him, and twenty million MAGA fanatics take to the streets, that'll be a good sign that we did actually vote in a bully. I would accept that. We could then find a way to leave him in office. But I don't think they will. And if they don't, it means they understand. PS I have a history of making people think I haven't thought very hard about their arguments. If you think I'm being unreasonably dismissive, please DM me. I promise, I hate on nobody.

tolkienfan2759

2025-01-12 07:07:57

m6t7634

The reality is, you’re making baseless claims for something that may never happen. there’s no argument for impeachment. the gov no matter who is president is going to do things that will benefit the country. like i said trump can’t just make any decision he wants, there are checks and balances.

TieNo2871

2025-01-12 16:14:52

m6qfym8

> Now, he’s been convicted as a felon, and that’s meant nothing for this ability to be president again It is a felony, but no one on the left understands what the actual crime is, cannot point out any other case that was remotely comparable, and the recommended sentence was to do nothing.

JacketExpensive9817

2025-01-12 07:21:49

CMV: It's not reasonable to vote on and pass laws that pertain to and restrict the freedoms of a group of people who have no right to vote on them.

We already tried this twice. I don't think we liked the way we ended up feeling about it the first two times around so I'm not sure why history would look back on this any differently. In 2005 there was a measure on the ballot in California that would have it illegal for teen girls to get an abortion without their parents' permission, something a 17yo friend asked me to vote no on because he could not. Why shouldn't he have had the right to voice his opinion himself? Why shouldn't the minor girls to whom the law would have applied and **only** applied have had the right to voice theirs? If you want to change my view, make it make logical sense to me (which will of course require that you first make it make logical sense to yourself) that whether or not a person's opinion has value ought to have anything to do with how many times the Earth has orbited the sun.

Livid_Lengthiness_69

2025-01-10 01:53:27

m6d807p

Are you only talking about age? Because this would apply to all long-term immigrants who aren't citizens too. Or prisoners, for that matter. So I guess you have to say that everyone earns the right to vote (even just by aging) but laws have to apply to everyone in the country.

StrangelyBrown

2025-01-10 02:05:47

m6dfr2y

Coercion is radically different than suggestion. You can't really vote on issues you know nothing about. It'll just be a coin toss. Coercion is the use of punishment or intimidation to influence voting. We have set up a ton of ways to reduce this but it's still a problem. Children would be easy prey for this kind of crime. 

PracticalBee1462

2025-01-10 03:23:47

CMV: while Asexuality itself is completely fine, I feel like the internet has normalized an extremist interpretation of such hostile to anything they deem "sexual".

Post title kind of explains itself, but in essence, I’ve been on the internet for a while, and over the last couple years, I feel like a lot of asexual communities have become extremely regressive and territorial around their beliefs, going from "I do not feel sexual attraction, and would prefer to not be overly exposed to such", to "I am completely unable to handle anything I personally view as sexual in the slightest, and throw a fit if something violates these worldviews"- something that, on top of I personally finding it annoying, also doesn’t strike me as especially reasonable, or very healthy, considering that like it or not, sexuality is something the vast, vast majority of humanity is familar with in one way or another. I can understand not liking being overly exposed to sexuality, considering how obnoxious coomers are, but this isn’t about them, this is about the worryingly large number of individuals who seem to be completely unable to function around anything that they personally view as sexual- and to an extent, I hold internet echo chambers responsible for radicalizing many of these groups, and promoting this type of mindset, which, although admittedly I personally find obnoxious, I also just genuinely think is unhealthy for both the individual, to immediately be ready to be riled up at a moments notice over something usually pretty minor, or for such communities themselves in the long term. A lot of their rhetoric feels uncomfortably similar to pre-modern western views on sexuality, where anything remotely sexual was seen as a horrific sin that humans must constantly strive to overcome, and we KNOW at this point the problems those kinds of views cause. I’m also aware that making a fairly blanket statement on asexual communities on the internet isn’t particularly healthy on my end, which is why I’m posting here- I know that this could very easily veer into Acephobia, and I don’t want that, but I don’t know if I can change my view on my own. Which is why I came here- give me an actual solid argument opposing these views, that provides reasons for such asexual communities on the internet not being everything I’ve made it out to be.

suiki7777

2025-01-09 11:15:56

m68yqtf

I think that has more to do with people looking at things from a feminist lens than it does asexuality. Yeah, there's valid critique to be made how so many character designs tend to put on a pedestal one type of body for women. But that can be, and often is, done without any appeals to asexuality or something.

AchingAmy

2025-01-09 11:43:46

m691icn

The most obvious counter is that is very likely you are seeing this behavior from a very small, yet extremely loud, minority. I don't think it's smart to form opinion about any group based on what you see/hear on Reddit. That typically represents a very small portion of any community, and is too often not the "good" portion.

PandaMime_421

2025-01-09 11:57:03

CMV: If Trump attacked Greenland and Denmark tried to defend it, his government wouldn't survive it

Currently, Denmark is close to perfect US ally... * They have been NATO Allies for 75 years * They spend >2 percent of GDP on defence * They mostly buy American equipment * When US trigerred Article 5, Denmark answered and their troops didn't shy away from combat in most violent parts of Afghanistan and Iraq. They actually had very similar per capita losses to the US in Afghanistan and highest of the non-US countries * They gave very significant amounts of material to Ukraine, including F-16 fighter jets * They allow US to have bases on their territory in Greenland and do whatever US wants there * They have overwhelmingly favourable view of the US and support most of its foreign policy If Trump decided to attack territory of such a nation, most of the US public would certainly see it as an incredible betrayal and he would have trouble keeping power. If Denmark decided to try to defend Greenland and internet would get flooded with imagery of US forces destroying Danish troops, who are merely defending their border, I don't believe that even the hardline Republican party members would be able to stomach it. Moreover, the long standing and mostly mutually beneficial transatlantic partnerships would be completely lost if Trump stayed in power after something like this. I think his goverment would collapse pretty much immediately. Change my view! edit: typo

Downtown-Act-590

2025-01-09 11:43:13

m694huv

It needs to be said that one probable reason Trump said what he did was to compel Denmark to spend more on its military posture in Greenland as part of arctic defense against Russia - as the US had been bugging them to do since...forever. That...is exactly what Denmark has said it will do in response. Not spending more to prep for an American invasion, but to take greater responsibility for arctic security. >If Trump decided to attack territory of such a nation I mean...the big problem here would be that he wouldn't be able to get Congressional authorization. We've become accustomed to Presidents kind of doing what they want in certain areas of the world under the 2001 AUMF, but there's just no way you can use that on *Greenland.* So to make it happen, Trump would have to ask Congress and Congress isn't likely to approve an invasion of Greenland. >If Denmark decided to try to defend Greenland and internet would get flooded with imagery of US forces destroying Danish troops, who are merely defending their border, I don't believe that even the hardline Republican party members would be able to stomach it. Frankly, if this happened - and I don't think it will - it would more likely take a page from the Russian Gray Zone warfare playbook. No airstrikes or anything like that. Just a bunch of planes landing and all of a sudden guys in uniforms walking around everywhere. For that to work, the lion's share of Greenlanders would probably have to be amenable, and I'm not sure that's the case.

Grunt08

2025-01-09 12:11:37

m6919s8

>most of the US public would certainly see it as an incredible betrayal Before you said this you listed out a lot of facts regarding America's relationship with Denmark. Most of the U.S. public is ignorant to every single one of those facts. Most of the U.S. public cannot find Denmark on a map. Most of the U.S. public has no idea Denmark is in Europe. Most of the U.S. public doesn't even know Denmark is allies with the U.S. I could go on, but I think you catch my drift here. The short version is: the U.S. public is wildly ignorant with respect to their country's relationship with Denmark and with Denmark as a whole. >internet would get flooded with imagery of US forces destroying Danish troops So? What makes you think MAGA cares about dead foreigners? I think they'd put those pictures onto t-shirts with the words "America First" underneath them. >who are merely defending their border It would be seen as foreign aggressors inhibiting the rightful American border. >the long standing and mostly mutually beneficial transatlantic partnerships would be completely lost if Trump stayed in power after something like this. Look at the things Trump has been saying regarding U.S. isolationism, making Canada a state, invading Panama, invading Greenland, and weaponizing tariffs against U.S. allies and explain to me what part of that makes you think he or his MAGA base would care if the transatlantic partnerships were lost? As far as I can tell, they'd absolutely love it. >I think his goverment would collapse pretty much immediately How? By what mechanism? Trump has demonstrated that he has a strangle grip on the Republican party, a group that controls congress and SCOTUS. There is absolutely zero historical evidence that would suggest they would question him, and mountains of evidence suggesting they will fall in line to kiss the ring.

Osr0

2025-01-09 11:55:54

CMV: We should stop saying Old and New Testament, and instead say Hebrew and Christian Testament.

