title
stringlengths 21
296
| body
stringlengths 88
11.2k
| author
stringlengths 5
20
⌀ | created_date
stringlengths 19
19
| positive_comment_id
stringlengths 7
7
| positive_comment
stringlengths 278
5.11k
| positive_comment_author
stringlengths 4
20
| positive_comment_date
stringlengths 19
19
| negative_comment_id
stringlengths 7
7
| negative_comment
stringlengths 288
4.04k
| negative_comment_author
stringlengths 4
20
⌀ | negative_comment_date
stringlengths 19
19
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CMV: "There is X in Y, and there is X in (some other thing), therefore you should not take Y" is at least a bad argument if not normalizing dangerous argumentative strategies | Here goes my tepid view for all to see,
Complicated title but I'll give an example: on a pack of cigarettes in Canada you can read "There is cadmium in tobacco smoke and in batteries. It can cause lung cancer." The fact it causes lung cancer is a good thing to inform people of. The bad part is "and in batteries." My view is that promoting this style of argumentation can lead people to bad arguments for bad conclusions.
Consider one made up example and one real-life one:
- "there is lithium as a mood stabilizer, and lithium is in batteries. Therefore, one should not take lithium as a mood stabilizer" (I've not seen this in the wild but I imagine your aunt/uncle that denies your mental condition could say it)
- "there is formaldehyde in (some) vaccines and formaldehyde is used to embalm corpses, therefore you should not take vaccines" (real life example).
- There is one other real-life example I can think of that I won't bring up yet, as I prefer my point be made without it. But I could if people need other examples.
For some chemicals, metals, etc., it does not matter if they are found in batteries or are used for some other purpose. Some things in the world enjoy multiple uses. It should not bother us the fact that cadmium is in batteries, while it should bother us that cadmium is one of the carcinogens in tobacco smoke. Similarly, it should not bother anyone that formaldehyde is used in embalming, because it has other benefits in low doses when administering vaccines that don't cause us problems.
I could probably be a little swayed on my view if the fact that these chemicals/metals/whatever are used in batteries/embalming actually had a big enough psychological effect on people, but I don't think it does, at least for cigarette smokers (I don't think we are even swayed by it causing cancer). Vaccine deniers I sort of exclude from this because I think they are working backwards from their conclusion to whatever might support it, but I might consider them as some evidence that there is a psychological effect towards such facts about the world.
I'll also consider the idea that using this argumentative strategy one way does not normalize it in another, though I find this initially hard to believe.
I'll also consider, well, any other argument. | homomorphisme | 2025-01-23 15:49:40 | m8t2pj3 | It's a dumb argument for dumb people.
Smart people are most likely already avoiding substance X because of its harmful effects. No need to advertise to them. But since obviously that isn't sufficient, we need to add to that.
It's the concept of the noble lie. Is it a disingenuous argument? Absolutely. Does it work better than a well-reasoned logical argument? Absolutely. At least it does for the people who don't respond well to well-reasoned logical arguments.
The big question is if that fib encourages worse outcomes elsewhere. I think in the cases you propose, it's unlikely. Like you said, anti-vaxxers are starting with their conclusion and working backwards. The average person isn't operating like that. They're not gonna search for cadmium in everything, it'll stop at "Cadmium is in cigarettes and batteries, gotcha." They aren't going to go searching for everything that has cadmium, and even if they do, it probably is a good idea for them to avoid toxic materials. If they were gonna go beyond that surface level understanding, then there's a risk it'd lead to bad arguments but I think it's highly unlikely that they'll end up arguing on either side. If they do, they'll probably land on something like "Cadbury eggs sound like they may have cadmium in them. Best to avoid them." It's a dumb train of thought but it's totally benign.
Also, I think you're misunderstanding who that message is directed at. It's not the longtime smokers who are addicted already. It's the young kids who are trying cigarettes for the first time. They don't understand health risks, especially those that relate to mortality. They need messaging that says you're a moron for putting batteries in your lungs. | SpacemanSpears | 2025-01-23 17:27:10 | m8smqq3 | I agree that it’s a bad argument generally, but in the context of the cigarette example, it seems to only be highlighting that many of the ingredients in cigarettes are industrial chemicals that the average person might be totally unfamiliar with because their only other exposure to them would be batteries or some other thing they don’t personally have any reason to handle.
**“There is cadmium in (batteries, which is probably the only time you’d otherwise hear about the existence of that specific chemical) and in tobacco, where it can cause cancer.”**
It doesn’t really read like an argument not to smoke just because there are shared ingredients, but rather just example-based shorthand so you even recognize what cadmium is. If it didn’t say “…and in batteries.” but rather just said
**“there’s cadmium in cigarettes where it can cause cancer.”**
I’d argue the “…where it can cause cancer” part could be a dangerous argument itself - because simply knowing that something contains cadmium isn’t sufficient context to know if the level of cadmium is relevant to the consumer. But by adding “…and batteries” cigarette smokers are given enough context to be able to google cadmium if they want to see if that “can cause cancer” claim has an evidence base, and/or if cigarettes contain enough cadmium to be the cause.
Tbh though most of the cigarette packaging stuff is intended to deter potential new smokers more than it is to get anyone to quit (though obviously encouraging people to quit is a goal too). And for a young person unfamiliar with cadmium, the simple fact it’s an industrial chemical used in batteries is probably a compelling deterrent even if they agree with you that it’s a fallacy (i.e. Tesla batteries don’t “cause cancer”) because cigarettes are known not to be worth any potential risk. | spongermaniak | 2025-01-23 16:13:40 |
CMV: Canada should seek admission to the Union | I am basing this on economic rather then cultural grounds. Weather or not you think the king is good or bad doesn't come into this.
The Canadian provinces are heavily economicly integrated into the united states. With all provinces besides prince Edward Island and nova Scotia trading more with the united states then all other provinces combined. Having this much of the national economy be dependent on a foreign nation you have no control over is bad economic strategy.
The primary waterway for the Canadian economy, the st Lawrence seaway, is shared between the two nations and the US has the ability to block access.
The Canadian population is tiny and mainly consists of a string of cities along the us border. Making defending the county impossible. Back during the bad old days of the interwar period, Britain came to the conclusion that Canada was indefensable and determined thar if war with America occurred they would abandon the territory. Even today Canada just doesn't try to defend itself. It is a nato member leading to its military being subsumed under US command, it's air defense is managed by the US. It has one of the lowest defense spending levels of any nato member.
The Canadian population is aging rapidly. With currently only Alberta, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia being net contributors to the Canadian budget. This has lead to a massive unsustainable debt build up that will be nearly impossible to pay off without sever cuts to the social program they hold so deer. Joining the larger and more economically prosperous union to the south would allow them to avoid paying off such a massive debt level. The us deficit is much smaller then Canada's and is easier to pay off.
The united states also provides a more democratic system then Canada. With no state being able to dominate the system the way Ontario and Quebec dominate the Canadian system. The us primary system also gives the people more input into the selection of their leaders when compared to Canada's method of closed political parties requiring payments to vote in the election and a housing loan to even run. Someone like Tim walz would never be able to achieve national prominence in Canada due to the massive payments the parties charge in order to even run for leader.
To recieve a delta I am looking for compelling reasons either Canada should not join the united states beyond cultural differences. (I am firmly convinced that Canada and America are nearly identical culturally. And nothing can change that) or you can provide a compelling reason why America should not accept Canadian statehood. | colepercy120 | 2025-01-23 16:42:08 | m8swts3 | There are a ton of practical reasons why Canadians or Americans wouldn't want this. Canadians have government health care. Would they have to give it up? If not, would Americans want to pay for it?
Canadians haven't paid into Social Security - their pension plan system is different. Do we need to offer Social Security benefits to Canadians? Do they want to give up their pension? Are we on the hook for their pension? Or for paying out social security to them?
Their laws are different. Would they be giving up their historical laws / sovereignty? Would there be some kind of grace period? Do they want our laws? Do we want theirs?
I'm also not confident Americans want to integrate Canadian voters into the American political system. How many electoral votes do they get? How many senators? How does that reshape American politics? I suspect on the whole Canada is more left-leaning than America on average - forgetting the cultural point, politically it would create a significant shift to our existing coalitions, and my guess is it would benefit Democrats over Republicans at least in the short term. Will Republicans let that happen? | fluxdrip | 2025-01-23 16:59:13 | m8swclp | >The Canadian population is tiny and mainly consists of a string of cities along the us border. Making defending the county impossible. Back during the bad old days of the interwar period, Britain came to the conclusion that Canada was indefensable and determined thar if war with America occurred they would abandon the territory. Even today Canada just doesn't try to defend itself. It is a nato member leading to its military being subsumed under US command, it's air defense is managed by the US. It has one of the lowest defense spending levels of any nato member.
Conceding you are describing facts and not opinions, for the sake of this CMV:
Why should Canada *prefer* to be able to defend herself, rather than to use the US as a security shield?
Or, why should Canada prefer having to worry about defending the extensive land mass that is North America?
If you were Canadian, which will do better for you economically and politically: being a state in a tiny demographic minority saddled with the economic and political issues it causes, or a sovereign state with access to all the economic and social benefits of the American superpower without having to bear any of the weaknesses or costs?
A Canadian has no reason at all to care about Rusdia because the Russians cannot do a goddamned thing about Canada.
Would you trade that economic and security benefit for 7 senators?
In an increasingly food insecure world, why would Canada give her food supply to someone else when she clearly doesn’t have to?
>It has one of the lowest defense spending levels of any nato member.
Good.
ज़रूरत ही नहीं है भाई। | antaressian0r | 2025-01-23 16:57:04 |
CMV: If an elderly person committed heinous crimes long ago that they can no longer remember. It is not ethical to put them on trial or to imprison them | CMV: If an elderly person committed heinous crimes long ago that they can no longer remember. It is not ethical to put them on trial or to imprison them
* Compassion: everyone deserves a basic level of compassion. Even evil criminals should be treated humanely. It would be inhumane to drag an elderly dementia patient into a trial, especially if they have trouble understanding what is happening
* Mercy: The standard justice system is fine for most criminals. For criminals who suffer from extreme physical or mental disabilities, other options should be considered, especially if they are disabled to an extent that they cannot possibly perpetrate harm again
* Justice: If the accused cannot remember their crimes and cannot understand the criminal proceedings, the legitimacy of the trial may be undermined
* Optics: Dragging elderly dementia sufferers into a trial could undermine the court's legitimacy and make the court appear cruel or inhumane in the eyes of the public | DaegestaniHandcuff | 2025-01-23 15:14:39 | m8sih03 | Focus on imprisonment (trial has been covered by other commenters). Think of the different reasons why we as a society have decided it's ok to take away someone freedoms by throwing them in jail (I'm not saying I agree with all of these, but these are typically given):
(1) General deterrence: put people jail for crimes committed, so other people are less likely to do the same for fear of punishment.
(2) Specific deterrence: put people jail for crimes committed so that particular person cannot commit that crime or most other crimes while they'e in jail
(3) rehabilitation: you go to jail, learn that you shouldn't commit any more crimes, maybe even get some services while your in jail to help you when you get out.
(4) retribution - victims of crimes are happy when the perp is punished, society works better when people feel like the government has their back.
Which of these is less likely to true for an elderly person who can't remember the crime they committed? Maybe 2 and 3 (depending on how elderly they are). But, 1 and 2 are still there and just as strong or maybe even stronger for an elderly person who committed a crime a long time ago and has gotten away with it till now.
So, it depends on the original justification for punishment. To the extent you tend to agree with 1 and 4 as justification for punishment, it shouldn't make a difference how elderly or forgetful the alleged perp is. | Selbeast | 2025-01-23 15:54:28 | m8sc8nf | Trials aren't only about the accused. Consistent with the premise of your question, it would practically need to be a particularly heinous crime or set of crimes to go back and charge someone well after the fact. The evidence would also have to be overwhelming to go back and reopen a case many years later. Crimes that come to mind where this would be on the table are serial killers, domestic terrorists, or klansman or other people who committed a series of lynchings and other racial crimes. I'd also expect some type of very clear evidence to have arisen late in the process. An old recorded confession, newly found DNA evidence, etc. In these cases, there's real value to a broad swath of the community to have an acknowledgement of the crime and answers about what happened for family members of the victim.
That would be a tough situation for the now elderly person, and in a perfect system you might design a separate type of procedure to handle this, but in our current system I value answers and resolution for the broader community of victims over the suffering of the late life serial killer, domestic terrorist, or klansman. Ultimately, they made their bed during their earlier life, and the way to have avoided the situation would have been to not commit their crimes. I'm not without compassion and I'm not seeking some type of grisly retribution, but the late life suffering of the accused is not my primary concern. | Electrical_Quiet43 | 2025-01-23 15:25:55 |
CMV: Some of the early stuff Trump has done... Democrats should have been doing this anyways. | I'm 42, and a lifelong liberal Democrat.
I'm seeing a lot of buzz language and feelers out there of dread... ICE? Immigration enforcement?
The joke amongst my like-minded friends is that none of this is THAT unusual (yet*).
We feel a problem with the Biden administration was the overcorrecting they did on some issues like immigration. They took the cruelest aspects of Trump 1.0, and went overboard with some it by "fixing" it. It did indeed cause a mess at the border. When they realized their errors for the upcoming election season, it was too late.
*Yet, as some of this will now be eventually overcorrected the other way... right?
I see other issues burning up Reddit like the feeling that LGBT and BLM flags are getting banned, when Trump is just trolling/doubling-down on things that were already understood as common law. Pride Flags weren't flying at your local post office anyways.
Change my view. At least *some* of these early executive orders were just slam-dunk stuff for Trump, and liberals could have avoided some of these campaign issues that ushered Trump into office. | DougieSlug | 2025-01-23 16:59:19 | m8t44sg | You're right that much of this is just noise but it doesn't seem to follow that "Democrats should have been doing this anyway".
Your two examples are good ones - immigration is a substantive issue but Trump has also done performative things like ending birthright (which he knows will be struck down as unconstitutional). And flags is a clear example - it's a non-issue.
So yea Trump is just doing those things to be performative and send a message - but that's not a message Democrats want to spread. They shouldn't have banned pride and BLM flags - and (politically) they shouldn't have gotten ahead of it by having Biden "legalize" flying those flags, as you pointed out it's a non-issue.
I agree a lot of the stuff is nonsense but that doesn't mean Democrats should have done it. | kenny___bania | 2025-01-23 17:34:04 | m8t3v23 | Sure, I agree that Immigration cost Dems the election. Doesn't mean that they're necessarily "wrong" just "unpopular."
[And here's an ACLU statement on the Laken Riley Act.](https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-statement-on-senate-advancing-laken-riley-act-to-final-vote) [And here's the act itself if that helps.](https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/5/text)
I will say that some of the act is good, but some does go too far. Like, per the Act, if you're a "Dreamer" (Illegal Immigrant who came here as a minor and for now has been considered legal) who committed a misdemeanor like shoplifting, no matter how long ago, they are to be identified and deported.
I get that some people might be for that, but it's also pretty extreme. | CincyAnarchy | 2025-01-23 17:32:46 |
CMV: Some of the early stuff Trump has done... Democrats should have been doing this anyways. | I'm 42, and a lifelong liberal Democrat.
I'm seeing a lot of buzz language and feelers out there of dread... ICE? Immigration enforcement?
The joke amongst my like-minded friends is that none of this is THAT unusual (yet*).
We feel a problem with the Biden administration was the overcorrecting they did on some issues like immigration. They took the cruelest aspects of Trump 1.0, and went overboard with some it by "fixing" it. It did indeed cause a mess at the border. When they realized their errors for the upcoming election season, it was too late.
*Yet, as some of this will now be eventually overcorrected the other way... right?
I see other issues burning up Reddit like the feeling that LGBT and BLM flags are getting banned, when Trump is just trolling/doubling-down on things that were already understood as common law. Pride Flags weren't flying at your local post office anyways.
Change my view. At least *some* of these early executive orders were just slam-dunk stuff for Trump, and liberals could have avoided some of these campaign issues that ushered Trump into office. | DougieSlug | 2025-01-23 16:59:19 | m8t0k04 | >It did indeed cause a mess at the border.
The mess at the border is the result of a lack of resources for border security and the result of ecological and political instability in Central and South America. The former we have control over. The latter, we do not. Biden, along with conservative Republicans, sought to address the former issue with a bipartisan border security bill - giving needed personnel and resources to DHS to address the issue.
That law was slated to pass until Donald Trump brow beat Republicans into not supporting it anymore (after having written it as a decades long immigration wish list) - giving Biden a political win on immigration. That was the only shot in two generations we had at immigration reform.
What caused the mess at the border was the overfocus on fantastical non-solutions like a border wall and continued failure to engage the problems in Central and South America causing these mass migrations.
Biden was not failing to enforce immigration laws. In fact, he deported more illegal immigrants that Trump did. Biden and Democrats took a much more serious and results-oriented approach to the border and proposed meaningful changes to policy to alleviate these issues going forward. That was all opposed by Trump and, later, Republicans who wrote the reforms - fearing political fallout from opposing him even though his position was terminally uninformed and motivated by political grievance, not desire to address the issue. Watch him try to get the same or a similar law passed now but fail.
>At least some of these early executive orders were just slam-dunk stuff for Trump, and liberals could have avoided some of these campaign issues that ushered Trump into office.
Nothing Trump signed has had any substantive effect. Showmanship doesn't solve border problems. Before the pandemic, Trump was complaining about an invasion at the border every month. The only reason he wasn't overrun with more "caravans" is because the pandemic happened and shut everything down. Biden inherited his mess and Trump interfered with bipartisan efforts to fix it.