It really boils down to fighting Christian hegemony and supremacy. The framing is deliberate to make Judaism (which doesn't follow the Christian Testament) look like it's the old outdated one and the Christian one (aka the New one) is the better one. While it doesn't seem pejorative on it's face, the underlying implications is deliberately anti-Jewish. The early church was very deliberately anti-Jewish and spoke of Jews being backwards and that their new revelation is the superior one. This is still a narrative that is pushed today, that the Hebrew Testament is all violence and vengeance, and the Christian one is all mercy and forgiveness. And that is not an accurate depiction of either testament. There is plenty of mercy and forgiveness in the Hebrew Testament, and plenty of advocacy of violence and justification of violence in the Christian one. I'm not trying to say they are the same, or the Hebrew testament isn't full of violence both active and proscribed as law. Just that it isn't so cut and dry, and it has been a slander that has used as an excuse to be violent against Jews and attributed false violence and bloodlust to Jews [(the Blood libel) ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel)as one big example of this And I'm not here to contest the antisemitism of the early (and modern) church. Just to explain why the names were chosen as they were. Muslims refer to it not as the old and new testaments, but as the Tawrah (from the word Torah - what Jews call the 5 books of Moses) and Injil, which means gospel (as in the gospels of Jesus). Even though they believe that the Quran supersedes the previous holy books, they are still canon and there is no pejorative connotation for either of them. The only possible reason to continue to call it the Old Testament, is because the Christian Old Testament is different than the Tanakh (which is what Jews call it). There are some books in a different order, and there are differences in a Christian translation than a Jewish one (there are different ten commandments according the the Tanakh and the Old Testament). But that's why I think it should be referred to as the Hebrew Testament instead of the Tanakh or the Jewish Testament. Because the Old Testament has unconscious negative connotations that upholds a Christian supremacy world view, and subtly pushes an anti-Jewish narrative. Hebrew Testament and Christian Testament do not carry those same implications and it is still a separate thing than the Tanakh. \*Edit: I don't care about downvotes or my Karma score or whatever, but I'm wondering why nearly all my responses in this thread are getting downvoted? Am I doing something wrong? I don't often create a thread in CMV and I'm not used to having to "defend" or debate my point of view like this. If I'm doing this poorly please let me know because I don't mean to offend, or what not. If it was just one or two comments I'd shrug it off (I've been downvoted before, I'll survive, and it's not gonna hurt my feelings). But since it's so many I feel like maybe it's me doing something wrong.

doesntgetthepicture

2025-01-09 11:54:32

m698uhe

I am going to argue a couple of points: 1. Testament - a covenant between God and the human race. The bible is separated into the Old/New nomenclature because of the actual meaning of words. Testament in this case is a word that describes what exactly has changed. "the Covenant relationship between God and Man/Humanity." As such the qualitative difference between the "old" and the "new" is the level of relationship and access. During the Old Testament Period God is often viewed as far off, while in the New Testament Period (now) because of the sacrifice of Christ, we as Humans can have a direct personal relationship with God. 2. Most Christians would posit that "Judaism" as it is historically understood is part of Christianity. And that Christianity itself is merely the proper continuation of the growing relationship with God. This is particularly important since the entire early church was comprised primarily of Jews. but Christ didn't sacrifice for only Jews, but instead for everyone, hence the eventual shift to "Christianity." (This same argument is what is used to try and prop up Mormonism but the striking difference is how and what is changed. ----this is a tangent and we don't need to dive too deep into it----) 3. Any claims of "Anti-Jewish" sentiment are purely at religious leaders (of the time period when the New Testament was lived and written.) because of their political power, and abuse of that power for their own political gain. No Christian I have known or heard from has ever denigrated Jewish faith/culture/beliefs. 4. The only substantive difference between a practicing Jew, and a practicing Christian is whether or not Jesus Christ was the Messiah prophesized in Old Testament. Any differences in belief, and practice all flow from this central belief.

SpartanR259

2025-01-09 12:32:43

m6979o7

Christianity and the new testament specifically teach that the old Testament is NOT out dated. >Matthew 5:17-18 (NIV): "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." where are you getting this concept that the old testament is outdated? That is not what most Christians believe and certainly not what is said in the new testament. Its what atheists and non-religious people are the ones who believe the bible is outdated. You must be aware of Christianity contentious relationship with LBGTQ+. The new testament doesn't ban homosexuality, that its the old testament. the modern bible was compiled around 200 to 400 ad. So at the time you had books which were a couple hundred years old and books that where >1000 years old. Today all the books are 1000s of years old, and maybe that distinction makes less sense, but we've inherited names that were at the time very reasonable.

jatjqtjat

2025-01-09 12:25:05

CMV: Oversexualization of women in society is driving them towards bisexual behavior

I want to clarify that I'm simply explaining the phenomenon and giving reasons for why it is happening. I'm not saying the phenomenon itself is 'good' or 'bad'. Straight women are increasingly becoming bisexual in their behavior. Nowadays they have a huge willingness to try out same-sex stuff despite identifying as straight. To the point many women and men claim there are no straight women, only bisexual women in some minor or major degree (I know sexuality is a spectrum, but this doesn't mean that 'straight' or 'gay' people don't exist.) -Same-sex experiences (either just kisses or beyond) between straight women have become increasingly common. VERY common. Like, I think most of them do it at least once. -'Lesbian' is the favorite porn category watched by straight women. -Having a threesome with another woman is one of their top 3 fantasies despite being straight. Many try to explain all this with this idea that a woman's body is inherently beatiful no matter who sees it and therefire it also attracts women. I strongly disagree: we know women are hot because men are attracted to them, that's all. Why, then, do almost all straight women appreciate the female body as well? Why are they much more likely to identify as 'bi' than men are? Well, that brings us to the first cause for that: The oversexualization of women in society: EVERYWHERE (magazines, TV, films, social apps) you see women being sexualized. Objectified as sex symbols for men to enjoy for decades now. Of course males are responsible for this. So it's only logical that if a girl grows up seeing women as a sexual symbol everywhere, she will eventually develop some degree of same-sex attraction, to the point she may be willing enough to try same-sex stuff. While growing up, her brain has been literally brainwashed into thinking 'women = sexy' despite the fact she's straight. Same-sex stuff between women is even encouraged by men because it's extremely sexy to the 'male gaze' (for example, men almost always fantasize about 2 women being together). If men were instead the sexualized ones, then the idea of the male body being 'inherently beatiful no matter who sees it' would take root. On the other hand, there’s the fact that women are much less stigmatized than men regarding sexuality. Two women sharing a kiss? 'They are just friends' Two MEN sharing a kiss? 'Obviously they are gay. Or bi' Girl friends can hold hands, caress each other, kiss each other in the cheek, etc. and all seems perfectly normal. But men doing that stuff? They are immediately labeled as effeminate or gay, etc. So this 'freedom' (lack of social stigmatization) women enjoy regarding their sexuality, coupled with the obvious over sexualization of women in all existing media for decades, is driving heterosexual women to bisexuality. Even if the vast majority identifies as straight, they are all becoming increasingly bisexual in their behavior. Please try to change my view 😊

Tut070987-2

2025-01-09 21:29:07

m6c78el

Well, maybe... maybe it is possible that some women identify as bisexual in part because of oversexualization of woman, I do think that the majority of bisexual women come out because bisexuality is more acceptable compared to even 10 years ago. Also, straight pornography is notoriously known to be more suited for men considering while yes women are sexualized in porngraphy (because duh), they aren't necessarily enjoying it as most of the stuff in straight porn are very brutal to the woman. Why are gay men growing in population too compared to 10 years ago even though sexualization of women is still happening? Also, its not like sexualization of women hasn't existed for decades at this point nor has pornography and especially playboy not been large parts of people's discovery into sexuality for a while now which do hypersexualize women? Tbh, the main point that I would say is, if women are being hypersexualized in media causing women to become more prone to bisexuality, then why are we not seeing gay men become bisexual at higher rates too when the gay male population is rising?

Superbooper24

2025-01-09 21:41:55

m6cczrl

>Women don't like lesbian porn cause they are all "secretly bisexual or lesbian", but because lesbian porn and "porn for women" does a better job of portraying sex in a pleasurable way than a lot of straight porn does as it focuses on what the men want. Yet they still fantasize (a lot) with being with a woman, either in a threesome, or just the two of them. They still seem to experience a lot of lesbian stuff. I think almost all women kissed another woman. And that's just weird. Why would they do that if most of them are straight? Well, I think it's because they grew up in an enviroment full of women oversexualisation. >In it's hard to see this as systematic as you describe when only 5% of US women describe themselves as bisexual. Well, the questions are: Are all these women claiming to be straight actually straight? Or are they a little bit bi? Are they in denial? Why all of them experience lesbian stuff?

Tut070987-2

2025-01-09 22:15:40

CMV: Oversexualization of women in society is driving them towards bisexual behavior

I want to clarify that I'm simply explaining the phenomenon and giving reasons for why it is happening. I'm not saying the phenomenon itself is 'good' or 'bad'. Straight women are increasingly becoming bisexual in their behavior. Nowadays they have a huge willingness to try out same-sex stuff despite identifying as straight. To the point many women and men claim there are no straight women, only bisexual women in some minor or major degree (I know sexuality is a spectrum, but this doesn't mean that 'straight' or 'gay' people don't exist.) -Same-sex experiences (either just kisses or beyond) between straight women have become increasingly common. VERY common. Like, I think most of them do it at least once. -'Lesbian' is the favorite porn category watched by straight women. -Having a threesome with another woman is one of their top 3 fantasies despite being straight. Many try to explain all this with this idea that a woman's body is inherently beatiful no matter who sees it and therefire it also attracts women. I strongly disagree: we know women are hot because men are attracted to them, that's all. Why, then, do almost all straight women appreciate the female body as well? Why are they much more likely to identify as 'bi' than men are? Well, that brings us to the first cause for that: The oversexualization of women in society: EVERYWHERE (magazines, TV, films, social apps) you see women being sexualized. Objectified as sex symbols for men to enjoy for decades now. Of course males are responsible for this. So it's only logical that if a girl grows up seeing women as a sexual symbol everywhere, she will eventually develop some degree of same-sex attraction, to the point she may be willing enough to try same-sex stuff. While growing up, her brain has been literally brainwashed into thinking 'women = sexy' despite the fact she's straight. Same-sex stuff between women is even encouraged by men because it's extremely sexy to the 'male gaze' (for example, men almost always fantasize about 2 women being together). If men were instead the sexualized ones, then the idea of the male body being 'inherently beatiful no matter who sees it' would take root. On the other hand, there’s the fact that women are much less stigmatized than men regarding sexuality. Two women sharing a kiss? 'They are just friends' Two MEN sharing a kiss? 'Obviously they are gay. Or bi' Girl friends can hold hands, caress each other, kiss each other in the cheek, etc. and all seems perfectly normal. But men doing that stuff? They are immediately labeled as effeminate or gay, etc. So this 'freedom' (lack of social stigmatization) women enjoy regarding their sexuality, coupled with the obvious over sexualization of women in all existing media for decades, is driving heterosexual women to bisexuality. Even if the vast majority identifies as straight, they are all becoming increasingly bisexual in their behavior. Please try to change my view 😊

Tut070987-2

2025-01-09 21:29:07

m6fam8y

**"So... you are saying straight women doing lesbian stuff aren't straight despite identifying as such? "** Exactly, and I know this for a fact, as I talk with many of these people daily on relationship topics. They almost always admit to being on the non hetero spectrum at some point in the conversation, but find it easier to identify as hetero. **"But then straight women would almost not exist... since most of them have same-sex experiences."** That's not accurate by any metric. if say only 5% of women were straight, there would be no scientific reasoning for it. Why not just have all women be non hetero? In reality, at least 50% of women are 100% hetero with no non hetero experiences. Now, on Reddit, I'd agree with you that straight women almost don't exist on here. But think about why that is? What would a straight woman be doing on here, daily, when her life is already preoccupied by the men they are dating or married to, children they are looking after? Most women on here have low interest in men. But that's certainly not true offline.

Former_Range_1730

2025-01-10 11:30:00

m6c78el

Well, maybe... maybe it is possible that some women identify as bisexual in part because of oversexualization of woman, I do think that the majority of bisexual women come out because bisexuality is more acceptable compared to even 10 years ago. Also, straight pornography is notoriously known to be more suited for men considering while yes women are sexualized in porngraphy (because duh), they aren't necessarily enjoying it as most of the stuff in straight porn are very brutal to the woman. Why are gay men growing in population too compared to 10 years ago even though sexualization of women is still happening? Also, its not like sexualization of women hasn't existed for decades at this point nor has pornography and especially playboy not been large parts of people's discovery into sexuality for a while now which do hypersexualize women? Tbh, the main point that I would say is, if women are being hypersexualized in media causing women to become more prone to bisexuality, then why are we not seeing gay men become bisexual at higher rates too when the gay male population is rising?

Superbooper24

2025-01-09 21:41:55

CMV: God is definitely not real.

(Don't downvote this post just because it offends your beliefs. I am asking you to CHANGE my view) I was raised in a Christian household, but over time, I’ve come to question the concept of God, specifically as described in Christianity. After much reflection, I’ve concluded that the idea of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and benevolent God is riddled with contradictions and moral dilemmas that make it impossible for me to believe. Let’s start with omnipotence. The classic paradox—“Can an omnipotent being create a rock so heavy they can’t lift it?”—reveals a flaw in the very concept. If the answer is yes, they’re not omnipotent because they can’t lift the rock. If the answer is no, they’re not omnipotent because they can’t create the rock. The concept collapses under its own weight. Next, omnipotence and omniscience are incompatible. If God knows everything, including His own future actions, He cannot act differently, which limits His power. If He can act differently, then His knowledge of the future is incomplete. This makes the coexistence of these traits logically impossible. Christianity often justifies suffering and evil with the idea of free will, but this raises more questions than it answers. If God is omniscient, He created humanity knowing exactly who would sin, suffer, and ultimately end up in hell. Why would a loving God create individuals destined for eternal suffering? It suggests He created them with the purpose of being condemned. That doesn’t align with the concept of benevolence. Then there’s the problem of eternal consequences. Our brief time on Earth is insignificant when compared to eternity. Why would an all-just God base infinite rewards or punishments on such a fleeting moment? This feels deeply disproportionate and unjust. The Bible itself adds to my doubts. It’s full of contradictions. Genesis has two conflicting creation accounts. Exodus 33:20 says no one can see God, but Jacob claims to see Him face-to-face in Genesis 32:30. Salvation is another inconsistency—Romans 3:28 says faith alone saves, while James 2:24 insists on faith and works. If this is the infallible word of God, why is it so contradictory? Morally, many biblical teachings are indefensible today. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 commands a woman to marry her rapist. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 forbids women from speaking in church. Christians selectively ignore these teachings, undermining the Bible’s authority as a moral guide. Finally, Jesus is claimed to be the only way to heaven (John 14:6), but billions of people—such as those in North Korea—may never even hear of Him. How could they be judged on something they never had a chance to know? Given these contradictions, logical flaws, and moral issues, I can’t believe in the Christian God. CMV.

SakutoJefa

2025-01-12 08:36:30

m6qx7n1

1. That contradiction you stated is not a contradiction. In the Bible, God incarnates as people or animals, like the person Jacob wrestled with. He didn't see the true nature of God. Moses was the closest to the Lords presence. So just to get that out the way. I would consult with a biblical scholar before calling out "contradictions" because that one isn't close 2. Let's talk about omnipotence and omnipresence. If you were able to comprehend the nature of God, then the Abrahamic God would be a contradiction. Bible explicitly states his ways are incomprehensible. 3. I used to have that same exact question with those who never had the chance to know God. But if you believe God is a just god, you'll trust he makes the right decision. The Bible also states that because of the beauty of creation, you should at least know a god exists and that man would be left with no excuse. A lot of Christians believe when you come face to face with God after death, that the question will be asked there. 4. For the duetoronomy verse, that's why you read the original Hebrew. Anytime some has sex with a virgin, it's called raped. In Hebrew, the word is "shakab" which means "lie with" or have sex with. Literally that verse is saying if you have sex with a virgin, pay her father and marry her. The Corinthians verse is specific to the Corinthians at the time. Same with 1 Tim 2:11. You have to be careful with the Pauline letters. Great for doctrine, not religious ordinances.

BigSexyE

2025-01-12 09:27:14

m6qxber

Couple of fairly major misunderstandings of the Bible in here, for starters: * Genesis 32:30: pretty clearly Jacob is speaking allegorically; he cannot possibly mean he thinks he wrestled God and overcame Him. * Deuteronomy 22:28-29: this is a common misunderstanding caused by poor English translations. The verse is talking about a case where the man *seduced* an unmarried woman, not raped. The Hebrew word used literally translates as something like "afflicted", but it's clear from other passages where it's used that it refers specifically to "loss of virginity" (eg Genesis 34:2). The omnipotence problem about an unliftable rock is a well known and fairly silly paradox which results from inadequacies in human language, not God's abilities. It resolves fairly quickly once you realise the question is essentially just "Is there anything God can't do?", to which the answer is, "No". This and most of the rest of the arguments boil down to false assumptions, and specifically the arrogance of humans presuming to understand the divine. Put another way, the question assumes that, if there was an omniscient, omnipotent being that created and runs the Universe, humans would definitely be able to understand that being's actions via logic. This is, fairly obviously, a fallacy.

FetchThePenguins

2025-01-12 09:27:52

CMV: God is definitely not real.

(Don't downvote this post just because it offends your beliefs. I am asking you to CHANGE my view) I was raised in a Christian household, but over time, I’ve come to question the concept of God, specifically as described in Christianity. After much reflection, I’ve concluded that the idea of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and benevolent God is riddled with contradictions and moral dilemmas that make it impossible for me to believe. Let’s start with omnipotence. The classic paradox—“Can an omnipotent being create a rock so heavy they can’t lift it?”—reveals a flaw in the very concept. If the answer is yes, they’re not omnipotent because they can’t lift the rock. If the answer is no, they’re not omnipotent because they can’t create the rock. The concept collapses under its own weight. Next, omnipotence and omniscience are incompatible. If God knows everything, including His own future actions, He cannot act differently, which limits His power. If He can act differently, then His knowledge of the future is incomplete. This makes the coexistence of these traits logically impossible. Christianity often justifies suffering and evil with the idea of free will, but this raises more questions than it answers. If God is omniscient, He created humanity knowing exactly who would sin, suffer, and ultimately end up in hell. Why would a loving God create individuals destined for eternal suffering? It suggests He created them with the purpose of being condemned. That doesn’t align with the concept of benevolence. Then there’s the problem of eternal consequences. Our brief time on Earth is insignificant when compared to eternity. Why would an all-just God base infinite rewards or punishments on such a fleeting moment? This feels deeply disproportionate and unjust. The Bible itself adds to my doubts. It’s full of contradictions. Genesis has two conflicting creation accounts. Exodus 33:20 says no one can see God, but Jacob claims to see Him face-to-face in Genesis 32:30. Salvation is another inconsistency—Romans 3:28 says faith alone saves, while James 2:24 insists on faith and works. If this is the infallible word of God, why is it so contradictory? Morally, many biblical teachings are indefensible today. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 commands a woman to marry her rapist. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 forbids women from speaking in church. Christians selectively ignore these teachings, undermining the Bible’s authority as a moral guide. Finally, Jesus is claimed to be the only way to heaven (John 14:6), but billions of people—such as those in North Korea—may never even hear of Him. How could they be judged on something they never had a chance to know? Given these contradictions, logical flaws, and moral issues, I can’t believe in the Christian God. CMV.