Signing nonsense Executive Orders that have no effect but to make MAGAs feel good isn't coherent policy and doesn't solve anything. Only Congress can reform immigration policy and that's only half of the equation. Failing to engage with the source of the migrations only dooms any border policy. | Biptoslipdi | 2025-01-23 17:16:46 | m8t59z2 | >The next D president needs to work on that ASAP instead of waiting til the 3rd year of their term to get the ball rolling.
No they don't. All they need to say is "Trump fixed it, he said so." Immigration is only a hot issue because it is trumpeted by right wing media 24/7. If it is still a hot issues, it's because Republicans failed to address it. We also know they won't play ball on any immigration reform anyway. The next D needs to run on political reform - getting money out of politics. That is the prerequisite to everything else. Tell Americans not to vote for anyone who doesn't support ending unlimited corporate money in politics. Campaign in deep red rural districts on that message just to pressure their R candidates into supporting it. If Republicans want to make immigration the issue, it's easy enough to point out they failed to do anything about it for four years, just like they do every time.
> Maybe Biden should have inverted the order of his legislative priorities, because the Ds got clobbered by the things left undone. Just spitballing here.
The D's have a very substantial record of legislative accomplishment, making the largest investment in America in U.S. history. Those benefits will be reaped over the coming decades. Keep in mind the only real legislative accomplishment of the first Trump administration was tax cuts for the rich. D's got clobbered by inflation. All the data points to people voting on that issue - which they had no control over. | Biptoslipdi | 2025-01-23 17:39:37 |
CMV: I’m Afraid This Administration Will Make Life Substantially Worse for Black Americans, and I Don’t Know If There’s a Line They Won’t Cross | I’m scared, and I’m looking for reassurance. As a Black person, I’ve already concluded that Trump and Elon Musk are racist, based on their actions and statements. What I’m struggling with is this fear that life under this administration will get substantially worse for people like me—and that their supporters won’t ever draw a line, no matter how bad things get.
Here are some things that have already happened or seem to be in the works:
Ending Equal Opportunity Programs: Trump revoked policies aimed at promoting racial equity in hiring and government programs.
Stop-and-Frisk: He signed an executive order encouraging its return, which disproportionately impacts Black and brown communities.
Wildfire Risks: Water is being rerouted from Northern California, a region that hasn’t had major wildfires in years, to Central California. This feels like it’s putting lives at risk unnecessarily.
Elon Musk’s Nazi Affiliation: Musk has amplified neo-Nazi accounts on Twitter, seemingly supported Germany’s far-right party, and even made what looks like a Nazi salute at a public event.
I’m terrified of what this could escalate to. Discrimination in hiring might push more Black people into desperate situations like selling drugs or stealing to survive. With policies like stop-and-frisk, that could mean more of us ending up incarcerated. My biggest fear is that there’s no “step too far” for their supporters. Would things like migrant camps or even more explicit authoritarian measures finally make people realize this is heading into Nazi territory? Or will they just keep defending every action?
I’m not asking for someone to convince me these people aren’t racist—I’m already past that. I just want to believe that there’s a line they can’t cross, that legal systems, public resistance, or something will stop things from spiraling further.
Can anyone reassure me that there’s hope? Or convince me that this won’t make my life—and the lives of Black Americans—substantially worse? | Scary-Ad-1345 | 2025-01-23 11:09:46 | m8qw2qs | Well, I don't think there's a line they won't cross necessarily, but there is already infighting occurring within *days* of the new administration, so I would say that it would become clear within months that there are lines they *can't* cross even if they wanted to; and our greatest reason for hope is in just how utterly incompetent these fascists truly are.
Since you brought up Musk by name, he already bashed Trump on A.I. just a day ago. This bromance will deteriorate quickly once Trump and Musk see each other more as a liability than an asset. Furthermore, you'll see this breakdown occur in real-time between Trump and other former bootlickers who betray Trump once he's served their ends, and once Trump has to choose between competing lobbyists. Remember the Inauguration when he had all those big tech CEOs present? They're competitors to *each other,* and there's no way Trump can appease them all without pissing the others off too. These people are sharks who are trying to gain pledged clear advantages over the competition, and it isn't an advantage over one's peers if *everyone* gets it.
Eventually, because Trump either cannot or will not meet their demands, they'll start financially pressing other Republicans to vote down certain bills and become slightly less inafauted with Trump in public (like 2-3 may even outright oppose him) because money ultimately talks and Trump may not even survive his term (not even politically, I'm just talking human life expectancy).
So yes, it's going to get ugly and it's going to get worse before it gets better, but fascists always ultimately turn on each other once it becomes apparent their partners are holding them back. And right now, during his supposed honeymoon period, Trump has an *extremely* slim margin of error. There's no way this doesn't devolve into a mudsliging cluster fuck within months for the GOP. | LegitLolaPrej | 2025-01-23 11:28:31 | m8r1vtd | You express feeling fear. I want you to understand that fear is a very powerful emotion. And it’s one politicians and business people love to exploit for their gain.
I’m not saying that the changes won’t be drastic or that it shouldn’t make you feel one way or the other. But I really think you’re being dramatic.
Equal opportunity act isn’t really something you really even need any more. It’s not going to affect your life that much. I’m black too… think about it: why the fuck would you even want to work at a place that wouldn’t hire you or promote you just because you’re black? There are PLENTY - probably an overwhelming majority more - of places that won’t look at your race in any kind of negative way. That’s absurd to even think. Idk maybe you live in some backwater in the South but I’ve never felt like I needed my race to be considered for hiring. In fact, I’d feel insulted to be hired just cuz I’m black and they’re trying to fill a quota. You should too. Come on now. Have some self respect.
Stop and frisk…. This is what I’m talking about. Your fear is being exploited. Trump isn’t bringing back stop and frisk. Stop and frisk never actually went away. I work in criminal law and I promise you this is a common practice that hasn’t gone anywhere. Regardless of who was in office. It might have had a different name and presentation, but it’s all the same shit.
I’m more concerned for immigrants and LGBT people who will actually have their tangible rights impacted.
Stop letting these people scare you. Stop getting your news from Reddit. This place is a straight up misinformation super center. You used to get downvoted all across subs on this website for pointing out that Trump has Latino and black support and that Harris was a weak candidate. This website and the majority on it would stifle news about Trump having a good chance of winning. This website has perpetuated all sorts of fake news…. Don’t let doomscrolling on this shit hole social media app affect your mental health or form your opinion of the real world. | Twenty_twenty4 | 2025-01-23 11:54:53 |
CMV: I’m Afraid This Administration Will Make Life Substantially Worse for Black Americans, and I Don’t Know If There’s a Line They Won’t Cross | I’m scared, and I’m looking for reassurance. As a Black person, I’ve already concluded that Trump and Elon Musk are racist, based on their actions and statements. What I’m struggling with is this fear that life under this administration will get substantially worse for people like me—and that their supporters won’t ever draw a line, no matter how bad things get.
Here are some things that have already happened or seem to be in the works:
Ending Equal Opportunity Programs: Trump revoked policies aimed at promoting racial equity in hiring and government programs.
Stop-and-Frisk: He signed an executive order encouraging its return, which disproportionately impacts Black and brown communities.
Wildfire Risks: Water is being rerouted from Northern California, a region that hasn’t had major wildfires in years, to Central California. This feels like it’s putting lives at risk unnecessarily.
Elon Musk’s Nazi Affiliation: Musk has amplified neo-Nazi accounts on Twitter, seemingly supported Germany’s far-right party, and even made what looks like a Nazi salute at a public event.
I’m terrified of what this could escalate to. Discrimination in hiring might push more Black people into desperate situations like selling drugs or stealing to survive. With policies like stop-and-frisk, that could mean more of us ending up incarcerated. My biggest fear is that there’s no “step too far” for their supporters. Would things like migrant camps or even more explicit authoritarian measures finally make people realize this is heading into Nazi territory? Or will they just keep defending every action?
I’m not asking for someone to convince me these people aren’t racist—I’m already past that. I just want to believe that there’s a line they can’t cross, that legal systems, public resistance, or something will stop things from spiraling further.
Can anyone reassure me that there’s hope? Or convince me that this won’t make my life—and the lives of Black Americans—substantially worse? | Scary-Ad-1345 | 2025-01-23 11:09:46 | m8stacy | There's already nearly a thousand comments on this and I can't look at them all, but what I did see was very few people reassuring you like you asked for. The reassurance is in our community relationships. I don't know where you are in the country, but if you were close I'd invite you over for dinner, and we'd sip beers and talk about anything else, just to feel like humans. Those are things they can never take, even if we're brewing our beer in reeducation camp toilets. | AltaC4L | 2025-01-23 16:43:19 | m8rv4oe | > but there is already infighting occurring within days of the new administration, so I would say that it would become clear within months that there are lines they can't cross even if they wanted to
Normally I’d agree with you, but trump’s style is to just get rid of anyone who questions or opposed his ideas. So it’s only a matter of time until all the people doing the infighting have been replaced with sycophants loyal to trump’s deranged idea of freedom. | littlewhitecatalex | 2025-01-23 14:07:58 |
cmv: Paternity Fraud should be illegal | Paternity Fraud is: The act of knowingly misrepresenting the biological father of a child for financial or emotional gain.
Here is why I believe that it should be legitimately illegal (not just a lawsuit), and should be punishable on the federal level.
According to the US Census Bureau, around 70% of child support is payed by the father. That is a lot of child support, and that is a separate topic. The false paternity rate in the US is 5%, and it's climbing higher and higher every year. It may not seem like a lot, but that impacts 200,000 fathers a year. It is even worse knowing that it is continually increasing. That means 1 in 20 fathers are not actually the father! Imagine a woman knowing that her child isn't the child of the man who is paying all that child support. You would think she should be held accountable, and if you do think so, you're absolutely right! It is a type of fraud, and all forms of fraud should be illegal. And when men go to jail for not paying child support (which they shouldn't), and they later get out of jail and then find out that the child wasn't theirs to begin with, the mother somehow isn't liable. It's despicable! Either make Paternity Fraud illegal or lower the child support rate for men. Why should me, you, or anyone else pay for a child that is not ours? Why should the mother be let go without any consequences? Why is this allowed?
The injustice becomes even clearer when you consider the societal double standard. Imagine a situation in which a woman knowingly allows a man to believe he is the father of her child, all while benefiting from his financial support and contributions. This is, without question, a form of fraud. Fraud is defined as wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in personal gain. When a woman knowingly misrepresents the paternity of her child, she is engaging in deception for personal gain, whether financial or otherwise. In any other context, fraud is a punishable offense. For example, lying to obtain government benefits or committing financial fraud against a company can result in significant legal consequences, including fines and imprisonment. Why, then, is paternity fraud treated differently? The legal system seems to turn a blind eye, leaving these men to bear the burden of an injustice they had no control over.
The situation is further compounded by the fact that men can face severe consequences for failing to pay child support, even in cases where paternity is later disproven. Men have been jailed, their wages garnished, and their credit ruined for failing to pay support for children who were never theirs to begin with. When these men eventually discover the truth, they find themselves without recourse. The mother, who knowingly deceived them, often faces no consequences whatsoever. This lack of accountability is not only unfair but also harmful to the integrity of the legal system. It sends the message that some forms of fraud are acceptable, even when they cause profound harm to innocent individuals.
To address this issue, the legal system must take a stronger stance against paternity fraud. Women who knowingly deceive men about paternity should face legal consequences, just as they would for any other form of fraud. Additionally, there should be mandatory (or optional/recommended) paternity testing at birth to ensure that men are not falsely accused of fatherhood. This simple step could prevent countless cases of injustice, protect men from undue financial and emotional hardship, and ensure that the mothers are held accountable. Fraud is fraud, and it must be treated as such — no exceptions! | Various_Arrival1633 | 2025-01-22 16:04:07 | m8obo1m | They could have plenty of reasons.
1. They trust their partner and don’t want to pay for it/feel its unnecessary
2. They are bonded to the child and don’t want to risk losing parental rights/custody
3. They have other kids with the partner and don’t want the child to be ostracized by their siblings or the other parent since it’s not the child’s fault. They also could not want to break apart the family/break apart the siblings.
4. They are concerned with privacy of a company possessing their dna data
5. They would prefer to not know. A lot of people who have diseases also would rather not know and remain ignorant than take a test. Personally I would not do this but there are some people with huntington’s for example that have 50% chance of getting the disease and they never test for it knowing they could have it.
6. Maybe they have an open marriage or they also have cheated and do not want paternity information to discolor their view on their partner.
And there are probably more just those are the ones that come to mind… | Old-Research3367 | 2025-01-23 00:01:37 | m8lztxr | Haha the only way I would support enforced paternity tests is to also add all those men to the rapists database.
Also just wanted to add that "tiny minority" is suspected to be around 30% based on several studies about men self reporting raping a women during their surveys when rape was just described instead of named. Scary times...
Study 1 (USA) 30% self-report
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4484276/
Study 2 (UK) 12.4% self report recent perpetration
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/10790632211051682
Study 3 (South Asia) I had trouble loading the actual study on the phone but the UN had this summary up with a link to the actual study
https://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2013/9/half-of-men-report-using-violence-and-a-quarter-perpetrate-rape-according-to-un-survey
Study 4 (USA) 31% self report when you don't use the word rape, but describe the act of rape. 13% still admit when using the correct term.
https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/vio.2014.0022?journalCode=vio | midway_through | 2025-01-22 16:25:07 |
CMV: DEI is (Almost) Always a Fundamentally Poor Idea | To begin, I'll start with a couple disclaimers:
I'm specifically talking about positive DEI, and by that I mean things such as quotas where you're artificially inflating the value of one candidate due to their minority status in the field. Negative DEI, or removing discrimination, I think is almost always a good thing. Also I'm a democrat, hate Elon Musk and Trump, and voted Kamala. Just don't like DEI. Not super necessary to bring up but I think my responses might be less adversarial having mentioned it.
There are three main reasons I dislike DEI, or specifically its application in the USA.
**1) It subverts free market principles**
The free market has a great way of allowing high performers and innovators upward mobility, and as a rule, the more you actively interfere with a free market the less efficient it becomes. Of course there need to be regulations and guidelines, such as outlawing monopolies, regulations and environmental protections, and most pertinently to this case, outlawing discrimination, but any system that would force you to choose candidates from a specific bucket will certainly be a negative in the short-term, and would most likely be a long-term negative as well.
For an example of the behavior I take issue with, we can refer to [this](https://nypost.com/2023/06/29/supreme-court-affirmative-action-case-showed-astonishing-racial-gaps/) article by the NY Post discussing Harvard's admissions system. Among many shenanigans centered around race, Harvard was overwhelmingly favoring African-American applicants in the same academic decile as Asians, and regularly giving them lower "personality scores" in their admissions. I can only see one message here: if you're from the wrong racial group, your hard work means less. I think that's a horrible idea.
**2) Forced diversity harms minority reputations**
This is self explanatory, but the basic idea is that if we enforce a system where lesser applicants to either jobs or colleges are admitted based on race, you devalue the work of minorities who would've received those jobs regardless of a quota or equity program. I've heard (anecdotal) horror stories of companies regularly hiring unqualified or underqualified minorities, who were simply unable to perform to the standard of their peers. This is a horrible way to promote inclusion, and in fact, I can't think of a better way to kneecap a race than to represent it as unable as compared to their peers. If you allow a view to form that minorities are receiving opportunities not on merit, but on race alone, it undermines the entire racial group.
**3) It attacks the issue from the wrong end**
Historically racist acts have led to underfunded communities with less opportunity than their counterparts, that is fact. It seems to me however, the solution to this is fixing the roadblocks to equal opportunity such as education, not slapping some DEI hires on the backend and acting as if we're genuinely applying pressure toward a solution.
I don't think DEI is the bad boogeyman controlling the world, nor do I think it was ultimate proof the government hates whites or whatever nazi shit people say about it, but DEI to me is a genuinely poor idea. It seems natural that we would eventually move on from it as a society, from a conceptual perspective it doesn't make sense to be favoring certain races over others, and from the standpoint of solving racial inequality DEI isn't accomplishing that, nor would it ever. I'm open to hearing about certain applications of DEI that you found worked in either education or the workplace, something you think I misunderstand regarding the issue, or any other perspectives I may not be considering. | TheDream425 | 2025-01-22 23:00:09 | m8ocamb | I'm a recruiter at a large, well-known public company that tends to lean left. We interface with our DEI team regularly and are always looking at how to increase diversity in our applicant pool.
Note that I said "applicant pool," not "employee population."
I think there is fundamental misunderstanding of how these programs are **supposed** to work. The point isn't to choose to hire someone because they're a POC -- it's to recognize that POCs have a different mentality when applying for jobs, and get on their level. For example, many studies have shown that black people are more likely to self-select out if they don't meet all the requirements for a job and won't even apply, where white people are more likely to shoot their shot, leading to a pool that skews white. The point of the DEI program is to go where POCs are -- as an example, HBCU alumni job boards, or offering the job description in Spanish -- so that they know they're welcome here and we specifically want them to apply.
From there, it's all about qualifications. I won't lie -- I have had hiring managers who also fundamentally misunderstand how these programs should work, and they say things like "we'd like to hire a person of color," and my job is to **shut that down immediately.** I will send them the people who are most qualified for the job, regardless of race, and make sure that when they reject candidates, they are providing solid feedback as to why ("not a culture fit" doesn't fly).
The idea is that by increasing the diversity of the pool, we will naturally have a more diverse employee population. It's NOT about hiring someone because of the color of their skin, their gender, their pronouns or anything else at all.