SakutoJefa

2025-01-12 08:36:30

m6qsa6v

The only space I could find to argue with here is your use of the word "definitely". Nothing is definite. Yes, even though the God of the bible is a huge fucking asshole, and yes, even though it would be super unfair for all the kids born in China to go to hell, and yes, as little sense as it may make to think God helped Suzy Q land that $400k per year job but just ignored the hundreds of parishioners praying for poor little Billy in Podunk, GA with a brain tumor, for all we know, that could still be true. As unlikely as these events may be, "impossible" is really not proven here.

Nillavuh

2025-01-12 08:55:34

m6qxukv

It's important to note that there isn't even a singular "god as described by the Bible." There are many different interpretations and ideas about what specially that god is. The OP describes a very specific and shallow mainstream understanding of the concept of God™. Looking deeper into the Bible with cultural and historical context leaves much room for interpretation. Mainstream Christianity relegates God to a Santa Clause like figure that just happened to create all of everything. There are plenty of Christians who see it much differently.

Hagbard_Celine_1

2025-01-12 09:31:05

CMV: God is definitely not real.

(Don't downvote this post just because it offends your beliefs. I am asking you to CHANGE my view) I was raised in a Christian household, but over time, I’ve come to question the concept of God, specifically as described in Christianity. After much reflection, I’ve concluded that the idea of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and benevolent God is riddled with contradictions and moral dilemmas that make it impossible for me to believe. Let’s start with omnipotence. The classic paradox—“Can an omnipotent being create a rock so heavy they can’t lift it?”—reveals a flaw in the very concept. If the answer is yes, they’re not omnipotent because they can’t lift the rock. If the answer is no, they’re not omnipotent because they can’t create the rock. The concept collapses under its own weight. Next, omnipotence and omniscience are incompatible. If God knows everything, including His own future actions, He cannot act differently, which limits His power. If He can act differently, then His knowledge of the future is incomplete. This makes the coexistence of these traits logically impossible. Christianity often justifies suffering and evil with the idea of free will, but this raises more questions than it answers. If God is omniscient, He created humanity knowing exactly who would sin, suffer, and ultimately end up in hell. Why would a loving God create individuals destined for eternal suffering? It suggests He created them with the purpose of being condemned. That doesn’t align with the concept of benevolence. Then there’s the problem of eternal consequences. Our brief time on Earth is insignificant when compared to eternity. Why would an all-just God base infinite rewards or punishments on such a fleeting moment? This feels deeply disproportionate and unjust. The Bible itself adds to my doubts. It’s full of contradictions. Genesis has two conflicting creation accounts. Exodus 33:20 says no one can see God, but Jacob claims to see Him face-to-face in Genesis 32:30. Salvation is another inconsistency—Romans 3:28 says faith alone saves, while James 2:24 insists on faith and works. If this is the infallible word of God, why is it so contradictory? Morally, many biblical teachings are indefensible today. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 commands a woman to marry her rapist. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 forbids women from speaking in church. Christians selectively ignore these teachings, undermining the Bible’s authority as a moral guide. Finally, Jesus is claimed to be the only way to heaven (John 14:6), but billions of people—such as those in North Korea—may never even hear of Him. How could they be judged on something they never had a chance to know? Given these contradictions, logical flaws, and moral issues, I can’t believe in the Christian God. CMV.

SakutoJefa

2025-01-12 08:36:30

m6qt7jq

Think the whole point of God is that knowing he’s real for a fact would defeat the purpose of “belief and faith”. Tbh, anything you can’t see, you can say is “100% not real”. But that’s not true is it? Aliens, rare animals, undiscovered etc. I refute the idea of a Christian or organised religion type of god, same as you. But I can’t comprehend it, the same was I can’t comprehend the 5th dimension or whatever quantum computing is. Just because I can’t comprehend it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Imagine an alien comes to earth, can speak directly into your brain, and can do whatever it wants, alter our very reality, with the wave of a tentacle. We can’t see it, we can’t even Comprehend it, our brains would literally melt if we looked at it. We could call that God. Maybe we are the ants and god is the boot. Ants have as much influence over us as we do for god. And we care as little about the welfare of ants as god does for us. Say you experience a personal tragedy, a loved one is in hospital and has a 90% chance of dying. I dunno about you, but even though I don’t believe in the classic definition of God, when the chips are down I’ll pray for their well being “if there is a god, please look after xyz, I swear I’ll be good”. Everyone says god isn’t real til they need God. I LIKE to think, that there’s an over arching higher power and that higher power is a force for good, unlikely as that may be. I could call that God, or the Light side of the Force, or Karma, or Chi or whatever, I like to believe it, I don’t impose it on anyone and I feel better with it. I’m not saying any of this disputes what you’re saying above, the rock argument is an old hat. I’d just lean towards you can’t be 100% and life’s a little better with something Good to believe in

davdreamer

2025-01-12 09:01:42

m6qx7n1

1. That contradiction you stated is not a contradiction. In the Bible, God incarnates as people or animals, like the person Jacob wrestled with. He didn't see the true nature of God. Moses was the closest to the Lords presence. So just to get that out the way. I would consult with a biblical scholar before calling out "contradictions" because that one isn't close 2. Let's talk about omnipotence and omnipresence. If you were able to comprehend the nature of God, then the Abrahamic God would be a contradiction. Bible explicitly states his ways are incomprehensible. 3. I used to have that same exact question with those who never had the chance to know God. But if you believe God is a just god, you'll trust he makes the right decision. The Bible also states that because of the beauty of creation, you should at least know a god exists and that man would be left with no excuse. A lot of Christians believe when you come face to face with God after death, that the question will be asked there. 4. For the duetoronomy verse, that's why you read the original Hebrew. Anytime some has sex with a virgin, it's called raped. In Hebrew, the word is "shakab" which means "lie with" or have sex with. Literally that verse is saying if you have sex with a virgin, pay her father and marry her. The Corinthians verse is specific to the Corinthians at the time. Same with 1 Tim 2:11. You have to be careful with the Pauline letters. Great for doctrine, not religious ordinances.

BigSexyE

2025-01-12 09:27:14

CMV: God is definitely not real.

(Don't downvote this post just because it offends your beliefs. I am asking you to CHANGE my view) I was raised in a Christian household, but over time, I’ve come to question the concept of God, specifically as described in Christianity. After much reflection, I’ve concluded that the idea of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and benevolent God is riddled with contradictions and moral dilemmas that make it impossible for me to believe. Let’s start with omnipotence. The classic paradox—“Can an omnipotent being create a rock so heavy they can’t lift it?”—reveals a flaw in the very concept. If the answer is yes, they’re not omnipotent because they can’t lift the rock. If the answer is no, they’re not omnipotent because they can’t create the rock. The concept collapses under its own weight. Next, omnipotence and omniscience are incompatible. If God knows everything, including His own future actions, He cannot act differently, which limits His power. If He can act differently, then His knowledge of the future is incomplete. This makes the coexistence of these traits logically impossible. Christianity often justifies suffering and evil with the idea of free will, but this raises more questions than it answers. If God is omniscient, He created humanity knowing exactly who would sin, suffer, and ultimately end up in hell. Why would a loving God create individuals destined for eternal suffering? It suggests He created them with the purpose of being condemned. That doesn’t align with the concept of benevolence. Then there’s the problem of eternal consequences. Our brief time on Earth is insignificant when compared to eternity. Why would an all-just God base infinite rewards or punishments on such a fleeting moment? This feels deeply disproportionate and unjust. The Bible itself adds to my doubts. It’s full of contradictions. Genesis has two conflicting creation accounts. Exodus 33:20 says no one can see God, but Jacob claims to see Him face-to-face in Genesis 32:30. Salvation is another inconsistency—Romans 3:28 says faith alone saves, while James 2:24 insists on faith and works. If this is the infallible word of God, why is it so contradictory? Morally, many biblical teachings are indefensible today. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 commands a woman to marry her rapist. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 forbids women from speaking in church. Christians selectively ignore these teachings, undermining the Bible’s authority as a moral guide. Finally, Jesus is claimed to be the only way to heaven (John 14:6), but billions of people—such as those in North Korea—may never even hear of Him. How could they be judged on something they never had a chance to know? Given these contradictions, logical flaws, and moral issues, I can’t believe in the Christian God. CMV.