Now of course there are places that do it wrong. Harvard is a famous example, and I have no doubt that many colleges/universities are abusing DEI and giving the programs a bad name. But when it's done right, it's really just about meeting people where they are at and encouraging them to take a chance on themselves. | Sapphire_Bombay | 2025-01-23 00:06:09 | m8o5okw | \> Most of the arguments I have seen have misrepresented what DEI programs I have seen in practice, arguing that DEI prioritizes race over competence. Most argue against a strawman image of DEI.
Or they are about real things they have experienced at their company.
Sitting in a meeting being called racist because of the color of their skin.
Being told to that the next hire \*will\* be a person of color or a woman -- before anyone has been recruited or interviewed.
Or just the endless boring training that gets assigned every year so you can watch videos and learn to avoid phrases like, "you people like fried chicken, right?"
Amazingly enough, everyone is deemed racist to begin with -- before anyone with one of these DEI programs meets them. They know the employees need training on race, merely because they are white. And after that training, they'll need more training next year. The both need this training, and this training is so effective it doesn't stick and needs to be reapplied constantly.
Yes there are problems, but the DEI space is filled with snake oil salesmen and companies buying from them during the boom years so they can post about it online. DEI hitched its wagons to charlatans and this is the price being paid.
The people pretending nothing questionable has gone on in under the banner of DEI are being disingenuous or blind. | bluexavi | 2025-01-22 23:20:28 |
CMV: Pardoning the insurrectionists will prove disastrous for the Republican Party | I’m open to having my mind changed on this, but I personally fail to see how this plays out well for the GOP.
I believe this move has short term effects that help Trump’s administration earn some brownie points with MAGA supporters but in the long term I think it might do more harm than good.
I feel like this move solidifies the GOP as a chaotic, anti-law-and-order party, whereas usually they aim to be seen as the opposite. It obviously alienates moderate and independent voters who were disgusted with the events of Jan 6 - as well as younger voters who, as I understand it, are especially critical of the Jan 6 attack on the capitol.
If that isn’t enough, this would solidify Trump’s ties to the Republican party indefinitely, essentially meaning any Republican candidate for the foreseeable future has to play along, embrace the pardon and I could see that playing out badly when they try to appeal to the general electorate when Trump inevitably cannot run again in 2028.
Thoughts? Rebuttals? Looking for some clarity here.
| plazebology | 2025-01-23 13:03:18 | m8rirok | It really depends on your perspective on what you think is good for the Republican party. You are correct that this is a step towards the Republican party abandoning its traditional principles. But principles are a liability when it comes to taking and maintaining power. Abandoning principles and weaponizing every aspect of our political system gives the Republicans a real competitive advantage over the Democrats. | AcephalicDude | 2025-01-23 13:11:47 | m8rnkhb | While I appreciate that slow and gradual change could occur, the question (to me) is does it matter in the grand scheme of the tidal wave of phenomenon that's happening here?
What is faster? The amount of people working in the police that recognize Trumps' lawlessness? Or a person every minute becoming of voting age that doesn't give a damn about any of that stuff yet? Or all the other factors that are currently in Trump's favor? I dunno man. | Odd_Act_6532 | 2025-01-23 13:33:54 |
CMV: Pardoning the insurrectionists will prove disastrous for the Republican Party | I’m open to having my mind changed on this, but I personally fail to see how this plays out well for the GOP.
I believe this move has short term effects that help Trump’s administration earn some brownie points with MAGA supporters but in the long term I think it might do more harm than good.
I feel like this move solidifies the GOP as a chaotic, anti-law-and-order party, whereas usually they aim to be seen as the opposite. It obviously alienates moderate and independent voters who were disgusted with the events of Jan 6 - as well as younger voters who, as I understand it, are especially critical of the Jan 6 attack on the capitol.
If that isn’t enough, this would solidify Trump’s ties to the Republican party indefinitely, essentially meaning any Republican candidate for the foreseeable future has to play along, embrace the pardon and I could see that playing out badly when they try to appeal to the general electorate when Trump inevitably cannot run again in 2028.
Thoughts? Rebuttals? Looking for some clarity here.
| plazebology | 2025-01-23 13:03:18 | m8rlft7 | If I were a political strategist, this would be my take.
If you don't pardon them, they will still be in prison when the next election rolls around and that might sour the base making them feel as though the administration abandoned them. When the next candidate rolls around, those people will still be in prison and they will likely be asked if they will pardon them. Meaning they either go against the dire hard voting base or the swing voters.
By doing it now, you keep your base motivated and people will likely forget in 4 years. As well there will be a new candidate who doesn't have to wear the pardon. | JohnTEdward | 2025-01-23 13:23:45 | m8rii4j | Joe Biden paved this road mate.
The pardon Joe gave his son was the most sweeping since Nixon, then he pardoned a bunch of other family members going back to January 1, 2014, which is very specific for covering the events of Joe Biden forcing out a prosecutor investigating a company his son had been added to the board of.
Joe abused the pardon power to an extent that this will not matter, because in the end I feel like most of those charged for January 6th were charged excessively, and the video that democrats fought to keep private played that out. | TheMikeyMac13 | 2025-01-23 13:10:35 |
CMV: Pardoning the insurrectionists will prove disastrous for the Republican Party | I’m open to having my mind changed on this, but I personally fail to see how this plays out well for the GOP.
I believe this move has short term effects that help Trump’s administration earn some brownie points with MAGA supporters but in the long term I think it might do more harm than good.
I feel like this move solidifies the GOP as a chaotic, anti-law-and-order party, whereas usually they aim to be seen as the opposite. It obviously alienates moderate and independent voters who were disgusted with the events of Jan 6 - as well as younger voters who, as I understand it, are especially critical of the Jan 6 attack on the capitol.
If that isn’t enough, this would solidify Trump’s ties to the Republican party indefinitely, essentially meaning any Republican candidate for the foreseeable future has to play along, embrace the pardon and I could see that playing out badly when they try to appeal to the general electorate when Trump inevitably cannot run again in 2028.
Thoughts? Rebuttals? Looking for some clarity here.
| plazebology | 2025-01-23 13:03:18 | m8rswpw | My thoughts are that a lot of people believe that these prosecutions were not entirely fact-based and that they were political in nature - eg. the people convicted either didn't do the crime, what they did wasn't a crime, or they were unfairly punished for the magnitude of the crime that was committed. If you come at it from that perspective, I don't think you believe the GOP is being soft on crime, they're righting an injustice.
Note: Opinions espoused herein are not my own. Those people broke the fuck out of some laws and they deserve everything they got and probably more. | ShutYourDumbUglyFace | 2025-01-23 13:57:53 | m8rlft7 | If I were a political strategist, this would be my take.
If you don't pardon them, they will still be in prison when the next election rolls around and that might sour the base making them feel as though the administration abandoned them. When the next candidate rolls around, those people will still be in prison and they will likely be asked if they will pardon them. Meaning they either go against the dire hard voting base or the swing voters.
By doing it now, you keep your base motivated and people will likely forget in 4 years. As well there will be a new candidate who doesn't have to wear the pardon. | JohnTEdward | 2025-01-23 13:23:45 |
CMV: Pardoning the insurrectionists will prove disastrous for the Republican Party | I’m open to having my mind changed on this, but I personally fail to see how this plays out well for the GOP.
I believe this move has short term effects that help Trump’s administration earn some brownie points with MAGA supporters but in the long term I think it might do more harm than good.
I feel like this move solidifies the GOP as a chaotic, anti-law-and-order party, whereas usually they aim to be seen as the opposite. It obviously alienates moderate and independent voters who were disgusted with the events of Jan 6 - as well as younger voters who, as I understand it, are especially critical of the Jan 6 attack on the capitol.
If that isn’t enough, this would solidify Trump’s ties to the Republican party indefinitely, essentially meaning any Republican candidate for the foreseeable future has to play along, embrace the pardon and I could see that playing out badly when they try to appeal to the general electorate when Trump inevitably cannot run again in 2028.
Thoughts? Rebuttals? Looking for some clarity here.
| plazebology | 2025-01-23 13:03:18 | m8rzhk9 | Your view falls flat when you realize there was not an attempted insurrection on Jan 6. There absolutely was a riot. Charges from Jan 6 range from assault to entering or remaining in a federal building to conspiracy. No one from Jan 6 was ever charged with insurrection. Why is that? | pewcheee | 2025-01-23 14:27:42 | m8rn8tt | If 1500 people peacefully entered your house (by peacefully breaking down the front door and several windows, I feel like you might have a different view on this.
Even if we take aware the political element - breaking and entering is a crime. These people were convicted in a court of law. Pardoning them undermines the rule of law. | pingmr | 2025-01-23 13:32:25 |
CMV: Pardoning the insurrectionists will prove disastrous for the Republican Party | I’m open to having my mind changed on this, but I personally fail to see how this plays out well for the GOP.
I believe this move has short term effects that help Trump’s administration earn some brownie points with MAGA supporters but in the long term I think it might do more harm than good.
I feel like this move solidifies the GOP as a chaotic, anti-law-and-order party, whereas usually they aim to be seen as the opposite. It obviously alienates moderate and independent voters who were disgusted with the events of Jan 6 - as well as younger voters who, as I understand it, are especially critical of the Jan 6 attack on the capitol.
If that isn’t enough, this would solidify Trump’s ties to the Republican party indefinitely, essentially meaning any Republican candidate for the foreseeable future has to play along, embrace the pardon and I could see that playing out badly when they try to appeal to the general electorate when Trump inevitably cannot run again in 2028.
Thoughts? Rebuttals? Looking for some clarity here.
| plazebology | 2025-01-23 13:03:18 | m8sc4kv | well your argument was that it would be disastrous for the republican party, not for some republicans. Trump won re-election, people don't care about jan 6th or the rioters, he actually won more votes than 4 years ago, not only did the attempted insurrection not lead to him losing support he actually gained support.
i agree with you btw, they don't deserve to be pardoned and trump should be tried for attempted insurrection along with people like eastman, it's just that the GOP won't be punished for this the same way they weren't punished 4 years ago when they did jan 6th. | AnovanW | 2025-01-23 15:25:25 | m8rmv16 | I don't think conservatives in general care about anything except for themselves. So, realistically, nothing will change conservatives mind about voting Republican every single election. Sure, some police unions and cops have criticized the pardon, they are still 100% voting for Trump again if they could.
I'm convinced that if Trump and MAGA walks into US schools today, drag LGBTQ kids out into the school yard and publicly execute those kids on national TV, conservatives would be fake outrage, and still vote for Trump again if they could (I know they can't but they definitely would). | unicornofdemocracy | 2025-01-23 13:30:44 |
CMV: Abortion is morally wrong | I am sorry if this is like the 1000th post about this. Okay I would like to make my position clear first, I am VERY conflicted about this, and am genuinely looking to see if I should change my view or not, so arguments from both sides of the coin would be very useful here.
Abortion: Forceful and knowing termination of a human foetus during a pregnancy term.
Little background, I'm pretty young (21M), I've always considered myself quite religious, with a strong connection to God and I really appreciate the work my faith has done for me in all aspects of my life (including quitting substances, being kind to others, being respectful and tolerant toward other perspectives), and I don't see this changing.
However, as a religious person, we are taught the concept of a soul being conceived as a human is also conceived in the womb, as a child is essentially the marriage of the two most foundational parts of both the classic male and female sexes, and is our life essence in one being essentially. I am also conflicted about till WHEN abortion is okay, is it when brain waves and a heart beat are first detected (10-12 weeks)? Is it up to 20-24 weeks? Is it not okay as soon as the baby is detected?
At the same time, I would say that I definitely don't trust the government in telling people what they should do with their bodies, but does that hold consistent in other arguments? Murder is wrong, and if the human foetus is a separate human being, is that murder? Is abortion wrong as soon as the baby is physically capable of surviving outside the mother's womb? Does the fact that the mother is carrying the baby give her the right to terminate the child's life, and what exactly is the value of that "potential life" relative to an actual baby being born?
As you can see I have so many questions, and I really don't want to sit in the middle of the fence with this, so I want to actually solidify my view, even if that means challenging my pre-existing beliefs (be it religion, or science) to come to an understanding of truth that fits with my worldview.
Comments from either side are greatly greatly appreciated :)
| CG_Gallant | 2025-01-22 11:50:08 | m8kj03j | I'm not going to try to change your view on the morality of a "normal" abortion under "normal" circumstances.
Instead, I want to change (or solidify, which I feel like is still a change) your view on the involvement of government. Look at it pragmatically: is there a option other than allowing abortion that's morally superior?
First, lets take the following for granted, if you disagree with any of this then my argument won't work:
1. Every pregnancy carries a risk to the mother's health, whether physical or mental
2. Rape is wrong
3. The government shouldn't force people to do things that put their health at risk.
3a. This doesn't mean that a person who takes a risk (consensual sex) that they weren't forced to shouldn't be forced to live with the result of that risk (pregnancy). In this case the risk to the mother's health happened when she willingly had sex, the government didn't force her to have sex.
4. People lie.
5. Punishing an innocent is worse than allowing a guilty person to go unpunished.
With that out of the way, and assuming you agree:
What happens when a woman is impregnated by a rapist? We have to allow the abortion here, because otherwise we're forcing the mother to risk her health for something she didn't consent to. Maybe we can charge the rapist with murder (of the fetus). What happens if we can't identify the rapist? Still have to allow the abortion. What happens if the mother lies about being raped? How do you prove that she's lying? Even if the mother does a rape kit and they find semen in her, there's no way to prove it wasn't consensual, so it seems to me the only way to move forward is to both allow the abortion and also not punish the "rapist."
So then, the question on the legality of abortion isn't really a question of "do we allow abortion," it's "do we allow abortion when the mother was raped," because if rape-abortion is legal then all unwanted pregnancies will be referred to as rape-pregnancies by the mothers.
Forcing a mother to go through with a pregnancy where she was actually raped seems extremely evil to me, though, and it seems impossible that a mother could go through that without any mental harm. It could be argued that a woman forced to carry her rapist's fetus to term is a psychological punishment being enforced by the government on an innocent.
Now, God knows if the woman was actually raped, and He knows if the mother or the doctor or the rapist or all of them or none of them are guilty of murder, but I'd imagine that He's more than capable of punishing them justly and doesn't require the US government to do it for Him.
It seems to me, that even if you're pro-life, the best course of action would be to allow abortion and let God sort out the details of fault and punishment, since He has a more complete picture of what happened and won't accidentally punish someone for something they didn't do. You could probably get away with an extra murder charge for a convicted rapist that causes a pregnancy that gets aborted, but I don't think that'd be able to change the legality of the abortion itself. | lakotajames | 2025-01-22 12:30:00 | m8kf4z5 | I think the determining factor if abortion is wrong or not shouldn't be the value of a potential human life. I know it's a popular approach but it doesn't make any sense to me.
Let me explain.
Let's assume that a fetus is equal to a fully fledged human being. If a human is not able to keep themselves alive, we do anything in our morals capacity to keep them alive. For an adult this means life support and potential organ donation. Let's assume the logic people use to argue that abortion is immoral is used for a person who needs an organ donation otherwise they'll die.
In this line of argument, anybody who is a potential donor match should be forced to donate that organ since it's needed to keep that person alive. If that puts the health or the donor at risk, their living situations because they need medical leave after the donation etc. shouldn't be an argument, since it will save the recipients life. Their right to live should override the donor's right of freedom from bodily harm and their right of bodily choice.
But we don't do that. We acknowledge that if nobody wants to donate to that person, even if they could, they cannot be forced to do that because that would be immoral.
That is the true question of mortality when looking about abortions. Is it moral to force a person to donate their organs/health to keep another person alive? And if so, why do we only apply it to this specific circumstances where the donor is a women and the person needing it is a fetus?
Why do you think that a fetus has more rights than any other human in its position?
If it is truly about morals, then why isn't more effort put into finding a solution that doesn't depreciate any moral principle that is important?
With enough money and effort, I am sure there could be a way to abort the fetus from the women's body without killing it and keeping it alive through medical intervention until it's viable. But nobody is asking for solutions similar to this.
Instead billions of dollars are pushed into propaganda to tell people that women's basic rights are not as important as that of other humans. But only if that human is not viable because somehow in that case, we apply different morals then we would in any other comparable circumstances with an adult human. So is it truly about the life of the fetus? | midway_through | 2025-01-22 12:12:39 |
CMV: The whole tiktok ban thing was propaganda | It's funny to me how obvious they made it.
"We are fortunate that President Trump has indicated that he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes
office. Please stay tuned!"
You've gotta be kidding me, wasn't he the one that tried to ban it years ago because people were expressing themselves too freely??
And "Thanks for your patience and support. As a result of President Trump's efforts, TikTok is back in the U.S.!"
It's so damn obvious, his name being everywhere and him being portayed as "the hero" to those addicted to tiktok.
I've recently deleted it even if it's supposed to be back, because it made me realize just how twisted the whole thing is, this is probably working on some people that now see Trump in a good light if they didn't before.
His efforts were orchestrating the whole thing in the first place, taking it away and then not even being able to wait a few days before giving it back.
Not only that, but the states that voted for him getting the app back right away? Please | Lonely_Ad_5665 | 2025-01-20 04:14:13 | m85g1k6 | This is not true at all and you're giving Trump way too much credit for being very sophisticated at propaganda.
Yes the original Tik Tok ban did get proposed during the first Trump admin but this was after the US military already banned Tik Tok.
And then it died down and then it was proposed again and passed with BIPARTISAN support. Even Biden prohibited tik Tok from government employee phones.
The reality is this was a concern first brought up by the military and it bounced around until it finally passed with BIPARTISAN SUPPORT. Things like this are usually from the national security establishment like the CHIPS act which actually also started during the trump admin and was more obviously proposed by the national security establishment.
Come to today -- Trump did indeed save Tik Tok! He did it for a very obvious reason: he likes the popularity and attention he got on tik Tok! Trump is very straight forward. He likes people who miss the ring and he likes things that give him attention and power.
You could be on his shit list one day but as long as you stroke his ego and kiss the ring you're good the next day. It's actually very straight forward.
He was VERY open about it. He said he liked tik Tok because he did well on it and people like him there. That's it!
You have to accept that good and bad things can come from people you don't like because they have their own interests and they may happen to align with yours.
This is just who Trump is. He likes attention and he likes power.. in both his elections he said whatever he felt people wanted to hear and whatever made him popular.
Originally sentiment on China was bad and the whole 'chins virus' thing was trending and he was doing the trade war with China so this was all part of it and he didn't think twice about it.
Now he knows tik Tok was actually really good for him during the election and that he's becoming popular on it so he's not gonna give that attention away. Simple as that.. | burrito_napkin | 2025-01-20 07:35:42 | m8eh62d | you mean here
"That's not propaganda at all! There's nothing selective or not objective about that.
Trump saved Tik Tok! If trump didn't that would be propaganda but he did.
They don't need to say 'thanks trump, your selfishness in wanting this platform for your own popularity is the reason we're back' that would be insane
They can just say thank you and correctly attribute the thank you
Bernie also said 'great idea trump' regarding the usury he proposed. That's not propaganda. That's just standing behind what's obviously in your best interest.
Here are some good examples for propaganda: "The CHINA VIRUS" -trump "I saw 40 beheaded babies for myself" - Biden "The economy is stronger than ever thanks to me" - Trump "bidenomics works!'- Biden
You expect him to not take credit for things he literally did to take credit?"
No where in that do you dispute the definition. "Nothing selective or not objective" - The definition states "which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts" The word may means other alternatives also meet the definition.
"Trump saved Tik Tok! If trump didn't that would be propaganda but he did" - Again propaganda does not need to false. Just because its true does not make it not propaganda.
"They don't need to say 'thanks trump, your selfishness in wanting this platform for your own popularity is the reason we're back' that would be insane" - Completely irrelevant to the definition.
"Bernie also said 'great idea trump' regarding the usury he proposed. That's not propaganda. That's just standing behind what's obviously in your best interest." - And if he sent that message to 170 million Americans that would certainly be considered propaganda.
"Here are some good examples for propaganda: "The CHINA VIRUS" -trump "I saw 40 beheaded babies for myself" - Biden "The economy is stronger than ever thanks to me" - Trump "bidenomics works!'- Biden" - Yes those are some selectively picked examples of definitely propaganda. I noticed you didn't mention any true propaganda though because you like to pretend that doesn't meet the definition.
So now that I've showed you did not in fact answer what part of the definition doesnt fit I will ask you again-
What part of this doesn't meet the definition of propaganda? | TheMegaphoneFromFee | 2025-01-21 14:30:57 |
CMV: Banning X links and blocking Trump voters has the opposite of its intended effect | (EDIT: This blew up and I don't have time to catch up atm. I'll return after a drive I need to make! Also - to save the typing, I'm not a conservative, I'm not pro-Trump, i find it kinda funny that anyone would assume that based on how I don't advocate for a boycott of something)
Seeing a lot of traction to banning X links on Reddit, also see a lot of friends across social media posting stories to the effect of "If you voted for him, don't talk to me, blocking you, I hope you get what you voted for". To my mind all this behavior achieves is the reinforcement of an already entrenched echo chamber. How is this any different to States banning certain books in schools?
This amounts to throwing a tantrum and slamming a door. If everyone on the Right lives on TruthSocial and everyone on the Left lives on Bluesky, where is the opportunity to bridge the divide? Think, when was the last time somebody called you an idiot, and then you were inclined to listen to their further points? Do you enjoy being called snowflakes? I personally hate the term, but posting "don't talk to me" really plays into that narrative. You want to have the moral high ground? You want to see things get better? Be the one to reach out and understand, be the one to ask why someone thinks what they think. Yes its exasperating, yes it can feel like punching a brick wall, but just resigning to depression and bowing out is exactly the sort of behavior that enables the opinions you say are unfounded.
Someone on the right sees you ban them and thinks "well I guess they really are snowflakes and they really can't handle opposition", its vindication, not punishment.
The Elon salute has become a whopping great big distraction. Have you any clue how unimportant that single gesture is compared to the scale of policy change currently taking place in the White House? Executive orders are flying under the radar because Reddit has been overtaken with salute hysteria. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, its probably a duck - but turning away from the pond and putting a ban on quacking won't stop it from being a duck.
Banning links amounts to the same style of attack on free speech as banning books, a better exercise of this would be to simply not click on them. Banning a link doesn't stop it from existing, ignoring a person you disagree with won't change their politics, insulting them only entrenches them further. You're just removing yourself from the conversation. You're surrendering on the battlefield and leaving the opposition fully armed. | TheTragedy0fPlagueis | 2025-01-23 10:48:56 | m8qulxe | X/Twitter is turning more and more into a right-wing echo chamber every day. Facebook has been one for a while, and that was before fact checking was removed and political content was added back into the mix. Now Instagram and Threads (with all 50 of its users) will become additional right-wing propaganda machines. That only leaves Reddit as a social media company not catering to MAGA.
It is extremely important right now when there is organic outrage among the Democratic voting population to pull as many people out of those ecosystems as possible. Reddit has a lot of users, enough to add some legitimacy to Bluesky if enough activity can be pushed there. If this can get the ball rolling on a migration from the current social media companies to something, anything else then it’s worth doing.
As it stands there is already a bifurcated internet and it is slanting toward the right. It’s hard enough fighting against conservative talking points which have been calibrated for years to take advantage of wedge issues without also fighting against an algorithm designed to give those views a megaphone. Additionally, as AI gets more advanced these algorithms will become more effective, bots will become indistinguishable from real people, and astroturfing social media ecosystems will become even more trivial.
Another point I’d like to make is that it is in everyone’s interest whether they realize it or not to reduce the influence one or two companies have. Right now Zuckerberg and Musk have top-down control over ALL social media outside of TikTok and Reddit — and TikTok is already being used to further Trump’s agenda even while he’s talking about nationalizing 50% control of it. Even if these social media companies were completely unbiased and acted as a true town square giving an equal voice to all, we would want to diversify away from outright oligarchic control.
For the record, I am playing devil’s advocate here because I tend to agree that at least the way this is playing out on Reddit looks way too manufactured and in a perfect world there would be organic movement to other social media that does not have a political bias in either direction. We really do need to find a way out of these echo chambers and learn how to talk to each other again. However this is the CMV sub and I think the above is a decent representation of the argument for what’s happening right now. | shannow86 | 2025-01-23 11:21:47 | m8qrr9n | The intended effect for X links is to stop giving ad revenue to Musk. If you post a link and someone clicks it, Musk gets money from that. If you don't share links, Musk loses money from Reddit. They aren't trying to "bridge the gap" or whatever.
Similarly, blocking Trump voters isn't done for the purpose of bridging the gap. People block Trump voters because they overwhelmingly tend to be bad company to anyone left of center, and those people don't want to spend their lives dealing with them.
> executive orders have been flying under the radar
What are redditors going to do about that? What would *actually* have changed if Musk hadn't done the Nazi salute, and instead Reddit was full of posts about the EOs? Frankly, there's literally nothing that the average person can do to actually change that at this stage in Trump's presidency. He's not gonna listen to petitions or protests, and if he's legally forced to retract those EO's, it'll be due to the lawsuits that have already been filed.
> You're just removing yourself from the conversation.
That is the whole point. If you want things to get better, you have to do things that actually matter. Doomscrolling social media and head-banging against Trump voters who clearly aren't changing their minds doesn't help.
You want to actually help right now? Make the world a better place? Volunteer or donate to charities. Trying to enact anti-Trump political change with a Republican trifecta is like sending an email to Jeff Bezos asking him to please stop union busting. It's not gonna do anything, and you should divert your efforts to things that'll actually help.
Political discussion matters more when it's closer to an election; no discussion happening on Reddit *right now* will cause someone to think "I didn't vote in 2024, but I'm now committed to voting for the Democratic Party in 2026." If people do decide that, it's not gonna happen because reddit mods decided to allow Twitter/X links. | Xechwill | 2025-01-23 11:08:22 |
CMV: Banning X links and blocking Trump voters has the opposite of its intended effect | (EDIT: This blew up and I don't have time to catch up atm. I'll return after a drive I need to make! Also - to save the typing, I'm not a conservative, I'm not pro-Trump, i find it kinda funny that anyone would assume that based on how I don't advocate for a boycott of something)
Seeing a lot of traction to banning X links on Reddit, also see a lot of friends across social media posting stories to the effect of "If you voted for him, don't talk to me, blocking you, I hope you get what you voted for". To my mind all this behavior achieves is the reinforcement of an already entrenched echo chamber. How is this any different to States banning certain books in schools?
This amounts to throwing a tantrum and slamming a door. If everyone on the Right lives on TruthSocial and everyone on the Left lives on Bluesky, where is the opportunity to bridge the divide? Think, when was the last time somebody called you an idiot, and then you were inclined to listen to their further points? Do you enjoy being called snowflakes? I personally hate the term, but posting "don't talk to me" really plays into that narrative. You want to have the moral high ground? You want to see things get better? Be the one to reach out and understand, be the one to ask why someone thinks what they think. Yes its exasperating, yes it can feel like punching a brick wall, but just resigning to depression and bowing out is exactly the sort of behavior that enables the opinions you say are unfounded.
Someone on the right sees you ban them and thinks "well I guess they really are snowflakes and they really can't handle opposition", its vindication, not punishment.
The Elon salute has become a whopping great big distraction. Have you any clue how unimportant that single gesture is compared to the scale of policy change currently taking place in the White House? Executive orders are flying under the radar because Reddit has been overtaken with salute hysteria. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, its probably a duck - but turning away from the pond and putting a ban on quacking won't stop it from being a duck.
Banning links amounts to the same style of attack on free speech as banning books, a better exercise of this would be to simply not click on them. Banning a link doesn't stop it from existing, ignoring a person you disagree with won't change their politics, insulting them only entrenches them further. You're just removing yourself from the conversation. You're surrendering on the battlefield and leaving the opposition fully armed. | TheTragedy0fPlagueis | 2025-01-23 10:48:56 | m8qu3m0 | I think you have two separate things packaged together here. Banning X links and blocking Trump supporters.
I don't disagree with your point that insulting people and refusing to dialogue is an ineffective strategy for changing minds. I think that's perfectly fair. However, I don't get the sense that the majority of people who want to cut off X are doing so out of intolerance for Trump supporters so much as it's a rejection of Elon Musk specifically and his transparent power grab we're witnessing as he controls that platform to promote his objectionable views. As we enter an era where tech companies and the oligarchs who run them are accumulating more and more sway over public discourse, I think staging a type of boycott against them to push back on that influence is a perfectly reasonable strategy.
Again though, that is not the same as refusing to dialogue with someone. X is filled with bots, only fans spammers, and sponsored disinformation. Organizing a sweeping push-back to the direction that the platform and its owner have taken is a reasonable move-- especially when he's positioned himself as President Junior in Trump's ear.
As far as surrendering on the battlefield goes, does this reasoning not mean that we ought to also insist on posting on 4chan in order to try and reclaim that space? | -Nude-Tayne | 2025-01-23 11:19:26 | m8qpwmv | Surely all approaches have been attempted by now. We've heard this since he came down his golden "mexicans are rapists" escalator.
We're beyond logic and reason mattering at all. If you're LGBT or muslim among any of the other targets of theirs, are people suppose to take abuse and rolling back of rights or bans from the country with a smile? The "don't tread on me" crowd lives to put their boots on the neck of those they don't like.
>Someone on the right sees you ban them and thinks "well I guess they really are snowflakes and they really can't handle opposition", its vindication, not punishment.
We've seen their snowflakery constantly, it's a toothless insult because our memories aren't short enough to forget how they can't handle immigrants in ohio without spreading rumors about them killing people's pets.
>Banning links amounts to the same style of attack on free speech as banning books
jesus.. no it's a link to an easily accessible website, there's nothing on twitter that you can't get elsewhere if you're trying to talk about a news story
>yes it can feel like punching a brick wall, but just resigning to depression
have you seen people's knuckles? there's nothing left guy... | eggs-benedryl | 2025-01-23 10:59:31 |
CMV: Banning X links and blocking Trump voters has the opposite of its intended effect | (EDIT: This blew up and I don't have time to catch up atm. I'll return after a drive I need to make! Also - to save the typing, I'm not a conservative, I'm not pro-Trump, i find it kinda funny that anyone would assume that based on how I don't advocate for a boycott of something)
Seeing a lot of traction to banning X links on Reddit, also see a lot of friends across social media posting stories to the effect of "If you voted for him, don't talk to me, blocking you, I hope you get what you voted for". To my mind all this behavior achieves is the reinforcement of an already entrenched echo chamber. How is this any different to States banning certain books in schools?
This amounts to throwing a tantrum and slamming a door. If everyone on the Right lives on TruthSocial and everyone on the Left lives on Bluesky, where is the opportunity to bridge the divide? Think, when was the last time somebody called you an idiot, and then you were inclined to listen to their further points? Do you enjoy being called snowflakes? I personally hate the term, but posting "don't talk to me" really plays into that narrative. You want to have the moral high ground? You want to see things get better? Be the one to reach out and understand, be the one to ask why someone thinks what they think. Yes its exasperating, yes it can feel like punching a brick wall, but just resigning to depression and bowing out is exactly the sort of behavior that enables the opinions you say are unfounded.
Someone on the right sees you ban them and thinks "well I guess they really are snowflakes and they really can't handle opposition", its vindication, not punishment.
The Elon salute has become a whopping great big distraction. Have you any clue how unimportant that single gesture is compared to the scale of policy change currently taking place in the White House? Executive orders are flying under the radar because Reddit has been overtaken with salute hysteria. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, its probably a duck - but turning away from the pond and putting a ban on quacking won't stop it from being a duck.
Banning links amounts to the same style of attack on free speech as banning books, a better exercise of this would be to simply not click on them. Banning a link doesn't stop it from existing, ignoring a person you disagree with won't change their politics, insulting them only entrenches them further. You're just removing yourself from the conversation. You're surrendering on the battlefield and leaving the opposition fully armed. | TheTragedy0fPlagueis | 2025-01-23 10:48:56 | m8qrr9n | The intended effect for X links is to stop giving ad revenue to Musk. If you post a link and someone clicks it, Musk gets money from that. If you don't share links, Musk loses money from Reddit. They aren't trying to "bridge the gap" or whatever.
Similarly, blocking Trump voters isn't done for the purpose of bridging the gap. People block Trump voters because they overwhelmingly tend to be bad company to anyone left of center, and those people don't want to spend their lives dealing with them.
> executive orders have been flying under the radar
What are redditors going to do about that? What would *actually* have changed if Musk hadn't done the Nazi salute, and instead Reddit was full of posts about the EOs? Frankly, there's literally nothing that the average person can do to actually change that at this stage in Trump's presidency. He's not gonna listen to petitions or protests, and if he's legally forced to retract those EO's, it'll be due to the lawsuits that have already been filed.
> You're just removing yourself from the conversation.
That is the whole point. If you want things to get better, you have to do things that actually matter. Doomscrolling social media and head-banging against Trump voters who clearly aren't changing their minds doesn't help.
You want to actually help right now? Make the world a better place? Volunteer or donate to charities. Trying to enact anti-Trump political change with a Republican trifecta is like sending an email to Jeff Bezos asking him to please stop union busting. It's not gonna do anything, and you should divert your efforts to things that'll actually help.
Political discussion matters more when it's closer to an election; no discussion happening on Reddit *right now* will cause someone to think "I didn't vote in 2024, but I'm now committed to voting for the Democratic Party in 2026." If people do decide that, it's not gonna happen because reddit mods decided to allow Twitter/X links. | Xechwill | 2025-01-23 11:08:22 | m8qonwr | Banning x links from reddit and not speaking to Trump supporting aquantences doesn't mean one stays completely uninformed of what's going on.
I can still read and understand the executive orders Trumps signing without spending 90 minutes listening to my drunk uncle ramble on about immigrants and calling people woke blue haired demon baby murderer.
It's not like banning books because nobody is saying trump supports shouldn't be able to say the things they say. I mean, obviously. How you conflate that with book banning is literally insane.
And the x link ban is also not like book banning, that's just free market capitalism at work. Reddit is an x competitor.
I have no interest in bridging the divide. I tried that for 10 years and made no progress, because I found those on the other side to not be honest interloqutors, so I'm just not going to vast my time trying to convince a brick wall.
>Banning a link doesn't stop it from existing,
That is ***literally*** why it's nothing like book banning.
Book banning aims to make sure it doesnt exist for anyone to read anymore.
I don't think you really have any idea what book banning is, how it works, and what the effects are. You seem to just be using it like a catch phrase
>ignoring a person you disagree with won't change their politics, insulting them only entrenches them further.
I don't care. | ZappSmithBrannigan | 2025-01-23 10:53:40 |
CMV: Banning X links and blocking Trump voters has the opposite of its intended effect | (EDIT: This blew up and I don't have time to catch up atm. I'll return after a drive I need to make! Also - to save the typing, I'm not a conservative, I'm not pro-Trump, i find it kinda funny that anyone would assume that based on how I don't advocate for a boycott of something)
Seeing a lot of traction to banning X links on Reddit, also see a lot of friends across social media posting stories to the effect of "If you voted for him, don't talk to me, blocking you, I hope you get what you voted for". To my mind all this behavior achieves is the reinforcement of an already entrenched echo chamber. How is this any different to States banning certain books in schools?