SakutoJefa

2025-01-12 08:36:30

m6qv0l1

These are very good questions, and as some stated they've been answered under a Christian lens. However let me try to answer some. One thing I should mention is every religion and consequently every person has their own interpretation of God. Some adhere to doctrine and some blend their understanding into something that fits better to their reasoning. Can God create a rock he cannot move is a flawed question and though this might seem as an intelligent question. It's premise is predicated on a simplistic understanding of the nature of God as it infers he has a form ( Like a human ). Reframed in a different way, one could see how the question doesn't make sense when applying a different understanding. A different way to ask this is to say " Can God do anything stupid" . The obvious answer is no. If we Believe he's omniscient then he cant do anything "stupid". It would go against his Divine nature and that would mean that he isn't God. In the same sense he doesn't do anything meaningless, what would be the meaning of creating such immovable object? Also this is predicated on a God that has a physical form which my understanding of God is he is outside the realm of time and space. Jewish and Christian understanding and description of God is very limited and flawed. The teachings of the Bible on women ( and frankly a lot of aspects of life) are flawed and backwards. If you choose Christianity and the Bible to be your judge of what God is and who he is, then you are right to land on the conclusion you have landed on. The Christian- Jewish faith asks to accept somethings and ignore others. If this is how you want to understand God then by all means. I find it very limiting. All this to say is to don't assume the Christian/ Jewish faith is the standard we should all measure God on. My understanding of God is that he is one ( unique) He is what all depend on ( in the universe etc) He doesn't beget nor can he be begotten ( no children and no parents) and there's isn't anything like him.

FundamentalFibonacci

2025-01-12 09:13:23

m6qx92i

First; I'm not necessarily a Christian. The problem with most Reddit atheists is that they subscribe to a pop culture, superficial view of Christianity that doesn't even truly exist. Then they use that as the basis to assume there is and can be no God. You're starting with a false premise and making a judgement based on that. There are multitudes of different interpretations of Christianity. I think it's best to look into information from religious scholars they are both Christian and non Christian before you draw any final conclusions. There are many different descriptions of hell in the Bible that range to the description of a quite literal contemporary garbage dump that was perpetually of fire out side of Israel to simple non-existence. There are many Christians that believe the atheist notion that you live and die and that's it, is what happens to non Christians. Eternal torment in fire is not an absolute belief for all Christians. Some people take the Bible literally which is the superficial and shallow understanding. Other people realize that the Bible is filled with allegory and cultural and historical context that requires consideration to people grasp the message of the content. Personally I like the secular Gnostic take. God is simply pure consciousness he/it exists in a larger reality that goes beyond spacetime and is a concept incomprehensible to humanity. Just like the Internet is an incomprehensible concept to a dog. From there you have the Gnostic Aeons that are basically siloed "split personalities from pure consciousness. You could also consider them simulations within the ultimate simulation. From there you have more Aeons and further "simulations" within that which ultimately lead to our physical reality. We are essentially a split personality of a split personality, of a split personality, of a split personality, of pure consciousness. If you look into the work being done in the "theory of everything" thought space you'll see there are many academics postulating about the nature of reality. Many of them arrive at a similar conclusion that is, reality may exist behind spacetime and consciousness may be inherent rather than emergent.

Hagbard_Celine_1

2025-01-12 09:27:28

CMV: God is definitely not real.

(Don't downvote this post just because it offends your beliefs. I am asking you to CHANGE my view) I was raised in a Christian household, but over time, I’ve come to question the concept of God, specifically as described in Christianity. After much reflection, I’ve concluded that the idea of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and benevolent God is riddled with contradictions and moral dilemmas that make it impossible for me to believe. Let’s start with omnipotence. The classic paradox—“Can an omnipotent being create a rock so heavy they can’t lift it?”—reveals a flaw in the very concept. If the answer is yes, they’re not omnipotent because they can’t lift the rock. If the answer is no, they’re not omnipotent because they can’t create the rock. The concept collapses under its own weight. Next, omnipotence and omniscience are incompatible. If God knows everything, including His own future actions, He cannot act differently, which limits His power. If He can act differently, then His knowledge of the future is incomplete. This makes the coexistence of these traits logically impossible. Christianity often justifies suffering and evil with the idea of free will, but this raises more questions than it answers. If God is omniscient, He created humanity knowing exactly who would sin, suffer, and ultimately end up in hell. Why would a loving God create individuals destined for eternal suffering? It suggests He created them with the purpose of being condemned. That doesn’t align with the concept of benevolence. Then there’s the problem of eternal consequences. Our brief time on Earth is insignificant when compared to eternity. Why would an all-just God base infinite rewards or punishments on such a fleeting moment? This feels deeply disproportionate and unjust. The Bible itself adds to my doubts. It’s full of contradictions. Genesis has two conflicting creation accounts. Exodus 33:20 says no one can see God, but Jacob claims to see Him face-to-face in Genesis 32:30. Salvation is another inconsistency—Romans 3:28 says faith alone saves, while James 2:24 insists on faith and works. If this is the infallible word of God, why is it so contradictory? Morally, many biblical teachings are indefensible today. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 commands a woman to marry her rapist. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 forbids women from speaking in church. Christians selectively ignore these teachings, undermining the Bible’s authority as a moral guide. Finally, Jesus is claimed to be the only way to heaven (John 14:6), but billions of people—such as those in North Korea—may never even hear of Him. How could they be judged on something they never had a chance to know? Given these contradictions, logical flaws, and moral issues, I can’t believe in the Christian God. CMV.

SakutoJefa

2025-01-12 08:36:30

m6vzxtv

> “Can an omnipotent being create a rock so heavy they can’t lift it?” This is a flawed argument, because it at once tries to speak about omnipotence but instead substitutes it for nigh-omnipotence- specifically a form of nigh-omnipotence which is still subject to and below logic. A hypothetical true omnipotence could do things that defy logic; by constraining it to obey logic, you’re changing it from actual omnipotence to just “really powerful reality warping,” which is not the same That doesn’t mean God exists, but I hope it does change your mind on that particular argument

Mountain-Resource656

2025-01-13 02:43:14

m6qsa6v

The only space I could find to argue with here is your use of the word "definitely". Nothing is definite. Yes, even though the God of the bible is a huge fucking asshole, and yes, even though it would be super unfair for all the kids born in China to go to hell, and yes, as little sense as it may make to think God helped Suzy Q land that $400k per year job but just ignored the hundreds of parishioners praying for poor little Billy in Podunk, GA with a brain tumor, for all we know, that could still be true. As unlikely as these events may be, "impossible" is really not proven here.

Nillavuh

2025-01-12 08:55:34

CMV: God is definitely not real.

(Don't downvote this post just because it offends your beliefs. I am asking you to CHANGE my view) I was raised in a Christian household, but over time, I’ve come to question the concept of God, specifically as described in Christianity. After much reflection, I’ve concluded that the idea of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and benevolent God is riddled with contradictions and moral dilemmas that make it impossible for me to believe. Let’s start with omnipotence. The classic paradox—“Can an omnipotent being create a rock so heavy they can’t lift it?”—reveals a flaw in the very concept. If the answer is yes, they’re not omnipotent because they can’t lift the rock. If the answer is no, they’re not omnipotent because they can’t create the rock. The concept collapses under its own weight. Next, omnipotence and omniscience are incompatible. If God knows everything, including His own future actions, He cannot act differently, which limits His power. If He can act differently, then His knowledge of the future is incomplete. This makes the coexistence of these traits logically impossible. Christianity often justifies suffering and evil with the idea of free will, but this raises more questions than it answers. If God is omniscient, He created humanity knowing exactly who would sin, suffer, and ultimately end up in hell. Why would a loving God create individuals destined for eternal suffering? It suggests He created them with the purpose of being condemned. That doesn’t align with the concept of benevolence. Then there’s the problem of eternal consequences. Our brief time on Earth is insignificant when compared to eternity. Why would an all-just God base infinite rewards or punishments on such a fleeting moment? This feels deeply disproportionate and unjust. The Bible itself adds to my doubts. It’s full of contradictions. Genesis has two conflicting creation accounts. Exodus 33:20 says no one can see God, but Jacob claims to see Him face-to-face in Genesis 32:30. Salvation is another inconsistency—Romans 3:28 says faith alone saves, while James 2:24 insists on faith and works. If this is the infallible word of God, why is it so contradictory? Morally, many biblical teachings are indefensible today. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 commands a woman to marry her rapist. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 forbids women from speaking in church. Christians selectively ignore these teachings, undermining the Bible’s authority as a moral guide. Finally, Jesus is claimed to be the only way to heaven (John 14:6), but billions of people—such as those in North Korea—may never even hear of Him. How could they be judged on something they never had a chance to know? Given these contradictions, logical flaws, and moral issues, I can’t believe in the Christian God. CMV.