This amounts to throwing a tantrum and slamming a door. If everyone on the Right lives on TruthSocial and everyone on the Left lives on Bluesky, where is the opportunity to bridge the divide? Think, when was the last time somebody called you an idiot, and then you were inclined to listen to their further points? Do you enjoy being called snowflakes? I personally hate the term, but posting "don't talk to me" really plays into that narrative. You want to have the moral high ground? You want to see things get better? Be the one to reach out and understand, be the one to ask why someone thinks what they think. Yes its exasperating, yes it can feel like punching a brick wall, but just resigning to depression and bowing out is exactly the sort of behavior that enables the opinions you say are unfounded.
Someone on the right sees you ban them and thinks "well I guess they really are snowflakes and they really can't handle opposition", its vindication, not punishment.
The Elon salute has become a whopping great big distraction. Have you any clue how unimportant that single gesture is compared to the scale of policy change currently taking place in the White House? Executive orders are flying under the radar because Reddit has been overtaken with salute hysteria. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, its probably a duck - but turning away from the pond and putting a ban on quacking won't stop it from being a duck.
Banning links amounts to the same style of attack on free speech as banning books, a better exercise of this would be to simply not click on them. Banning a link doesn't stop it from existing, ignoring a person you disagree with won't change their politics, insulting them only entrenches them further. You're just removing yourself from the conversation. You're surrendering on the battlefield and leaving the opposition fully armed. | TheTragedy0fPlagueis | 2025-01-23 10:48:56 | m8qr2zm | You say it has the opposite of the intended effect and that it dosnt bridge the devide. Why do you think bridging the divide is the intended effect. A lot of people who arnt trump supports have come to the conclusion that trump supporters suck, have no interest in bridging any devide, want nothing to do with them, nor to give money to their businesses.
Its not banning books. You can go to your browser, type in any website you want that isnt blocked by you ISP and go there. | Iamalittledrunk | 2025-01-23 11:05:08 | m8qppny | It does give X a sense of high ground as they don't ban Reddit links (As misplaced as it is, lending to that sense of morale superiority doesn't help).
You do make a good point on the books and perhaps I exaggerated that a bit, I feel though as soon as you enter the territory of banning anything its slippery slope away from its original purpose. Like I said, don't ban the links, just don't click on them. Don't ban a product in a store, just don't buy it | TheTragedy0fPlagueis | 2025-01-23 10:58:37 |
CMV: Banning X links and blocking Trump voters has the opposite of its intended effect | (EDIT: This blew up and I don't have time to catch up atm. I'll return after a drive I need to make! Also - to save the typing, I'm not a conservative, I'm not pro-Trump, i find it kinda funny that anyone would assume that based on how I don't advocate for a boycott of something)
Seeing a lot of traction to banning X links on Reddit, also see a lot of friends across social media posting stories to the effect of "If you voted for him, don't talk to me, blocking you, I hope you get what you voted for". To my mind all this behavior achieves is the reinforcement of an already entrenched echo chamber. How is this any different to States banning certain books in schools?
This amounts to throwing a tantrum and slamming a door. If everyone on the Right lives on TruthSocial and everyone on the Left lives on Bluesky, where is the opportunity to bridge the divide? Think, when was the last time somebody called you an idiot, and then you were inclined to listen to their further points? Do you enjoy being called snowflakes? I personally hate the term, but posting "don't talk to me" really plays into that narrative. You want to have the moral high ground? You want to see things get better? Be the one to reach out and understand, be the one to ask why someone thinks what they think. Yes its exasperating, yes it can feel like punching a brick wall, but just resigning to depression and bowing out is exactly the sort of behavior that enables the opinions you say are unfounded.
Someone on the right sees you ban them and thinks "well I guess they really are snowflakes and they really can't handle opposition", its vindication, not punishment.
The Elon salute has become a whopping great big distraction. Have you any clue how unimportant that single gesture is compared to the scale of policy change currently taking place in the White House? Executive orders are flying under the radar because Reddit has been overtaken with salute hysteria. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, its probably a duck - but turning away from the pond and putting a ban on quacking won't stop it from being a duck.
Banning links amounts to the same style of attack on free speech as banning books, a better exercise of this would be to simply not click on them. Banning a link doesn't stop it from existing, ignoring a person you disagree with won't change their politics, insulting them only entrenches them further. You're just removing yourself from the conversation. You're surrendering on the battlefield and leaving the opposition fully armed. | TheTragedy0fPlagueis | 2025-01-23 10:48:56 | m8r1iq6 | For sure. I definitely understand your line of thinking, but it feels like a bit of a "between a rock and a hard place" moment. We don't have the ability to educate every Reddit user on the inherent risks associated with using Twitter - in my opinion the safer option between ignoring the content (and hoping users don't fall victim to it) or removing the content (and knowing users won't be shown it on this platform) is removal.
In my opinion, the time of Laissez-Faire free market internet use is dead. We didn't kill it, nor did we want to end up here, but the only response at this point is to pivot HARD and virulently resist their attempts at proliferating their campaign of psychological warfare.
If you disagree, what steps would you take to ensure user safety on Reddit while allowing this kind of content? | chasingthewhiteroom | 2025-01-23 11:53:15 | m8qtel9 | There are HUNDREDS of ways to bridge the ideological gap with our countrymen without letting targeted propaganda campaigns swirl around the internet infecting people's minds.
One thing we can confidently say now is that Twitter is a heavily compromised web forum owned by a man who is intentionally pushing an algorithm of hatred and political inflammation not only in the US but in several countries across the world. This is a coordinated attack on democracy worldwide from a man who has several countries worth of capital to pour into his democratic fuckery campaign.
The website is compromised, deeply. We do not need to engage with that website to engage with voters. We do not need to be giving ad revenue or digital footprints to Musk.
There are still many ways to engage people on the right without feeding into that machine. I recommend getting the fuck offline and doing it in person. | chasingthewhiteroom | 2025-01-23 11:16:11 |
CMV: “It gets worse before it gets better” as a response to therapy struggles is toxic positivity/gaslighting. | Prefacing: Not all the time, as some people do have a temporary stint of struggling to open up in therapy and, as time goes on, they’re okay enough to speak more freely. However, there is a subset of the population who is *not* better after feeling worse, *and* their psychosomatic symptoms are heightened for an extended period, which can be debilitating and discouraging.
There isn't an open, honest dialogue about the difference between “getting worse before getting better” and “these symptoms for this long are actively and continually harmful.” The advice is always to hop from practitioner to practitioner until there’s a “right fit,” without considering the person’s mental state, budget, or capacity to keep rehashing the same trauma to new strangers. How does one feel safe in a clinical setting let alone move forward when they have to keep starting over? You can’t make progress if you are continually reliving the dark stuff due to a “bad fit.” It’s almost as cookie-cutter as the “gold standard” of CBT itself (another opinion for another day).
There needs to be quality control in therapy. Until that can be quantified (though I understand it’s abstract and difficult to do), people will continue to receive varying quality of care, increasing the risk of not getting better after getting worse. It’s not the fault of the traumatized patient seeking help; it’s the practice itself. | Faded_Rainstorm | 2025-01-22 06:07:58 | m8ips3g | The privatized healthcare system is exactly what's creating these issues you're describing. In countries with universal healthcare and strong regulatory bodies, there ARE quality controls for mental health providers and standardized ways to report harmful practices.
Private insurance companies in the US actively make it harder for therapists to provide good care - they push for shorter sessions, limit the number of visits, and force practitioners to diagnose quickly to get coverage. This creates the exact assembly-line approach you're criticizing.
I work in healthcare policy research and the data is clear - countries with nationalized mental healthcare systems show much better outcomes for trauma therapy. In Denmark for example, they have specialized trauma centers with strict oversight and quality metrics. Patients don't need to "therapist shop" because there's a coordinated care system.
>There needs to be quality control in therapy.
100% agree - but saying the entire practice is flawed misses the real issue. The problem isn't therapy itself, it's the profit-driven US healthcare system that prevents proper regulation and accessibility. We need systemic change to fix this, not to dismiss therapy as inherently harmful.
The "it gets worse before better" phrase isn't gaslighting - it's just been co-opted by a broken system that doesn't provide adequate support during that difficult period. With proper oversight and resources, working through trauma absolutely can lead to healing. | baminerOOreni | 2025-01-22 06:29:41 | m8iq46c | > why so much emphasis from the therapy/mental health community on “gold standard”/“CBT number one” as if any other modality is just a red-headed stepchild?
I'd assume because it likely works for the most people? I'm not that deep in the matter, but some baseline of treatment is usually very useful. This is even moreso the case if it's such a broad topic as CBT - there's a great deal of flexibility within that process.
>I’ve had three different therapists in 4 years, all different schools and whatnot- all three wanted to use CBT with me even though the feeling of “not moving the needle” kept coming up.
How many of those did you talk to that problem about? Have you ever brought it up or have you quickly moved on to the next one?
>People are welcome to go get help, but I just think we need to be more honest as a society about when a certain therapy isn’t working for some people instead of flipping it back at them with “it gets worse before it gets better.” Sometimes it does not get better.
Have you considered that you might be the outlier here? If CBT immediately helps 50% of patients and has the "it gets worse before it gets better" for another 45%, do you think that making the assumption is bad?
Of course, if there are clear signs that it **doesn't** get better, the treatment should change - but as a fundamental principle, it can be fine, depending on the actual statistics. | AleristheSeeker | 2025-01-22 06:32:39 |
CMV: Elon Musk isn’t a Nazi | He’s a Boer. Starting in the 1860s South Africa was bringing in Indians as the middle class between Blacks and Whites, often as administrators and commercial roles as an intermediary underclass. The relationship between Boer society and Indian immigration in South Africa dates back to the 1860s, when the colonial system began bringing in Indians to serve as an administrative and commercial middle class. This created a specific social hierarchy where Indians occupied a unique position - above the Black African population but below the white Boer and British colonists. This explains his support of H1-B, which largely brings in immigration from India. It doesn’t make any sense for a Nazi to be pro-immigration, but a Boer who doesn’t trust the locals and wants the comforts of apartheid for himself? Suddenly it makes sense.
| WhyteBoiLean | 2025-01-22 07:01:10 | m8ivn0r | Elon Musk grew up in Johannesburg and pretoria wich is in Guateng. Most of the indian population lives in Kwazulu natal province in South Africa. He probaly hardly met any Indians there. Also the Indians there are very dark skinned so they do not stick out very much.
Elon moved away from South Africa when he was just a kid. 17 years old. He is 53 now. He knows USA, he does not know south africa very well.
And it seems you do not understand south africa very well either. | External_Project_717 | 2025-01-22 07:17:51 | m8iu5nk | No, you are mistaken, despite being identical to a N salute from every angle, repeatedly observable using the human eye, with an enormous repository of historical examples to reference it to; which are also identical… It was nothing like a N salute….
The mental gymnastics of these people downplaying it within 1 lifetime of millions of our relatives dying to rid the world of fascism is truly, truly beyond comprehension.
Edit: /S like it needs to be made obvious.. | Bat_Flaps | 2025-01-22 07:06:20 |
CMV: Elon Musk isn’t a Nazi | He’s a Boer. Starting in the 1860s South Africa was bringing in Indians as the middle class between Blacks and Whites, often as administrators and commercial roles as an intermediary underclass. The relationship between Boer society and Indian immigration in South Africa dates back to the 1860s, when the colonial system began bringing in Indians to serve as an administrative and commercial middle class. This created a specific social hierarchy where Indians occupied a unique position - above the Black African population but below the white Boer and British colonists. This explains his support of H1-B, which largely brings in immigration from India. It doesn’t make any sense for a Nazi to be pro-immigration, but a Boer who doesn’t trust the locals and wants the comforts of apartheid for himself? Suddenly it makes sense.
| WhyteBoiLean | 2025-01-22 07:01:10 | m8j5n2z | > Elon Musk isn’t a Nazi - He’s a Boer.
Well, technically an Afrikaner - The term Boer specifically refers to the early Dutch-speaking settlers in South Africa, particularly those who established farming communities in the 17th and 18th centuries and later became associated with the Boer Wars against the British.
And honestly, not that much difference.
- During World War II, many Afrikaners (descendants of the Boers) supported Nazi Germany. This was partly due to anti-British sentiment stemming from the Boer Wars and resentment of British imperialism. Groups like the Ossewabrandwag (Ox-Wagon Sentinel) were explicitly pro-German and adopted fascist rhetoric and symbols.
- Afrikaner nationalism in the 20th century had elements that aligned with fascist ideologies, such as strong ethnic identity, authoritarian governance, and anti-communism. The National Party, which implemented apartheid in 1948, was influenced by such nationalist ideas, though it wasn't explicitly fascist.
- Fascism often promotes ideas of racial superiority, and apartheid policies in South Africa, driven by Afrikaner leadership, were rooted in the belief of white supremacy and racial segregation, paralleling fascist racial ideologies.
- The Ossewabrandwag, formed in 1939, was a paramilitary group inspired by Nazi Germany. It opposed South Africa's involvement in WWII on the Allied side and sought to promote Afrikaner dominance.
> This created a specific social hierarchy where Indians occupied a unique position - above the Black African population but below the white Boer and British colonists. This explains his support of H1-B, which largely brings in immigration from India. It doesn’t make any sense for a Nazi to be pro-immigration, but a Boer who doesn’t trust the locals and wants the comforts of apartheid for himself?
First off, the Nazis had no problem with immigrants who fit their racial ideology, particularly those who were "Aryan" by their standards—typically white, blond-haired, blue-eyed individuals of Germanic or Nordic descent. Their racial doctrine, outlined in works like Mein Kampf and propagated through Nazi propaganda, prioritized the idea of unifying all Germanic peoples into a single Reich.
And the same pretty much went for the Afrikaners, by the way. | RexRatio | 2025-01-22 08:25:52 | m8iuoff | I know I can't even believe we are having this conversation. It's amazing the way people can look blatantly obvious and try to rationalize it into some alternate reality.
1. Did a Nazi Salute to the point that you can frame by frame put it next to Nazi salutes in history and it matches to a tee! To the point that Elon Musk is opening telling you, "Hey guys just wanna let you know I'm a Nazi and if it's not clear, here it is again"
2. fully understands the historical context of what he’s doing an did it anyway. There’s a number of other gestures he could have done but chose that one.
3. Post and retweets Nazi and nazi Sympathizer content.
4. Wears and references Nazi Paraphernalia
5. Bought and election of a candidate, whose first order of business is to release and pardon open Nazis, knowingly and did.
6. Nazis think it's a Nazi salute
People in America right now "He's not a Nazi." I know Jewish people in America who are looking at this right now and going, "Eh, he's not a Nazi"
Are you for real? Wake up. You can be an American or you can be a Nazi. But you can’t be both. X | thisnameisnowmine | 2025-01-22 07:10:26 |
CMV: progressive lose as they do poorly in areas with real competition and black people. | Progressives often perform poorly with Black voters, which is evident in Bernie Sanders' loss in both Democratic primaries, largely due to his lack of support among Black voters. In general, progressives tend to face challenges when trying to connect with the Black community. If they ran a progressive candidate in Georgia, for example, they would likely lose, as Black voters there are less likely to support progressive candidates.
Progressives also struggle in competitive swing regions. While it's true that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won her district, it's important to note that her district was not competitive in a national context, as she won in a heavily Democratic area. Progressives tend to win in areas where Democrats would have won anyway, such as in major cities like NYC, LA, and San Francisco. Bernie Sanders, for example, comes from Vermont, a state that would likely lean Democratic regardless of his candidacy. Additionally, progressives are underrepresented in the Senate, with only two serving, highlighting their lack of success in competitive, swing-state elections. This trend shows their struggle to gain ground in areas where elections are highly contested. | BigAd3903 | 2025-01-19 22:32:56 | m844j36 | Black people are actually the most progressive group of American voters (see the Pew polarization survey below), but they also tend to be very pragmatic instead of ideological. They’ll vote for the most progressive candidate when there isn’t electoral danger (Hillary in Arkansas and Rush in Pennsylvania are examples of conservative Dems who lost due to black revulsion) but are willing to compromise and vote for a clear racist if they think the immediately competitive Republican is worse (they worked very hard for Strom Thurmond against a KKK-backed, Union-hating, civil-rights-opposing governor, with many people writing op-eds explaining why).
Black people stuck by Marianne Williamson far longer than any other group because she celebrated Juneteenth and supported reparations, and Reshad almost upset Sean Casten by narrow margins because he was popular with black youth; Obama’s coalition combined black people with wealthy white independents in the suburbs, which are very notorious enemies of progressivism; DAs like Larry Krasner, Chesa Boudin, and Kim Foxx have some of the best organizing and results in urban areas, and they tend to be very multicultural; And most importantly, radical community organizers such as Fred Hampton have shifted black political opinions massively after a period of cooperation between labor and the police. MLK was polling at 50% support before he began speaking out against Vietnam, even among black pastors and politicians. But by the time he was assassinated (and his assassination is still theorized to be a coordinated COINTELPRO operation by many black people) he had the trust of 90% of the community. Hillary was able to hold on to this coalition thanks to her platform tracking Bernie to the left and Trump’s verbal abuse of black communities… only to turn around and call reparations “un-American” and nuke the entire community’s trust in her as soon as she was no longer being held accountable.
There are many examples of black people radicalizing thanks to initial crisis that take place in states regardless of economic platforms or marginalization of right-wing social movements: Denver communists helped black people organize in the line of succession of black mayors, Milwaukee intersected socialist and black politics, Tom Bradley relied on a multiracial coalition to successfully push for public housing, and a few district attorney elections have mirrored this. Even Kamala Harris has sneakily referenced to restorative justice and other progressive talking points that she snubbed when she was fully institutionalized. That said, in some of these cases, elite black prosecutors have administered L.A. and Houston and Chicago very similarly to their white counterparts thanks to careerist incentives.
None of this is to say that the full implementation of what most people think is a “progressive agenda” in the USA will be easy, or that black people will eventually be swung in full, without concerns. As referenced many times, capital has an absolute stranglehold on each and every process under capitalism, from college degree requirements for elected office to demands of retribution for white families losing their teenage boys in Vietnam, to the absolute vilification of activist intrusion in the legislative process beginning with Nixon and Ford.
However, liberal hand-wringing tends to overstate how conservative black people are when it comes to the success of the progressive movement. They are politically-minded, much more than the average liberal, and specifically are much more willing to change party affiliation, apply pressure, or engage in mass organizing. This is only tangentially related but it’s quite insane to me, today, how people excuse Manchin’s endless terrorism of the Democratic coalition, but turned on Harris for not having the charisma to browbeat him into saving BBB when he already sold it out once before, only to come back for a gutting of the renewable energy bill regardless. Democrats, especially white Democrats, tend to be much more forgiving of poorly managing or selfish parts of the coalition but also give them free reign regardless of the dangers they pose. This strategy has worked in the past but, as Fred Hampton said, black people are very adept at learning from mistakes — I’d tell you to take a look at his record progress on economically progressive inclusion in police reforms in Chicago, even back when the police were extremely empowered as a conservative orthodoxy.
Maybe the answer is to nuke a few cities and tell people the Russians did it, or completely ignore infrastructure and mobilize a hacker team whose only job is to destroy the water main during a primary and tell the people that the left did it. But there is still a chance that we can repeat the equal-parts-successful-and-awful social-democratic measures that Europe used during the World Wars to keep liberalism alive. NOW is a big organization but Norwegians haven’t politically assassinated them yet.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/interactives/political-polarization-1994-2017/#c100-numdy-race-plot-ideological | baminerOOreni | 2025-01-20 00:05:02 | m83ukzq | When I started my career in software engineering, I worked in the Bay Area. I was SURROUNDED by progressives - almost exclusively white people who also worked for big tech companies with me. I then moved to the Boston area and again was surrounded by white progressives. It was a complete echo chamber and I had NO IDEA how out of touch with reality I was getting. In 2020, when all our jobs went permanently remote, I moved back closer to home in the St Louis region. Here, the demographics are quite different, and being a white progressives from the coasts (either of them) has a stigma.
However, I want to say that some of the most popular ideas among all Americans are ECONOMICALLY progressive ones. Single payer healthcare, expanded child tax credits to end childhood poverty and hunger, strong domestic labor policies that make wages for working Americans rise. That's all people want to hear. And yet, every single time we don't just let those best ideas we have carry the water. It always has to bleed into subjects people in the US as a whole have told us election after election they ARE NOT READY to tackle with us yet. And so we lose.
Everyone in this country (save for a small fraction of loons) is a progressive when it comes to taxing the richest people, healthcare and child tax credits. We just have to muddy our water with all kinds of other things we can't even come close to winning on, so it doesn't matter. We're no good to anyone because... I don't know. We're too polite to cast people off our boat who want to sink it anyway? It doesn't really matter - because the candidate that would run on just our best issues will be sidelined by some neo-lib that thinks they can solve every issue all at once and just can't be reasoned with... | FinTecGeek | 2025-01-19 22:53:43 |
CMV: A fair and just society would necessarily have an education system that is fully self guided, self paced, and built on intrinsic motivation | Some quick clarifications:
\- a fair and just society is one that challenges all forms of hierarchy and abolishes most of them. These would include at minimum capitalism, patriarchy, and white supremacy.
\- a self guided, self paced education system built on intrinsic motivation is one where instead of a rigid curriculum where discrete teachers teach discrete students, knowledge is instead constructed by people interacting with each other and the world around them, as they are wont to do because of humans natural curiosity.
Alright, the main argument here is that kids will learn better when they're motivated to learn, and that anything that's important to learn should naturally come up as a student seeks out their interests. So everyone would learn how to communicate in the popular ways those around them do, but not everyone would learn the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell, for example. Due to the internet it's unlikely any of this information would be lost, though, and society would continue advancing because humans have intrinsic motivation to improve society without need for the profit motive or grades.
Such a system would better embrace people's uniqueness, seeing neurodiversity as a strength where everyone is able to take advantage of their own preferences and the way their brain works to make connections others wouldn't. They wouldn't be forced to mold themselves into a narrow and arbitrary box we've decided to call "neurotypical" despite it not being that typical at all, and treated any who can't mold themselves that way as an edge case, a problem to solve.
Because we can't feasibly have our traditional teacher roles in a system where everything is self paced and self guided, this system would just see everyone as both teacher and student, constructing knowledge together by discussing, contemplating, etc. Above all, \_doing\_ things. While students could decide to add structure and even things like lectures, it would still be fully non-coercive.
I see this system as inevitable because it would uniquely allow the educational system to adapt to every student, break free of the assumption there could be some universal and unchanging curriculum, not forcibly homogenize culture and values, and not implicitly reinforce power structures within our society (yes, even ones based on age of even experience). our current system with its rigid curriculum and pacing let's a lot of students done and constantly raises questions over the states authority to dictate curriculum. | ThePaperPilot | 2025-01-22 00:01:04 | m8irn1d | You cannot remove a parent's influence on their child. Whether they're legally allowed to choose or not, parents can, and *do*, tell children what to study. This point also stands for communities, even more so. As I previously said, if you live in a homophobic community, you'd be heavily discouraged and shunned for expressing interest in gender studies, for example.
Also, children don't actually benefit from autonomy - because they can't survive on their own. While there's a good argument to be made for *rights*, there's a reason why we take legal responsibility and authority over children. Children don't want to wear clothes when it's cold, or eat a healthy, balanced diet when it's good for their health. They don't know what's dangerous, what's necessary, what's good. A lot of children hate maths or reading, but with no universal curriculum, that would produce illiterate adults who cannot get information or develop logical thinking.
Your thesis, by your own admission, is focused on the idea that "anything that's important to learn should naturally come up as a student seeks out their interests", but that's simply not true. Anyone who's *ever* been a teacher, even in short programs, knows this. I talked about this below, but I would've never studied maths if not forced to - studying it helped me develop logical reasoning, method application, and *patience*. Am I passionate about maths? No. Do I now, as an adult, know that when faced with a problem I have to sit through it and calculate the result, instead of trying to guess so I can get it over with? Yes.
We also have verifiable proof that important information that isn't taught in schools is lost to people - think about how many men who haven't received sex education think that you can just hold periods in. This is very well-known socially, any person with a period will be able to tell you, you can google it - and yet, people don't know this simple biological fact, and act aggressive towards menstruating people because of it. Think about how many people believe that vaccines are harmful because they don't understand the principles behind them.
>For one, the incentive to spread misinformation for political or financial gain would be essentially eradicated in a society without capitalism
I have roots in a formerly communist country. You're dead wrong. Manipulative people will always seek power. This has been disproven over and over again throughout history and is a quick read away. | Confused_Firefly | 2025-01-22 06:45:42 | m8hruco | I will readily agree that public education is, overall, poor, and a great waste of human potential. It was invented in an age of factory workers, and teaches obedience more than creativity. It's glorified daycare, nay, child prisons. Private tutors work much better, if the goal is actually education, but school does get children out of the way and gives their parents time to work, and gives the poor chilren one or two decent meals a day so they aren't stunted, which would be a burden on society.
Mastery learning would be far superior to the current model. So perhaps we mostly agree about the self-paced bit.
However, I can't agree with being fully self-guided and based on intrinsic motivation. To the degree it works, that could be good. But human instinct evolved for the stone age. We're our of our natural context now. Children have to learn to compensate, and that means we have to *pressure* them into going against their natural instincts to some degree. It is *better* to align with instinct and motivation, when feasible, but it isn't always a viable option.
There are primitive societies where children are not explicitly "taught" by adults, and are expected to pick up skills on their own initiative by observation and imitation, and they *do*, but this can only work for skills simple enough for children to understand how to do, and where children can be allowed to be present. Rocket science can't be taught this way. A lot of industrial machinery would kill an *adult* being careless, never mind a child. They can't be there; they'd die. In the recent past, apprenticeships were common, and apprentices were children. That can work, but not in all cases.
Hierarchy is not an intrinsic evil, even if some of them are in practice. Your goal of abolishing all possible hierarchy is a bad one. This cannot work, and if attempted, a large fraction of the population will die. And that is evil; society should fight you if you try to kill them. We cannot sustain the farms necessary to feed us in your model. Individuals are not strong enough on their own. Humans need to coordinate with each other to survive, and hierarchy (and trade) is how we do that. Yes, we could survive in the Stone Age on our natural instincts, but our population is far above the carrying capacity of the land now. Make hierarchies better for those involved in them. Don't abolish them altogether. | Gnaxe | 2025-01-22 01:03:06 |
CMV: A fair and just society would necessarily have an education system that is fully self guided, self paced, and built on intrinsic motivation | Some quick clarifications:
\- a fair and just society is one that challenges all forms of hierarchy and abolishes most of them. These would include at minimum capitalism, patriarchy, and white supremacy.
\- a self guided, self paced education system built on intrinsic motivation is one where instead of a rigid curriculum where discrete teachers teach discrete students, knowledge is instead constructed by people interacting with each other and the world around them, as they are wont to do because of humans natural curiosity.
Alright, the main argument here is that kids will learn better when they're motivated to learn, and that anything that's important to learn should naturally come up as a student seeks out their interests. So everyone would learn how to communicate in the popular ways those around them do, but not everyone would learn the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell, for example. Due to the internet it's unlikely any of this information would be lost, though, and society would continue advancing because humans have intrinsic motivation to improve society without need for the profit motive or grades.
Such a system would better embrace people's uniqueness, seeing neurodiversity as a strength where everyone is able to take advantage of their own preferences and the way their brain works to make connections others wouldn't. They wouldn't be forced to mold themselves into a narrow and arbitrary box we've decided to call "neurotypical" despite it not being that typical at all, and treated any who can't mold themselves that way as an edge case, a problem to solve.
Because we can't feasibly have our traditional teacher roles in a system where everything is self paced and self guided, this system would just see everyone as both teacher and student, constructing knowledge together by discussing, contemplating, etc. Above all, \_doing\_ things. While students could decide to add structure and even things like lectures, it would still be fully non-coercive.
I see this system as inevitable because it would uniquely allow the educational system to adapt to every student, break free of the assumption there could be some universal and unchanging curriculum, not forcibly homogenize culture and values, and not implicitly reinforce power structures within our society (yes, even ones based on age of even experience). our current system with its rigid curriculum and pacing let's a lot of students done and constantly raises questions over the states authority to dictate curriculum. | ThePaperPilot | 2025-01-22 00:01:04 | m8knest | >Because that malnourishment isn't in a vacuum. That child is being stubborn for a reason, and that reason is more important to them
Yes, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily a good reason.
>but ultimately whatever method you're using is making certain things conditional to the child's obedience and conformity, which i disapprove of.
>Hopefully it's not coercion like "eat this or go hungry" because that is all too common and literally says _life_ is conditional to their obedience and conformity.
For a child, life quite often IS conditional on obedience. If the parent commands them not to play in the street, saying "their life is conditional on obedience" makes it sound sinister, but it doesn't make it false. I don't think it's intentional, but I feel like you are assigning the most generous interpretation possible to your own view, while framing mine in language that colors it with malice that isn't actually inherent to the viewpoint.
>To throw it back at you, say you're trying coercive methods to get them to eat healthy, and they're still not working. At what point would you give in?
Then I certainly wouldn't physically force them to eat anything, but I also would not necessarily provide whatever they wanted. I would do my best to provide them with a healthy diet while doing everything I could to compromise with their tastes. If they then refused to eat any of the options available, that's their choice.
>Tbh the neurodiversity comments came from me mentally picturing someone who refused to eat anything but grapes for reasons that make a lot of sense to them but not those around them. The point is that society might have certain "truths" it upholds and imposes, but all experience is subjective and all knowledge constructed from our subjective experiences, and what makes sense for one person may not make sense for another.
This view sounds great, in the abstract. But how do you actually apply it? "There's no such thing as truth, so do whatever you feel like"? Of course society has flaws and upholds certain beliefs which don't match reality, and we should work to correct those. But to borrow your neurodiversity example, are you saying we ought to entirely reject the concept of a neurological disorder? It's one thing to say "our society must be more tolerant and understanding of a wider range of neurodiversity", it's another thing to say "all neurological subjectivities are equally healthy, the states we refer to as schizophrenia or dementia don't need treatment, they just need to be accepted as valid."
The person who refuses to eat anything but grapes probably does have a reason which makes sense to them, and we should interact compassionately with that reasoning. But that doesn't change the reality that it is unhealthy for them to do so. | The_Nerdy_Ninja | 2025-01-22 12:49:42 | m8idjh9 | A concept that got me thinking about education in the first place was the idea of "adult supremacy" and whether the hierarchy of parents over their children (or really, all adults over all children) is really some "natural" hierarchy or if kids can still have autonomy, despite being dependent on those around them for the necessities of life.
Ultimately I think adult supremacy \_is\_ something that should be taken a critical look at and eventually abolished. Kids deserve autonomy like any person, and nowhere is that more apparent than parents trying to control what their kid \_is allowed\_ to learn. So part of this system would also be about removing that control a parent has over their child's education. Self guided does not mean parent guided. Instead the child would be seen more of as a member of the community rather than "just" the child of two specific adults. Essentially a return to strong local communities where phrases like "it takes a village to raise a child" were actually the case. I actually consider the increased responsibility put on the parents that used to be more spread out across the entire multi generational home and local community to be a very individualist/neoliberal trend.
As far as history and politics, I think our education, including its structure, has a large influence over our values. A society that has worked hard to abolish unjust power structures, including those present in the classroom, would naturally instill the idea that we are all equal and that no entity should be able to control us. In the same way our current education system reinforces the status quo, so too would a fully decentralized one (but for that status quo). I was never suggesting we just at once replace the current traditional education system with this one, it would have to be part of and likely after large societal changes. Ideally, the idea of nations and borders and immigrants wouldn't even exist in the real world at that point.
Our current system suffers from unequal resource distribution and the material conditions preventing a lot of kids from being able to attend school, pay attention, and study once they get home. I wouldn't consider our current system universal by any stretch. But I do think that a society that has resolved those issues will be more than capable of solving misinformation as well. For one, the incentive to spread misinformation for political or financial gain would be essentially eradicated in a society without capitalism (and ideally governs through concepts like free association rather than majoritarianism). | ThePaperPilot | 2025-01-22 04:29:43 |
CMV: A fair and just society would necessarily have an education system that is fully self guided, self paced, and built on intrinsic motivation | Some quick clarifications:
\- a fair and just society is one that challenges all forms of hierarchy and abolishes most of them. These would include at minimum capitalism, patriarchy, and white supremacy.
\- a self guided, self paced education system built on intrinsic motivation is one where instead of a rigid curriculum where discrete teachers teach discrete students, knowledge is instead constructed by people interacting with each other and the world around them, as they are wont to do because of humans natural curiosity.
Alright, the main argument here is that kids will learn better when they're motivated to learn, and that anything that's important to learn should naturally come up as a student seeks out their interests. So everyone would learn how to communicate in the popular ways those around them do, but not everyone would learn the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell, for example. Due to the internet it's unlikely any of this information would be lost, though, and society would continue advancing because humans have intrinsic motivation to improve society without need for the profit motive or grades.
Such a system would better embrace people's uniqueness, seeing neurodiversity as a strength where everyone is able to take advantage of their own preferences and the way their brain works to make connections others wouldn't. They wouldn't be forced to mold themselves into a narrow and arbitrary box we've decided to call "neurotypical" despite it not being that typical at all, and treated any who can't mold themselves that way as an edge case, a problem to solve.
Because we can't feasibly have our traditional teacher roles in a system where everything is self paced and self guided, this system would just see everyone as both teacher and student, constructing knowledge together by discussing, contemplating, etc. Above all, \_doing\_ things. While students could decide to add structure and even things like lectures, it would still be fully non-coercive.
I see this system as inevitable because it would uniquely allow the educational system to adapt to every student, break free of the assumption there could be some universal and unchanging curriculum, not forcibly homogenize culture and values, and not implicitly reinforce power structures within our society (yes, even ones based on age of even experience). our current system with its rigid curriculum and pacing let's a lot of students done and constantly raises questions over the states authority to dictate curriculum. | ThePaperPilot | 2025-01-22 00:01:04 | m8lw75o | >The food example was about coercion - a parent withholding food unless the kid is obedient. The condition was made by stating it.
I was not talking about withholding food unless a child obeys, with all respect, that is a straw man version of my statements. Not providing whatever *kinds* of foods a child demands is not remotely the same thing as denying them food.
>The road being dangerous is already in place.
Just as the danger of malnutrition is already in place.
>Observing that it's dangerous and telling someone to get out of the road isn't creating the condition, just pointing it out. It's advice, not coercion.
Just as telling a child that they need to eat a balanced diet to stay healthy isn't creating the condition. In both cases, there is an existing danger (albeit one more imminent than the other), and in both cases a parent would be negligent if they merely politely suggested that it would be a good idea to avoid the danger, but didn't enforce the safe behavior. I'm not talking about starving the child, any more than I'm talking about dragging the child out of the road by their hair.
>Alright, I'll grant that there are some neurological conditions that certainly feel a bit weird to refer to as a strength. But I think that is still just from stigmatization.
Truly? I feel like you're falling back on vague truisms to defend your position, and it might be helpful to try putting it in specific, concrete terms. You believe what we call dementia is a perfectly healthy state of mind which just suffers from stigmatization? Why would you expect most people to seek treatment for it if there was no stigma and it was simply part of a "wide spectrum of unique ways we perceived and process the world"?