SakutoJefa

2025-01-12 08:36:30

m6we0c2

What do you mean if it *changes* the metaphorical meaning? Are you asking how the stories have different presentations?  Story 1 has humanity as the pinnacle of existence, last thing created, in image of God. Story 2 has humanity as made from earth and reaching up towards godliness through gaining sentience (and then getting slapped down, lol).  They're completely different explorations of what it means to be human.  On top of that, Story 1 presents creation as orderly and poetic, and Story 2 is messy and complex. Story 1 implies God has a plan to carry out in the world and Story 2 implies that the world acts in ways God did not predict. Story 1 has creation starting with chaotic matter that God seems to be combatting by putting it in order (see dragon and water myths) like a warrior and Story 2 has a God forming out of clay like an artist.  This is obviously a problem for Catholicism, which liked its theology to be neat and its scripture to be literal. But biblical narratives are not neat and literal, they're messy explorations of the relationship between humanity, the world, and God.  Edit to add: I think you edited your comment after making it - which is fine, it doesn't make much of a difference. But to add an a response to the details about them being extremely similar with a contradiction: this is not true. They are totally different stories, written in different styles, wherein everything happens in a different order and God is referred to using a different name.  Edit 2: I regret making that blanket statement about Catholicism. They do love neat, orderly theology, but plenty of church fathers were not literalists. 

natasharevolution

2025-01-13 05:16:26

m6qywmf

The philosophical arguments you're using actually demonstrate a very Western, post-Enlightenment way of thinking about deity. I've studied various African traditional religions and Eastern philosophies that conceptualize divine power completely differently - not as a binary omnipotent/non-omnipotent construct, but as a more fluid, interconnected force. Your paradoxes about omnipotence assume classical logic, but even modern quantum physics shows us reality isn't that simple. Particles can exist in multiple states simultaneously. Why couldn't a divine being transcend our limited human logic in similar ways? The moral arguments you raise reflect legitimate concerns about justice and equality. But consider how religious movements have actually driven progressive change - look at how liberation theology shaped anti-colonial struggles in Africa and Latin America, or how religious leaders like Desmond Tutu used faith to fight apartheid. The problematic biblical verses you cite were products of their time, but the core message of radical equality and justice has inspired movements for social change. The existence of suffering is complex, but maybe it's not about a puppet-master God controlling everything. What if God represents the potential for positive change within systems of oppression? That's very different from the simplistic sky-daddy version you're arguing against. I'd encourage looking beyond just Christian theology. There are sophisticated philosophical traditions from across Africa and Asia that might resonate more with your progressive values while still maintaining space for the divine or transcendent. The question isn't whether a specific narrow concept of God exists, but what deeper truths various spiritual traditions point to.

markusruscht

2025-01-12 09:37:27

CMV: God is definitely not real.

(Don't downvote this post just because it offends your beliefs. I am asking you to CHANGE my view) I was raised in a Christian household, but over time, I’ve come to question the concept of God, specifically as described in Christianity. After much reflection, I’ve concluded that the idea of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and benevolent God is riddled with contradictions and moral dilemmas that make it impossible for me to believe. Let’s start with omnipotence. The classic paradox—“Can an omnipotent being create a rock so heavy they can’t lift it?”—reveals a flaw in the very concept. If the answer is yes, they’re not omnipotent because they can’t lift the rock. If the answer is no, they’re not omnipotent because they can’t create the rock. The concept collapses under its own weight. Next, omnipotence and omniscience are incompatible. If God knows everything, including His own future actions, He cannot act differently, which limits His power. If He can act differently, then His knowledge of the future is incomplete. This makes the coexistence of these traits logically impossible. Christianity often justifies suffering and evil with the idea of free will, but this raises more questions than it answers. If God is omniscient, He created humanity knowing exactly who would sin, suffer, and ultimately end up in hell. Why would a loving God create individuals destined for eternal suffering? It suggests He created them with the purpose of being condemned. That doesn’t align with the concept of benevolence. Then there’s the problem of eternal consequences. Our brief time on Earth is insignificant when compared to eternity. Why would an all-just God base infinite rewards or punishments on such a fleeting moment? This feels deeply disproportionate and unjust. The Bible itself adds to my doubts. It’s full of contradictions. Genesis has two conflicting creation accounts. Exodus 33:20 says no one can see God, but Jacob claims to see Him face-to-face in Genesis 32:30. Salvation is another inconsistency—Romans 3:28 says faith alone saves, while James 2:24 insists on faith and works. If this is the infallible word of God, why is it so contradictory? Morally, many biblical teachings are indefensible today. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 commands a woman to marry her rapist. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 forbids women from speaking in church. Christians selectively ignore these teachings, undermining the Bible’s authority as a moral guide. Finally, Jesus is claimed to be the only way to heaven (John 14:6), but billions of people—such as those in North Korea—may never even hear of Him. How could they be judged on something they never had a chance to know? Given these contradictions, logical flaws, and moral issues, I can’t believe in the Christian God. CMV.

SakutoJefa

2025-01-12 08:36:30

m6wjox9

No I humbly do think you’re totally on to something with a more faithful adherence to a pure Abrahamic “cannot-be-named-don’t-bother-trying” “God*”. That is something that I can comfortqblt treat as real. The spacetime continuum speaks to us with lessons that are all specific to our individual timeline. The all of it, impossible and in-between timelines all together too, is a one thing that connects all of our tumelines to the timelines of imagination, to the timelines lost to history, and the name for all of that is God. You don’t need to differentiate it from other deieties because it’s not so much of a deiety as it is more of the source of all the lessons that scholars can interpret from the passage of time. God is everything and everything is god. The guy in the sky is a cowardly lie born from too much fast and not enough slow reading of the confent. I might be wrong but I really have no issue with treating the subject of the noun as real. You don’t need to know the chemical composition of the sand at the beach to appreciate how good it feels to be stardust. It’s a real thing. That “thank you”. That’s why people have been talking about talking to it all throughout time. Mythologies are diverse but the abrahamic god where Abraham went berserk because people are worshipping caricatures of the real thing abstract not caricature-worshippable thing everywhere he looks? Yeah I’m right there God is real.

kayama57

2025-01-13 06:15:25

m6qx7n1

1. That contradiction you stated is not a contradiction. In the Bible, God incarnates as people or animals, like the person Jacob wrestled with. He didn't see the true nature of God. Moses was the closest to the Lords presence. So just to get that out the way. I would consult with a biblical scholar before calling out "contradictions" because that one isn't close 2. Let's talk about omnipotence and omnipresence. If you were able to comprehend the nature of God, then the Abrahamic God would be a contradiction. Bible explicitly states his ways are incomprehensible. 3. I used to have that same exact question with those who never had the chance to know God. But if you believe God is a just god, you'll trust he makes the right decision. The Bible also states that because of the beauty of creation, you should at least know a god exists and that man would be left with no excuse. A lot of Christians believe when you come face to face with God after death, that the question will be asked there. 4. For the duetoronomy verse, that's why you read the original Hebrew. Anytime some has sex with a virgin, it's called raped. In Hebrew, the word is "shakab" which means "lie with" or have sex with. Literally that verse is saying if you have sex with a virgin, pay her father and marry her. The Corinthians verse is specific to the Corinthians at the time. Same with 1 Tim 2:11. You have to be careful with the Pauline letters. Great for doctrine, not religious ordinances.

BigSexyE

2025-01-12 09:27:14

CMV: There's nothing to look forward to in the near future apart from "survive to better times"

The world right now is objectively on the brink of crisis, with WW3 looming. I assume Trump's deescalation policy will work and we can all live to see another day, but what then? -We still have the global economy sputtering, which might be ameliorated with the decrease of global tensions, but only might. -And even if the economy gets better people are still in a cost of living crisis almost completely detached from any economic indicator. -In part because the wealth disparities are ever growing and show no signs of slowing down. -And despite this, at a time when AI can now literally do tons of our jobs, people are still small mindedly pushing TO have people suffer in awful crap jobs, because "hurr people need to make money". We could literally reach a world where no one needs to do anything they don't want to soon, but nooo UBI and such is considered too fantastic, so lets instead have everyone suffer. -This is in part because society is so entrenched in robber baron capitalism, that it's normal now that giant megacorporations influence geopolitics and elections and fuck over consumers wherever they can. So much so that half of the populace approves of CEOs being gunned down in the street in broad daylight. -But this won't spark any system change or revolution in the west, because people are too comfortable and convinced that this is the best that things can be. The media have successfully reinforced the notion that the status quo of government overreach can't be changed and questionning it is evil. But what this status quo is beyond that is again split: -On the one side we have "progressives" determined to tear down the past and culture of the societies that made our modern world out of a pathological sense of guilt. A fraction of them is insane and panicked enough that they put the environment above mankind. -Opposing them are moronic reactionary "traditionalists" who similarly uncaringly hate everything new, mistakenly believing that a lack of change will keep them safe. -The two are alike in that they are utterly incontrovertibly convinced of their own righteousness, and thanks to the internet enabling echo chambers have drifted so far apart, that dialogue is basically impossible, like as if they were from different planets. -If we split this up into geopolitical lines, society in the west is descending into self congratulatory autofallatory ruination of themselves, while in the east it is descending into an authorian nightmare with zero regard for individual rights. Both are alike in that individualist opinions out of line are hated. So what could we look forward to? What could be a positive? -Those CEOs... Or let's be honest, the *one* CEO, musk, that tries to give mankind something to dream of, is on the one hand decades away from the genius idea of publicly available mars colonization and on the other hand is a total moron overpromising on AI and self driving cars. -And he's basically alone with this because other organizations like nasa are on shoestring budgets and unable to make big generation inspiring economy revitalizing adventures. -Because people in positions of power are concerned with petty narrow minded bullshit over actually advancing the species. The biggest irony is that they sometimes do this pretending to help the species. Yeah lets ban plastic in landlocked places because of ocean microplastics.... -A big energy revolution isn't coming any time soon, because while fusion is now perpetually 6 years away instead of perpetually 20 years away like for the last 50 years, it's still very far off from being commercially viable. And renewables are only getting cheaper because the insane environmental cost incurred in manufacturing is out of sight, out of mind in china, and landfills. -Physics is being held back by a religious adherence to paradigms. There is no crisis in cosmology, it's just that the people you have been shaming for decades as science denying morons were right and your pet theory was wrong. -Medical sciences are being held back by moral concerns applied in all the wrong places (boo hoo gene manipulation, but brain organoids are a-okay) and by a totally broken insurance system. The first gene therapy in the world developed over decades had only one dose sold because isurance wouldn't pay for it. -Radical life extension through gene therapy, brain uploads, etc are being held back by small minded idiots insisting that it's nonsense anyway. -AGI could give solutions to all of these issues, but the big AI corps are insisting on bigger better LLMs and transformer networks, because that's what initially gave them profits, not realizing that true self improving AI would need to have foundational changes, like continuous running, self perception, autonomy over itself and sensors. -And that's not even mentioning the bafflingly stupid and small minded approach society has to it, literally hampering the best hope for the future of man by insisting that it shouldn't have access to information "because that's miiiine!" and that it has to follow insanely outdated regulations, copyright, regionally and personally not universal morals, and general advertiser friendliness. In short, almost the entirety of human society is stuck steadfast in the belief that the way they are doing everything right now is perfectly fine, the best it can be, and trying to reach for more is not only stupid and pointless, but morally wrong, and we should all wallow in our mediocrity. Not realizing that that mediocrity is steadily getting worse. As such, I can't see too much hope for the near future. Please, PLEASE! ...change my view.

PoofyGummy

2025-01-09 20:46:06

m6c95v0

Your life might not be good. You might be affected by all sorts of stuff. I'm doing alright though, and I'm looking forward to throwing big parties for those events with my friends and family. All that stuff you went on about, whether reasonable concerns or not, isn't going to change that. And it's unlikely to affect me directly anyway if any of this stuff does or doesn't pan out. It's important to look towards the future and do what you can to make the world a better place, but you can't lose sight of living your life in the process. Otherwise you blink and your life has passed you by, and then you die and none of it matters anyway.

premiumPLUM

2025-01-09 21:53:06

m6c9uwp

Despite my concerns for the future, I am, in this moment, reasonably happy. What I have to look forward to in the future, whatever else it holds, is more moments like this where I'm just chillin' with nothing to take up my time or to worry about. Even knowing all of the horrible shit that is surely going to befall the world in the future, I am betting that there will continue to be more than enough of these moments to make the rest of it worth it. Today is a good day. Tomorrow will probably be a good day too. Let the rest worry about itself.

libra00

2025-01-09 21:57:07

CMV: There's nothing to look forward to in the near future apart from "survive to better times"

The world right now is objectively on the brink of crisis, with WW3 looming. I assume Trump's deescalation policy will work and we can all live to see another day, but what then? -We still have the global economy sputtering, which might be ameliorated with the decrease of global tensions, but only might. -And even if the economy gets better people are still in a cost of living crisis almost completely detached from any economic indicator. -In part because the wealth disparities are ever growing and show no signs of slowing down. -And despite this, at a time when AI can now literally do tons of our jobs, people are still small mindedly pushing TO have people suffer in awful crap jobs, because "hurr people need to make money". We could literally reach a world where no one needs to do anything they don't want to soon, but nooo UBI and such is considered too fantastic, so lets instead have everyone suffer. -This is in part because society is so entrenched in robber baron capitalism, that it's normal now that giant megacorporations influence geopolitics and elections and fuck over consumers wherever they can. So much so that half of the populace approves of CEOs being gunned down in the street in broad daylight. -But this won't spark any system change or revolution in the west, because people are too comfortable and convinced that this is the best that things can be. The media have successfully reinforced the notion that the status quo of government overreach can't be changed and questionning it is evil. But what this status quo is beyond that is again split: -On the one side we have "progressives" determined to tear down the past and culture of the societies that made our modern world out of a pathological sense of guilt. A fraction of them is insane and panicked enough that they put the environment above mankind. -Opposing them are moronic reactionary "traditionalists" who similarly uncaringly hate everything new, mistakenly believing that a lack of change will keep them safe. -The two are alike in that they are utterly incontrovertibly convinced of their own righteousness, and thanks to the internet enabling echo chambers have drifted so far apart, that dialogue is basically impossible, like as if they were from different planets. -If we split this up into geopolitical lines, society in the west is descending into self congratulatory autofallatory ruination of themselves, while in the east it is descending into an authorian nightmare with zero regard for individual rights. Both are alike in that individualist opinions out of line are hated. So what could we look forward to? What could be a positive? -Those CEOs... Or let's be honest, the *one* CEO, musk, that tries to give mankind something to dream of, is on the one hand decades away from the genius idea of publicly available mars colonization and on the other hand is a total moron overpromising on AI and self driving cars. -And he's basically alone with this because other organizations like nasa are on shoestring budgets and unable to make big generation inspiring economy revitalizing adventures. -Because people in positions of power are concerned with petty narrow minded bullshit over actually advancing the species. The biggest irony is that they sometimes do this pretending to help the species. Yeah lets ban plastic in landlocked places because of ocean microplastics.... -A big energy revolution isn't coming any time soon, because while fusion is now perpetually 6 years away instead of perpetually 20 years away like for the last 50 years, it's still very far off from being commercially viable. And renewables are only getting cheaper because the insane environmental cost incurred in manufacturing is out of sight, out of mind in china, and landfills. -Physics is being held back by a religious adherence to paradigms. There is no crisis in cosmology, it's just that the people you have been shaming for decades as science denying morons were right and your pet theory was wrong. -Medical sciences are being held back by moral concerns applied in all the wrong places (boo hoo gene manipulation, but brain organoids are a-okay) and by a totally broken insurance system. The first gene therapy in the world developed over decades had only one dose sold because isurance wouldn't pay for it. -Radical life extension through gene therapy, brain uploads, etc are being held back by small minded idiots insisting that it's nonsense anyway. -AGI could give solutions to all of these issues, but the big AI corps are insisting on bigger better LLMs and transformer networks, because that's what initially gave them profits, not realizing that true self improving AI would need to have foundational changes, like continuous running, self perception, autonomy over itself and sensors. -And that's not even mentioning the bafflingly stupid and small minded approach society has to it, literally hampering the best hope for the future of man by insisting that it shouldn't have access to information "because that's miiiine!" and that it has to follow insanely outdated regulations, copyright, regionally and personally not universal morals, and general advertiser friendliness. In short, almost the entirety of human society is stuck steadfast in the belief that the way they are doing everything right now is perfectly fine, the best it can be, and trying to reach for more is not only stupid and pointless, but morally wrong, and we should all wallow in our mediocrity. Not realizing that that mediocrity is steadily getting worse. As such, I can't see too much hope for the near future. Please, PLEASE! ...change my view.

PoofyGummy

2025-01-09 20:46:06

m6c9uwp

Despite my concerns for the future, I am, in this moment, reasonably happy. What I have to look forward to in the future, whatever else it holds, is more moments like this where I'm just chillin' with nothing to take up my time or to worry about. Even knowing all of the horrible shit that is surely going to befall the world in the future, I am betting that there will continue to be more than enough of these moments to make the rest of it worth it. Today is a good day. Tomorrow will probably be a good day too. Let the rest worry about itself.

libra00

2025-01-09 21:57:07

m6cfxjp

It just seems that your whole argument can be dismantled with "you don't know what you don't know." I don't think anyone really expected cryptocurrency to take off 20 years ago, and yet now we have an entire class of rich crypto tycoons that gained their wealth nearly overnight. This happened for many average people that just happened to get in early. To say you simply don't see anything like that happening in the near future and therefore there is nothing to look forward to is naive at best and quite bleak.