If you refer to my comment above, I was not talking about forcing people into treatment, I was simply talking about whether we consider any and all neurological subjectivities "healthy" and "valid", in the context of being a source of well-founded reasoning for decision-making. | The_Nerdy_Ninja | 2025-01-22 16:09:10 | m8ieito | I think your entire premise is false
>\- a and just society is one that challenges all forms of hierarchy and abolishes most of them. These would include at minimum capitalism, patriarchy, and white supremacy.
Every society, even a just society, will have a hierarchy. The difference between a just society and an unjust society is that in a just society, the hierarchy is based on competence and not things like inheritance or race. Patriarchy and white supremacy are structures which attribute gender and race in the hierarchy, which makes them bad. They aren't bad because they are hierarchical. A meritocracy is also hierarchal, yet it is definitely something positive. I will refrain from discussing capitalism, as there are many different definitions other than a free market society, and when discussing the pitfalls, we can get into cronyism and other problems with certain implementations, so I will leave that can of worms for a different time.
As for the actual premise, the entire point of education is to ensure that the next generation has the knowledge and skills necessary to make it in adulthood. Most jobs require hard skills, and they are time based, so children should be taught to deal with a timeframe. As for the curriculum itself, there is and should be a minimum standard for all students. While I agree that not every high school student needs to know calculus, they all should have a basic knowledge of algebra. They may not need to be creative writing experts, but they need to have the necessary skills to compose a business letter or answer questions in a job interview. Anything less would be setting them up for failure. Generally, anything above that is mostly tailored to the student, which is why there are electives and honors and AP classes. | Somerandomedude1q2w | 2025-01-22 04:40:06 |
CMV: Regarding the idea of freewill, Believing free will exists is the only rational choice. | Contemplating the idea of freewill seems to be a fairly common philosophical question here on reddit.
Whenever I think about it, I always end up at the same conclusion. So let met lay out my thought process.
For the purposes of this, freewill is specified in the more absolute sense, of if we are capable of controlling what we choose, think, do, basically anything. This could be due to some deity preordaining things, or it could be because the universe is deterministic, regardless, there are no possibly ways things could go down, just the one way.
So given the options of free will existing or not and believing it does or not, there are 4 combinations
1. free will exists and you believe it exists.
2. free will exists and you don't believe it exists.
3. free will doesn't exist and you believe it exists.
4. free will doesn't exist and you don't believe it exists.
So, First off, we can eliminate 3 and 4 because they are based on the idea that free will doesn't exist, so if we are talking about what one should believe, its illogical to contemplate what it makes sense to believe if free will doesn't exist. free will doesn't exist, you aren't really making a choice about this question anyway, so what's the point?
so that leaves us with 1 and 2. Now if free will doesn't exist, you can't choose to believe it doesn't exist because you can't make choices. so its illogical to make the choice that free will doesn't exist.
This leaves the final option of free will does exist and you believe it does.
Now I am not saying that situation 1 must be fully true. If free will doesn't exist, then it will end up being situation 3 or 4 but your "choice" in those cases isn't really a free choice, its just how your story was destined to unfold. So it makes sense to contemplate that if you are destined to believe free will doesn't exist, then you couldn't choose to believe it does no matter how hard you wanted to believe so. So you might as well try to believe so. If you can believe free will does exist, it means you either were capable of making that choice, in which case you would be right, or you don't have free will and you are unable to make a choice.
Am I missing anything in my assessment? | clampythelobster | 2025-01-20 22:42:20 | m8dqiwv | > In society B, it is the popular belief that free will does not exist. No one can be punished for any action because they cannot determine their own actions. They are not free agents in their decision making, rather, this society is under the belief that actions are a result of circumstance and reaction to outside stimuli. This society is anarchist and cruel because there can be no consequence for any action taken that would otherwise be punished under the notion of free will.
Setting aside the other thread about whether or not free will is a well defined concept, I fundamentally disagree with this. Even if I accept that people cannot determine their own actions, punishment/reward can still be used to condition a brain into doing the things society wants them to do. I don't consider my dogs to be good decision makers or responsible for their own actions, but I can teach them to do or not do things through a system of rewards and punishments. I believe my dogs will be happier by having structure and discipline than they would be in anarchy and chaos, so I sometimes impose punishment for bad behavior not as a moral judgment but to condition them into behaving correctly. There's no reason the same couldn't be applied in a society that didn't believe in free will. | NaturalCarob5611 | 2025-01-21 12:30:07 | m8dn2fc | It would look different in terms of behavior and how we interact with each other. Since we cannot prove that free will exists or doesn't exist, I will differentiate the two realities based on the popular belief in society that free will either exists or does not exist.
In society A, it is the popular belief that free will exists. This is the world we live in today. Laws are passed, justice is served, and people are judged according to their actions because they can freely choose them.
In society B, it is the popular belief that free will does not exist. No one can be punished for any action because they cannot determine their own actions. They are not free agents in their decision making, rather, this society is under the belief that actions are a result of circumstance and reaction to outside stimuli. This society is anarchist and cruel because there can be no consequence for any action taken that would otherwise be punished under the notion of free will.
That's the difference. | Status_Act_1441 | 2025-01-21 12:14:18 |
CMV: A world without work would be great | CMV: A World Without Work (or With Minimal Work) Would Be a Vastly Better Society
Imagine a world where work, as we know it, is obsolete. In this hypothetical scenario, automation, AI, and abundant resources ensure that everyone’s basic needs—food, housing, healthcare, education, and entertainment—are met instantly or with minimal effort (say, two hours of work per week). Without the need for full-time jobs, people would be free to pursue their true interests, develop their skills, explore creativity, engage in their communities, or simply relax and enjoy life.
Why This Would Be a Better World:
1. People Would Be Free to Do What They Love
Right now, most people don’t get to spend their lives doing what they truly want. They work jobs they don’t like to survive. In a world without work, people could pursue their passions—whether that’s music, writing, scientific research, sports, philosophy, or just watching movies.
2. Greater Human Flourishing
Without economic constraints, people could focus on personal growth, education, and meaningful activities. Imagine the explosion of art, literature, philosophy, and scientific discovery if no one was forced to work for survival. Many of history’s greatest minds (Einstein, Da Vinci, etc.) were only able to make breakthroughs because they had time to think freely.
3. Less Stress, Better Mental Health
Work is a major source of stress, anxiety, and depression. Long hours, deadlines, and financial worries take a toll on people’s well-being. A world without work would drastically improve mental health, reduce stress-related illnesses, and likely lead to greater happiness.
4. Stronger Communities and Relationships
Many people today feel isolated because they are too busy working. Without work, people would have more time to form deeper relationships, strengthen communities, and support each other. Parents could spend more time with their children, friends could hang out without worrying about schedules, and communities could engage in more collective activities.
5. More Innovation and Experimentation
With time and resources available, people would be able to take more risks and experiment with new ideas. Right now, many people can’t afford to start businesses, create art, or invent new technologies because they need to work for survival. In a world without work, we might see a golden age of innovation.
6. No More Exploitation or Meaningless Jobs
Many jobs today exist not because they are necessary, but because our economic system requires them to. A world without work eliminates pointless jobs, wage slavery, and exploitation. Nobody should have to work just to make someone else rich.
The Counterarguments (and Why They Don’t Hold Up)
• “People need work to feel fulfilled!”
Some people may enjoy structured work, but that doesn’t mean everyone does. And nothing would stop people from choosing to engage in structured activities, collaborative projects, or challenges. The difference is they wouldn’t have to. Also, fulfillment can come from learning, creating, and contributing to society in ways other than paid labor.
• “People would become lazy and do nothing!”
Even today, people voluntarily engage in complex hobbies, open-source projects, research, and community service without being paid. Many of the most important innovations come from people working on passion projects in their free time. Most humans have an innate desire to create, learn, and explore—work often gets in the way of that.
• “How would society function?”
This hypothetical assumes automation and abundance have eliminated scarcity. Basic needs would be met through technology, and any work left (like maintenance, creative endeavors, or governance) would be optional, voluntary, or extremely minimal.
• “But people wouldn’t know what to do with themselves!”
This argument assumes that people’s only source of purpose comes from their job. But in reality, many people would rather spend their time with family, in nature, playing games, exploring the universe, or engaging in deep intellectual and creative pursuits. Work takes up so much of our time that we rarely get to ask: What do we actually want to do?
The Core Idea: Freedom > Compulsory Labor
Ultimately, a world without work is a world of true freedom. Right now, our lives are dictated by the need to earn money. If we remove that requirement, people would have real choice in how they spend their time. Some might dedicate themselves to philosophy, others to art, others to partying or gaming, and some might still choose to “work” in some capacity. But the key difference is: no one would have to do anything for survival.
I believe this kind of world would be vastly superior to the one we live in. CMV. | Total_Literature_809 | 2025-01-21 16:42:11 | m8fqqyu | There will never be a time when we don't work. Societies all began back when farming was invented and we figured out how to settle down and grow food in one spot. That being said maybe it took half the amount of work in a year to produce the same amount of food. Does that mean that humans just put their feet up and enjoyed the remaining time? Nah. We kept innovating and growing because that's what we do. I don't think we do it to survive, because we have enough to survive at any point in time.. the proof is in.. well our survival. I think it's just how we're made. We crave purpose and improvement. If not improvement of society and humanity, then self-improvement. Not just in the "learn a new skill" way, but in status, wealth, or even just our own self-worth.
Even for the average person who is happy to live a normal life and doesn't crave more and more each day I think they find comfort in routine and structure, and you just can't get that same experience from hobbies. Many people find it difficult to self-direct their time and fall into self-destructive behaviors. Drinking, substance abuse, and other addictions. Humans derive fulfillment from knowing they contribute to something larger than themselves. While volunteering or passion projects might fill this gap for some, others might struggle to self-direct. I mean just look at paint by number - the product that tells people exactly where to paint and what color to paint. We love following the rules and being told what to do. It's comforting to have guidance. That doesn't mean there aren't master artists and creatives out there.. but not everyone knows how to create something from nothing.
I think a better solution would be maybe: Shorter workweeks, universal basic income, or focusing on meaningful work. The most important thing in my opinion is to give people more freedom without taking away their sense of purpose and contribution to society. | WeekendThief | 2025-01-21 18:00:17 | m8femnz | >Some people may enjoy structured work, but that doesn’t mean everyone does. And nothing would stop people from choosing to engage in structured activities, collaborative projects, or challenges.
Some people derive meaning from doing hard work that needs to be done. It's the whole "honest days work" idea. There is a large contingent of people that would sincerely be worse off psychologically without something they "had" to do. Part of that pride is that it's work that *needs* to be done. Removing that need makes it self indulgent, which that particular psych profile would find unappealing. It's why many people die or suffer from worse health when they retire.
>“People would become lazy and do nothing!” Even today, people voluntarily engage in complex hobbies, open-source projects, research, and community service without being paid. Many of the most important innovations come from people working on passion projects in their free time. Most humans have an innate desire to create, learn, and explore—work often gets in the way of that.
I object to this counter argument more fully. Having things that we HAVE to do helps people develop as human beings. Think of the kids you knew growing up with no responsibilities—most of them didn't go onto be much in my own experience.
For your idea about work not being needed, you'd need to reintroduce *something* that needs to be done otherwise we become the plot of Wall-E. Education would be an option. Charity. But something mandatory.
The only other point I'd make is socializing. Most adults meet most of their friends through work. Now, you could certainly say that there are other ways to make friends—and that's true—but work is trauma bonding with people you *have* to see day after day. In most normal purely social cases, that wouldn't happen. Having things you "have" to do has an element of socializing that opt-in activities just can't match. It's why most friends are from school or work, or socializing with the network you made at school or work. | WorldsGreatestWorst | 2025-01-21 17:02:05 |
CMV: A world without work would be great | CMV: A World Without Work (or With Minimal Work) Would Be a Vastly Better Society
Imagine a world where work, as we know it, is obsolete. In this hypothetical scenario, automation, AI, and abundant resources ensure that everyone’s basic needs—food, housing, healthcare, education, and entertainment—are met instantly or with minimal effort (say, two hours of work per week). Without the need for full-time jobs, people would be free to pursue their true interests, develop their skills, explore creativity, engage in their communities, or simply relax and enjoy life.
Why This Would Be a Better World:
1. People Would Be Free to Do What They Love
Right now, most people don’t get to spend their lives doing what they truly want. They work jobs they don’t like to survive. In a world without work, people could pursue their passions—whether that’s music, writing, scientific research, sports, philosophy, or just watching movies.
2. Greater Human Flourishing
Without economic constraints, people could focus on personal growth, education, and meaningful activities. Imagine the explosion of art, literature, philosophy, and scientific discovery if no one was forced to work for survival. Many of history’s greatest minds (Einstein, Da Vinci, etc.) were only able to make breakthroughs because they had time to think freely.
3. Less Stress, Better Mental Health
Work is a major source of stress, anxiety, and depression. Long hours, deadlines, and financial worries take a toll on people’s well-being. A world without work would drastically improve mental health, reduce stress-related illnesses, and likely lead to greater happiness.
4. Stronger Communities and Relationships
Many people today feel isolated because they are too busy working. Without work, people would have more time to form deeper relationships, strengthen communities, and support each other. Parents could spend more time with their children, friends could hang out without worrying about schedules, and communities could engage in more collective activities.
5. More Innovation and Experimentation
With time and resources available, people would be able to take more risks and experiment with new ideas. Right now, many people can’t afford to start businesses, create art, or invent new technologies because they need to work for survival. In a world without work, we might see a golden age of innovation.
6. No More Exploitation or Meaningless Jobs
Many jobs today exist not because they are necessary, but because our economic system requires them to. A world without work eliminates pointless jobs, wage slavery, and exploitation. Nobody should have to work just to make someone else rich.
The Counterarguments (and Why They Don’t Hold Up)
• “People need work to feel fulfilled!”
Some people may enjoy structured work, but that doesn’t mean everyone does. And nothing would stop people from choosing to engage in structured activities, collaborative projects, or challenges. The difference is they wouldn’t have to. Also, fulfillment can come from learning, creating, and contributing to society in ways other than paid labor.
• “People would become lazy and do nothing!”
Even today, people voluntarily engage in complex hobbies, open-source projects, research, and community service without being paid. Many of the most important innovations come from people working on passion projects in their free time. Most humans have an innate desire to create, learn, and explore—work often gets in the way of that.
• “How would society function?”
This hypothetical assumes automation and abundance have eliminated scarcity. Basic needs would be met through technology, and any work left (like maintenance, creative endeavors, or governance) would be optional, voluntary, or extremely minimal.
• “But people wouldn’t know what to do with themselves!”
This argument assumes that people’s only source of purpose comes from their job. But in reality, many people would rather spend their time with family, in nature, playing games, exploring the universe, or engaging in deep intellectual and creative pursuits. Work takes up so much of our time that we rarely get to ask: What do we actually want to do?
The Core Idea: Freedom > Compulsory Labor
Ultimately, a world without work is a world of true freedom. Right now, our lives are dictated by the need to earn money. If we remove that requirement, people would have real choice in how they spend their time. Some might dedicate themselves to philosophy, others to art, others to partying or gaming, and some might still choose to “work” in some capacity. But the key difference is: no one would have to do anything for survival.
I believe this kind of world would be vastly superior to the one we live in. CMV. | Total_Literature_809 | 2025-01-21 16:42:11 | m8ln3ht | I think you’re drawing a hard line between work and hobbies/volunteering that doesn’t exist in most people’s lived experiences.
Every person I’ve ever known who was motivated to take on complicated/community driven efforts has used some degree of “work” language to describe them and I think that’s telling.
Whether it’s “The choir stage *needs* to get be cleaned for the performance” or explicitly “It’s my *shift* as cub leader tonight” the people who choose to spend their free time on projects overwhelmingly use the language of obligation - even if they’re not literally required to be there.
In practice the trait all the people in your examples share is a desire for responsibility, whether that’s to their community or a commitment to their own ideas.
That’s a job. Yes, it’s not great to tie survival to your ability to perform it. But even if there were no employers a random group of 10 people will naturally sort themselves into jobs that come with external obligation even if that’s just “I’ll bring the fruit punch to the picnic”
Heck you see that most pronounced with parenting. Technically I’m a volunteer. I chose to take on the role of nurturing life because I got pregnant on purpose. But it feels comical to describe taking care of my kid as a choice. If anything I’m more free to quit my “forced employment” under capitalism than my role as a parent.
My point being that yes in our current society we tie survival and money to work and that’s not great. But taking money out of the equation doesn’t fundamentally change the human condition. Almost all our worthwhile endeavors are motivated on some level by our love and obligation to other people, and that will drive us whether or not capitalism exists.
Tl dr: You can never have a world where Freedom exists but “Compulsary” labor does not because we naturally use freedom to create obligations for ourselves lol. | ConsequenceIll4380 | 2025-01-22 15:28:45 | m8fqqyu | There will never be a time when we don't work. Societies all began back when farming was invented and we figured out how to settle down and grow food in one spot. That being said maybe it took half the amount of work in a year to produce the same amount of food. Does that mean that humans just put their feet up and enjoyed the remaining time? Nah. We kept innovating and growing because that's what we do. I don't think we do it to survive, because we have enough to survive at any point in time.. the proof is in.. well our survival. I think it's just how we're made. We crave purpose and improvement. If not improvement of society and humanity, then self-improvement. Not just in the "learn a new skill" way, but in status, wealth, or even just our own self-worth.