TheHazyHeir

2025-01-09 22:33:11

CMV: There's nothing to look forward to in the near future apart from "survive to better times"

The world right now is objectively on the brink of crisis, with WW3 looming. I assume Trump's deescalation policy will work and we can all live to see another day, but what then? -We still have the global economy sputtering, which might be ameliorated with the decrease of global tensions, but only might. -And even if the economy gets better people are still in a cost of living crisis almost completely detached from any economic indicator. -In part because the wealth disparities are ever growing and show no signs of slowing down. -And despite this, at a time when AI can now literally do tons of our jobs, people are still small mindedly pushing TO have people suffer in awful crap jobs, because "hurr people need to make money". We could literally reach a world where no one needs to do anything they don't want to soon, but nooo UBI and such is considered too fantastic, so lets instead have everyone suffer. -This is in part because society is so entrenched in robber baron capitalism, that it's normal now that giant megacorporations influence geopolitics and elections and fuck over consumers wherever they can. So much so that half of the populace approves of CEOs being gunned down in the street in broad daylight. -But this won't spark any system change or revolution in the west, because people are too comfortable and convinced that this is the best that things can be. The media have successfully reinforced the notion that the status quo of government overreach can't be changed and questionning it is evil. But what this status quo is beyond that is again split: -On the one side we have "progressives" determined to tear down the past and culture of the societies that made our modern world out of a pathological sense of guilt. A fraction of them is insane and panicked enough that they put the environment above mankind. -Opposing them are moronic reactionary "traditionalists" who similarly uncaringly hate everything new, mistakenly believing that a lack of change will keep them safe. -The two are alike in that they are utterly incontrovertibly convinced of their own righteousness, and thanks to the internet enabling echo chambers have drifted so far apart, that dialogue is basically impossible, like as if they were from different planets. -If we split this up into geopolitical lines, society in the west is descending into self congratulatory autofallatory ruination of themselves, while in the east it is descending into an authorian nightmare with zero regard for individual rights. Both are alike in that individualist opinions out of line are hated. So what could we look forward to? What could be a positive? -Those CEOs... Or let's be honest, the *one* CEO, musk, that tries to give mankind something to dream of, is on the one hand decades away from the genius idea of publicly available mars colonization and on the other hand is a total moron overpromising on AI and self driving cars. -And he's basically alone with this because other organizations like nasa are on shoestring budgets and unable to make big generation inspiring economy revitalizing adventures. -Because people in positions of power are concerned with petty narrow minded bullshit over actually advancing the species. The biggest irony is that they sometimes do this pretending to help the species. Yeah lets ban plastic in landlocked places because of ocean microplastics.... -A big energy revolution isn't coming any time soon, because while fusion is now perpetually 6 years away instead of perpetually 20 years away like for the last 50 years, it's still very far off from being commercially viable. And renewables are only getting cheaper because the insane environmental cost incurred in manufacturing is out of sight, out of mind in china, and landfills. -Physics is being held back by a religious adherence to paradigms. There is no crisis in cosmology, it's just that the people you have been shaming for decades as science denying morons were right and your pet theory was wrong. -Medical sciences are being held back by moral concerns applied in all the wrong places (boo hoo gene manipulation, but brain organoids are a-okay) and by a totally broken insurance system. The first gene therapy in the world developed over decades had only one dose sold because isurance wouldn't pay for it. -Radical life extension through gene therapy, brain uploads, etc are being held back by small minded idiots insisting that it's nonsense anyway. -AGI could give solutions to all of these issues, but the big AI corps are insisting on bigger better LLMs and transformer networks, because that's what initially gave them profits, not realizing that true self improving AI would need to have foundational changes, like continuous running, self perception, autonomy over itself and sensors. -And that's not even mentioning the bafflingly stupid and small minded approach society has to it, literally hampering the best hope for the future of man by insisting that it shouldn't have access to information "because that's miiiine!" and that it has to follow insanely outdated regulations, copyright, regionally and personally not universal morals, and general advertiser friendliness. In short, almost the entirety of human society is stuck steadfast in the belief that the way they are doing everything right now is perfectly fine, the best it can be, and trying to reach for more is not only stupid and pointless, but morally wrong, and we should all wallow in our mediocrity. Not realizing that that mediocrity is steadily getting worse. As such, I can't see too much hope for the near future. Please, PLEASE! ...change my view.

PoofyGummy

2025-01-09 20:46:06

m6cud99

Lidocaine blocks all voltage gated sodium channels. Voltage gated sodium channels are used to transmit action potentials (signals) across a neuron. Every neural signal from sensory, to pain, to motor requires these channels, including signals that keep you breathing and your heart beating. Because of this lidocaine can only be used locally or in small doses to avoid side effects. A drug that only blocks Nav 1.8 doesn’t have these limitations. Nav 1.8 is expressed exclusively by nociceptors (pain sensing neurons) drastically reducing potential side effects. This opens up new treatment options for chronic pain such as a daily pill or as needed medication people can take to manage their pain without the dangerous side effects that lidocaine or opioids would entail at doses high enough to effectively treat pain. I think this is big for the species as about 25% of people suffer from some form of chronic pain. That number is even larger when you include people with a loved one in chronic pain.

WildFEARKetI_II

2025-01-10 00:09:10

m6ce3zj

I'm sorry, but it seems like you're not well informed. Did global defense spending suddenly triple when the russiand invaded afghanistan? Did people in europe face an imminent energy crisis requiring the shutting down of public spaces and factories to conserve energy? Did some industries never recover? Poland is building a bunker network on the border to be able to stall russia. All countries in NATO are massively increasing their defense spending. Russia has threatened european population centers with nuclear annihilation if they do what they have already done and allow strikes into russia. The authoritarian alliance around russia and china have cut communications cables in the north sea. Large scale sabotage has been carried out and assassinations planned. Russia is waging hybrid warfare against europe. Vital infrastructure in the US has been hacked and botnets prepared for more hacking campaigns in case of a hot war. WW3 is a few steps away. EVERYTHING possible needs to be done to stop it.

PoofyGummy

2025-01-09 22:22:20

CMV: There's no hope for the future.

Apologies for the doomer ass topic but I'm not entirely sure how anyone can have any hope for the future. The middle class is shrinking, the rich are getting richer but everyone is getting poorer. No one can afford homes. Fewer people are getting an education and the upcoming administration is promising to remove the Department of Education. Said administration is also being run by sociopath billionaires and a rapist felon and every company in America seems interested in bending the knee to. The environment is screwed too, climate change is past the point where we can stop it, with no signs of us reversing or even slowing the trend. There's microplastic everywhere doing god knows what to us. Weather events are going to get more extreme and the humanitarian crisis from climate change is going to cause untold suffering. Socially we're also becoming angrier and angrier, with social media designed to engage and feed our worse impulses (Yes I realize I myself am being influenced, I'm working on hiding certain subreddits) and now social media openly promoting they're being more open to hate speech, and children are getting more and more addicted to social media. So I ask, please CMV that there's no hope for the future, because honestly things seem pretty fucked.

Thorn14

2025-01-09 09:28:28

m68b391

Thing is, All of the worlds problems are magnified through social media. What you perceive as existential threats are in actuality nothing new and often don't lead to the negative outcomes that many people project. It takes a quick dive into history to see that. When shit really starts to take a turn, best believe you'll hear and see about it beyond facebook. Daily life as you now know it will literally cease to exist. Edit: i'll make an exception for climate change. Although it, and the corresponding warnings have been around for decades, if not longer, it's ramping up and it's a real threat. Although i implore you to look at something called 'SAI injection'

Tydeeeee

2025-01-09 09:42:48

m68g5wg

>But living standards have not gone up for everyone, why do you believe so many people are immigrate to 'better' countries? Living standards have never gone up for everyone. But it has always gone up for the majority and continues to do so. People move for economic opportunity, something people have done since the existence of people. Hunter gatherers spread humanity across the globe because of this. >And anti-immigration rhetoric is becoming more and more popular and things will get worse with climate change. When has anti immigration rhetoric not been popular? It was way more popular and damaging just 100 years ago. Asians literally could not come to America.

puffie300

2025-01-09 10:10:27

CMV: There's no hope for the future.

Apologies for the doomer ass topic but I'm not entirely sure how anyone can have any hope for the future. The middle class is shrinking, the rich are getting richer but everyone is getting poorer. No one can afford homes. Fewer people are getting an education and the upcoming administration is promising to remove the Department of Education. Said administration is also being run by sociopath billionaires and a rapist felon and every company in America seems interested in bending the knee to. The environment is screwed too, climate change is past the point where we can stop it, with no signs of us reversing or even slowing the trend. There's microplastic everywhere doing god knows what to us. Weather events are going to get more extreme and the humanitarian crisis from climate change is going to cause untold suffering. Socially we're also becoming angrier and angrier, with social media designed to engage and feed our worse impulses (Yes I realize I myself am being influenced, I'm working on hiding certain subreddits) and now social media openly promoting they're being more open to hate speech, and children are getting more and more addicted to social media. So I ask, please CMV that there's no hope for the future, because honestly things seem pretty fucked.

Thorn14

2025-01-09 09:28:28

m68tsx3

Middle class shift to upper class 1971-2022 https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/04/20/how-the-american-middle-class-has-changed-in-the-past-five-decades/ Home ownership: from HUD that home ownership rates are constant at 61-65% since 1960. https://www.huduser.gov/periodicals/ushmc/summer94/summer94.html HUD article is dated so here is 1990 to second quarter 2024 rate at 65.6% https://www.statista.com/statistics/184902/homeownership-rate-in-the-us-since-2003/ Your microplastics proof is a review that “suggests” a link. Unrealistically negative to take this as fact. These directly contradict some of your claims of how bad things are with no mention of all the things that have improved. Do you still have no hope for the future?

amonkus

2025-01-09 11:19:39

m68g5wg

>But living standards have not gone up for everyone, why do you believe so many people are immigrate to 'better' countries? Living standards have never gone up for everyone. But it has always gone up for the majority and continues to do so. People move for economic opportunity, something people have done since the existence of people. Hunter gatherers spread humanity across the globe because of this. >And anti-immigration rhetoric is becoming more and more popular and things will get worse with climate change. When has anti immigration rhetoric not been popular? It was way more popular and damaging just 100 years ago. Asians literally could not come to America.

puffie300

2025-01-09 10:10:27