Even for the average person who is happy to live a normal life and doesn't crave more and more each day I think they find comfort in routine and structure, and you just can't get that same experience from hobbies. Many people find it difficult to self-direct their time and fall into self-destructive behaviors. Drinking, substance abuse, and other addictions. Humans derive fulfillment from knowing they contribute to something larger than themselves. While volunteering or passion projects might fill this gap for some, others might struggle to self-direct. I mean just look at paint by number - the product that tells people exactly where to paint and what color to paint. We love following the rules and being told what to do. It's comforting to have guidance. That doesn't mean there aren't master artists and creatives out there.. but not everyone knows how to create something from nothing.
I think a better solution would be maybe: Shorter workweeks, universal basic income, or focusing on meaningful work. The most important thing in my opinion is to give people more freedom without taking away their sense of purpose and contribution to society. | WeekendThief | 2025-01-21 18:00:17 |
CMV: cryopreservation is rational- not cryopreserving is irrational | Death, as far as we can tell, is the end of everything for your consciousness. It'll be like before you were born, a complete void of all thought, feelings, everything, except this time, it will be forever.
Our minds cannot really accept this void, this death of all dreams, all aspirations, everything that makes you human. Some say that they can overcome this, but they cannot, at least not without deluding themselves. Anyone in imminent danger of death will revert to primal instincts and panic to save themselves, because the conscious mind is tossed out, revealed to be nothing more than a shallow front for the primal subconscious, that fundamentally wants to live, and will take back control by force, and do anything to survive.
Even the physical brain itself cannot grasp this concept- we experience a huge spike in brain activity right before death. The leading theory as to why our brains do this is because your brain is desperately trying to find a way to save itself, using any memory or chemicals it has left at its disposal, though this is futile.
If life has any "worth" to you, then death is the most terrible prospect imaginable. Therefore, any means of avoiding death, even a fraction of a percent, is worth an infinite amount of money, or any earthly resources.
Enter cryopreservation- where they freeze your brain with an incredibly small but plausible hope of bringing you back to life one day, possibly into a world where death is no longer a concern.
Since cryopreservation is the only scientifically plausible way to achieve immortality today, there is no other fundamentally rational thing to do, when death draws near.
Tl;dr- we as humans fear death on a primal level, attempts to rationalize it are fundamentally delusional and exposed by primal fears and actions that our sub-conscious mind reveal when the threat of death draws near, and therefore, seeking immortality is the only rational course of action. Cryopreservation, being the only scientifically plausible path towards that end for us today, is therefore the only rational response to the threat of death that faces us all.
| original_og_gangster | 2025-01-22 17:37:11 | m8mvv49 | Your article quoted the one I posted and refutes your position:
*"Reanimation or simulation is an abjectly false hope that is beyond the promise of technology and is certainly impossible with the frozen, dead tissue offered by the 'cryonics' industry," neuroscientist Michael Hendricks of McGill University in Montreal, Canada, wrote in* [*Technology Review*](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/541311/the-false-science-of-cryonics/)*.* | Bmaj13 | 2025-01-22 19:04:42 | m8mg4e1 | Most people cryogenically frozen are thawed out by the end of the decade due to either malpractice or the company going belly up. As well as that it involves every cell in your body being destroyed, water expands when frozen, you are 80% water... Every cell explodes when frozen, there is no chance for you to come back no matter how far technology advances.
Regardless, this is all taking a very pessimistic view of humanity, and life as a whole. A great many disagree with your assessment. | The_Naked_Buddhist | 2025-01-22 17:41:58 |
CMV: cryopreservation is rational- not cryopreserving is irrational | Death, as far as we can tell, is the end of everything for your consciousness. It'll be like before you were born, a complete void of all thought, feelings, everything, except this time, it will be forever.
Our minds cannot really accept this void, this death of all dreams, all aspirations, everything that makes you human. Some say that they can overcome this, but they cannot, at least not without deluding themselves. Anyone in imminent danger of death will revert to primal instincts and panic to save themselves, because the conscious mind is tossed out, revealed to be nothing more than a shallow front for the primal subconscious, that fundamentally wants to live, and will take back control by force, and do anything to survive.
Even the physical brain itself cannot grasp this concept- we experience a huge spike in brain activity right before death. The leading theory as to why our brains do this is because your brain is desperately trying to find a way to save itself, using any memory or chemicals it has left at its disposal, though this is futile.
If life has any "worth" to you, then death is the most terrible prospect imaginable. Therefore, any means of avoiding death, even a fraction of a percent, is worth an infinite amount of money, or any earthly resources.
Enter cryopreservation- where they freeze your brain with an incredibly small but plausible hope of bringing you back to life one day, possibly into a world where death is no longer a concern.
Since cryopreservation is the only scientifically plausible way to achieve immortality today, there is no other fundamentally rational thing to do, when death draws near.
Tl;dr- we as humans fear death on a primal level, attempts to rationalize it are fundamentally delusional and exposed by primal fears and actions that our sub-conscious mind reveal when the threat of death draws near, and therefore, seeking immortality is the only rational course of action. Cryopreservation, being the only scientifically plausible path towards that end for us today, is therefore the only rational response to the threat of death that faces us all.
| original_og_gangster | 2025-01-22 17:37:11 | m8msbh2 | Right, so I imagine you maintain the image of yourself as rational, yet you do know that pleasure is a sort of delusion. It's a neurochemical state, it can cause distortions in perception and formal logic, and while not *completely* antithetical to reason, it sure as hell gets close.
If you can define one subjective experience as the core goal of all existence, why not other experiences? Religious ecstasy? Peace and detachment? Embracing the absurd? Living in Style? Whatever
People have made peace with death through various forms of experience, some from experiences I'd wager neither you nor I have ever experienced. You call everyone who makes peace with death delusional, but what neurochemical states have they undergone that you haven't?
You accept the positivity and necessity of pleasure as the point in your life naturally, not from a syllogism right? Merely having experienced pleasure, you know that it is good and you want it. No argument is needed, no rationality.
What, then, might you not have experienced that has made others accept some positions that appear 'delusional' to you?
I think from my own life and what others report that there are non-hedonic experiences that not only make people feel like sticking around is worthwhile, but also make death something that can be succesfully dealt with, rationally and emotionally. | Scribbles_ | 2025-01-22 18:46:09 | m8mj2ob | >If life has any "worth" to you, then death is the most terrible prospect imaginable. Therefore, any means of avoiding death, even a fraction of a percent, is worth an infinite amount of money, or any earthly resources.
So basically, you're arguing for Pascal's Wager but replace God with cryopreservation.
I'll respond with my favorite counter-argument against the wager then. Me, u/dungpornalt, a stranger on the internet, is actually a leading authority on cryopreservation technology. In fact, I can guarantee you that if you follow my instructions on cryopreservation, you have an infinitely higher chance of surviving the procedure compared to just get any other type of existing cryopreservation. All you need to do is send me every single cent you will ever make for the rest of your life and I'll operate on your body when you die.
Of course, I am most likely lying, but what is the chance that I'm telling the truth? 0.0001%? 0.00001%? 0.000000001%? Regardless of what chances you think I'm telling truth, it's not zero (because nothing in this world has a 0% chance when there's some amount of doubt in mind), and anything not zero multiply by infinity is still infinity. Therefore, rationally speaking, you should give me all your money. | DungPornAlt | 2025-01-22 17:57:18 |
CMV: cryopreservation is rational- not cryopreserving is irrational | Death, as far as we can tell, is the end of everything for your consciousness. It'll be like before you were born, a complete void of all thought, feelings, everything, except this time, it will be forever.
Our minds cannot really accept this void, this death of all dreams, all aspirations, everything that makes you human. Some say that they can overcome this, but they cannot, at least not without deluding themselves. Anyone in imminent danger of death will revert to primal instincts and panic to save themselves, because the conscious mind is tossed out, revealed to be nothing more than a shallow front for the primal subconscious, that fundamentally wants to live, and will take back control by force, and do anything to survive.
Even the physical brain itself cannot grasp this concept- we experience a huge spike in brain activity right before death. The leading theory as to why our brains do this is because your brain is desperately trying to find a way to save itself, using any memory or chemicals it has left at its disposal, though this is futile.
If life has any "worth" to you, then death is the most terrible prospect imaginable. Therefore, any means of avoiding death, even a fraction of a percent, is worth an infinite amount of money, or any earthly resources.
Enter cryopreservation- where they freeze your brain with an incredibly small but plausible hope of bringing you back to life one day, possibly into a world where death is no longer a concern.
Since cryopreservation is the only scientifically plausible way to achieve immortality today, there is no other fundamentally rational thing to do, when death draws near.
Tl;dr- we as humans fear death on a primal level, attempts to rationalize it are fundamentally delusional and exposed by primal fears and actions that our sub-conscious mind reveal when the threat of death draws near, and therefore, seeking immortality is the only rational course of action. Cryopreservation, being the only scientifically plausible path towards that end for us today, is therefore the only rational response to the threat of death that faces us all.
| original_og_gangster | 2025-01-22 17:37:11 | m8mqmmz | > Our minds cannot really accept this void, this death of all dreams, all aspirations, everything that makes you human. Some say that they can overcome this, but they cannot, at least not without deluding themselves.
On what basis could you possibly know this?
> Anyone in imminent danger of death will revert to primal instincts and panic to save themselves...
This simply isn't true, as evidenced by the huge number of examples of trained professionals executing highly complex processes up until their actual deaths. Soldiers are probably the most common example of people trained to operate rationally under imminent danger of death. Primal panic is an animalistic instinct that people have, that is true, but it can certainly be overcome.
> If life has any "worth" to you, then death is the most terrible prospect imaginable.
Not necessarily. There are many instances of people being willing to die to preserve things they care about; a parent may willingly die to save their children for example.
> Therefore, any means of avoiding death, even a fraction of a percent, is worth an infinite amount of money, or any earthly resources.
You are describing complete cowardice, and I suspect you aren't even following this principle yourself. Is your exercise, diet, and medical plan optimized to its peak potential? Have you researched the best way to earn a living without dying in something like a traffic accident? No, I suspect you are balancing your personal safety against other desires like leisure, etc.
> Since cryopreservation is the only scientifically plausible way to achieve immortality today...
The plausibility is extremely questionable, to the point where devoting funds to other things is almost certainly a better use. Hoping that someone invents a biological immortality pill before you die is probably a better bet than someone being able and willing to reanimate an old popsicle head. | Phage0070 | 2025-01-22 18:37:21 | m8mj2ob | >If life has any "worth" to you, then death is the most terrible prospect imaginable. Therefore, any means of avoiding death, even a fraction of a percent, is worth an infinite amount of money, or any earthly resources.
So basically, you're arguing for Pascal's Wager but replace God with cryopreservation.
I'll respond with my favorite counter-argument against the wager then. Me, u/dungpornalt, a stranger on the internet, is actually a leading authority on cryopreservation technology. In fact, I can guarantee you that if you follow my instructions on cryopreservation, you have an infinitely higher chance of surviving the procedure compared to just get any other type of existing cryopreservation. All you need to do is send me every single cent you will ever make for the rest of your life and I'll operate on your body when you die.
Of course, I am most likely lying, but what is the chance that I'm telling the truth? 0.0001%? 0.00001%? 0.000000001%? Regardless of what chances you think I'm telling truth, it's not zero (because nothing in this world has a 0% chance when there's some amount of doubt in mind), and anything not zero multiply by infinity is still infinity. Therefore, rationally speaking, you should give me all your money. | DungPornAlt | 2025-01-22 17:57:18 |
CMV: cryopreservation is rational- not cryopreserving is irrational | Death, as far as we can tell, is the end of everything for your consciousness. It'll be like before you were born, a complete void of all thought, feelings, everything, except this time, it will be forever.
Our minds cannot really accept this void, this death of all dreams, all aspirations, everything that makes you human. Some say that they can overcome this, but they cannot, at least not without deluding themselves. Anyone in imminent danger of death will revert to primal instincts and panic to save themselves, because the conscious mind is tossed out, revealed to be nothing more than a shallow front for the primal subconscious, that fundamentally wants to live, and will take back control by force, and do anything to survive.
Even the physical brain itself cannot grasp this concept- we experience a huge spike in brain activity right before death. The leading theory as to why our brains do this is because your brain is desperately trying to find a way to save itself, using any memory or chemicals it has left at its disposal, though this is futile.
If life has any "worth" to you, then death is the most terrible prospect imaginable. Therefore, any means of avoiding death, even a fraction of a percent, is worth an infinite amount of money, or any earthly resources.
Enter cryopreservation- where they freeze your brain with an incredibly small but plausible hope of bringing you back to life one day, possibly into a world where death is no longer a concern.
Since cryopreservation is the only scientifically plausible way to achieve immortality today, there is no other fundamentally rational thing to do, when death draws near.
Tl;dr- we as humans fear death on a primal level, attempts to rationalize it are fundamentally delusional and exposed by primal fears and actions that our sub-conscious mind reveal when the threat of death draws near, and therefore, seeking immortality is the only rational course of action. Cryopreservation, being the only scientifically plausible path towards that end for us today, is therefore the only rational response to the threat of death that faces us all.
| original_og_gangster | 2025-01-22 17:37:11 | m8mj2ob | >If life has any "worth" to you, then death is the most terrible prospect imaginable. Therefore, any means of avoiding death, even a fraction of a percent, is worth an infinite amount of money, or any earthly resources.
So basically, you're arguing for Pascal's Wager but replace God with cryopreservation.
I'll respond with my favorite counter-argument against the wager then. Me, u/dungpornalt, a stranger on the internet, is actually a leading authority on cryopreservation technology. In fact, I can guarantee you that if you follow my instructions on cryopreservation, you have an infinitely higher chance of surviving the procedure compared to just get any other type of existing cryopreservation. All you need to do is send me every single cent you will ever make for the rest of your life and I'll operate on your body when you die.
Of course, I am most likely lying, but what is the chance that I'm telling the truth? 0.0001%? 0.00001%? 0.000000001%? Regardless of what chances you think I'm telling truth, it's not zero (because nothing in this world has a 0% chance when there's some amount of doubt in mind), and anything not zero multiply by infinity is still infinity. Therefore, rationally speaking, you should give me all your money. | DungPornAlt | 2025-01-22 17:57:18 | m8msbh2 | Right, so I imagine you maintain the image of yourself as rational, yet you do know that pleasure is a sort of delusion. It's a neurochemical state, it can cause distortions in perception and formal logic, and while not *completely* antithetical to reason, it sure as hell gets close.
If you can define one subjective experience as the core goal of all existence, why not other experiences? Religious ecstasy? Peace and detachment? Embracing the absurd? Living in Style? Whatever
People have made peace with death through various forms of experience, some from experiences I'd wager neither you nor I have ever experienced. You call everyone who makes peace with death delusional, but what neurochemical states have they undergone that you haven't?
You accept the positivity and necessity of pleasure as the point in your life naturally, not from a syllogism right? Merely having experienced pleasure, you know that it is good and you want it. No argument is needed, no rationality.
What, then, might you not have experienced that has made others accept some positions that appear 'delusional' to you?
I think from my own life and what others report that there are non-hedonic experiences that not only make people feel like sticking around is worthwhile, but also make death something that can be succesfully dealt with, rationally and emotionally. | Scribbles_ | 2025-01-22 18:46:09 |
cmv: I genuinely think that placing someone so erratic, loud-mouthed, and wildly unpredictable in a position of power could actually benefit world peace. | I honestly believe that Trump’s election might just be good for world peace, precisely because he’s erratic, loud-mouthed, and wildly unpredictable. Imagine the world as a bar, where two or three tough guys are on the verge of throwing punches. Then suddenly, a chimpanzee—grinning madly—clambers onto the bar with an AK-47 in hand. The room freezes. No one wants to fight anymore—not in a bar where a chimp is sweeping the air with the barrel of a rifle.
It’s absurd, really, like most things in life. But perhaps absurdity is the only thing that keeps us from burning it all down.
HEY GUYS, YOU ARE MORE FOCUSED IN QUESTIONING MY METAPHOR/JOKE, THEN THE REAL QUESTION! THE REAL TOPIC IS INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS. | Any-Concept-3110 | 2025-01-21 10:14:39 | m8d9eys | I believe current Western governing doctrine is against Russian expansionism, and Russia would love to weaken the West. Most far-right European and American movements are anti-immigration, anti-globalism, and therefore anti-EU, NATO, etc. Weakening any of these multi-country pacts weakens opposition to Russia. So does electing politicians who favor an isolationist policy, like the tariff-heavy "America first" approach that Trump campaigned on.
That leads Russia to support these right wing movements, which in turn generates support for Russia within these movements. It also helps that Russia projects an image that is conservative, anti-gay, white, religious, and macho/masculine, which aligns well with the social ideology of most of these movements. So it's half ideological alignment, half convenient alliance against the current political views that dominate Western govenrments. | frisbeescientist | 2025-01-21 11:11:05 | m8d6ubh | First, it doesn't really matter. If you can see he's doing something that challenges your CMV, the why isn't that important when evaluating whether your view has been changed.
Second, here's my thought, which I'm sure a lot of conservatives will disagree with. Russia has a vested interest in the West and the US being less stable. Supporting Trump's campaign was an easy way to introduce instability in 2016. When he won, he was favorably inclined towards Russia and Putin due to that support. It's really that simple.
You can also see traces of Russian support for right-wing movements in the US and in Europe, like that scandal recently where a bunch of conservative pundits were taking millions from a Russian firm. Again, that's Russia buying influence with the segment of society that's dissatisfied with EU membership, NATO, etc to sow chaos in their geopolitical adversaries. Supporting Trump, and getting his support in return, is a part of that bigger effort. | frisbeescientist | 2025-01-21 10:58:48 |
End of preview. Expand
in Dataset Viewer.
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 0