Datasets:

simonycl

/

change_my_view_new

like 0

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

CMV: A hotdog is a sandwich.

The dictionary definition of a sandwich is an item of food with 2 pieces of bread, and some sort of filling, meat, cheese, etc between them. I think we all agree a roast beef sandwich (a piece of roast beef between 2 pieces of bread) is a sandwich. If we change the roast beef for a hotdog, what's the difference? Different meat, but it's still between 2 pieces of bread. Additionally, states like Californa and New York have legally declared a hotdog is a sandwich. While that isn't absolute, usually a legal ruling is a lot in support of an argument. If we also use the USDA definition of a sandwich, there needs to be at least 50% cooked meat for an open sadwich, and at least 35% cooked meat and less than 50% bread for a closed one. I think we all also agree hotdogs are typically cooked and count as meat. In a hotdog, usually there is much more meat then there is bread, so there's no doubt in my mind there's more than 50% meat. This means it fits the USDA definition of a sandwich. Even if we don't want to use the formal definition of a sandwich, I think it's standard to think of a sandwich as 2 pieces of bread and something in the middle. And that something in the middle is the hot dog itself. I rest my case. Edit: Done responding to comments. Thank you all for your opinions!

ElegantPoet3386

2025-01-21 03:05:14

m8bqh6z

Haha, you take a very [realist](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism/) approach to this topic! >I only would consider colors the same if they have the same RGB value Yes, but I'm sure you'd also say "both blood and roses are red." Not the same shade, but the same color. You might (or, most English speakers might) hesitate to say "both pigs and flamingos are red." You would hear in reply, "No, they're pink." It's a grouping on a gradient between properties. >I’m thinking in properties, you’re thinking in context. Neither is wrong to be fair. Context-Wise no one thinks of a sandwich as a hotdog. But context isn’t absolute, just because tomato’s aren’t generally thought of as fruit doesn’t make them not fruit right? You might be interested in reading on different metaphysical views of properties. It seems to me that you're taking a relatively [universal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_(metaphysics)) view of them. That is to say, you are saying that, regardless of the human conception of a hotdog, a hotdog is *still* a sandwich; it has the sandwich-property (or at least, all necessary properties in common with sandwiches). I am taking a more [nominalist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalism) view; properties are merely how we label sets of things. It seems to me that you are roughly saying (please correct me if I'm wrong!): "Hotdogs are sandwiches, but some people don't understand this fact about the world." I am saying, "Hotdogs are not sandwiches because we haven't defined them as being sandwiches." Like you said, neither approach is wrong (as demonstrated by philosophers debating this for centuries). It's just a fundamental disagreement on how the world... *is*. Very fun. (I have to sleep now, it's 5am here, but this has been a great discussion! Might have to grab a hotdog for lunch tomorrow...)

StatusTalk

2025-01-21 05:07:01

m8bhwhb

I think I see what you mean. Even if a word isn't *contextually* part of a set, it can still be said to be part of that set ("well, a goldfish IS a fish, and a fish is all you asked for..."). That makes sense. I think, then, to demonstrate that hot dogs are sandwiches, we need to show that they're part of the "sandwich" set (I apologize for this kind of systematic approach, but my education is in semantics so it's how my brain is wired now...) I think as a basic premise we assume that words are what we say they are, right? I'm reminded of Diogenes and the plucked chicken. If men are "featherless bipeds" then a plucked chicken is, definitionally, a man. Now we can go ahead and add more to that: "a featherless biped that can speak" (a plucked parrot is now a man), "a featherless biped that can speak and has opposable thumbs" (a person without hands is now suddenly no longer a man). So let's take it as a basic assumption that, for word to have some property, we just... have to generally accept it as having that property. Defining it exactly is folly. Considering sandwiches as an example, if I drop a piece of bread and imagine someone on the opposite side of the world has done the same, it would be farcical for me to claim "Earth is a sandwich." I might say it jokingly but it obviously isn't true; that's what makes it funny. So, with that in mind --- I would ask, under what context would we expect a hot dog to be treated *as* a sandwich, and for its sandwich-status to be, socially, entirely unsurprising?

StatusTalk

2025-01-21 03:37:33

CMV: Its weird to be upset that someone is drawn to you because of a fetish unless they also objectify you.

I find it so weird when people are upset that some trait they have is an object of someone’s fetish. As a 6’7” (200cm) tall man I know darn well a lot of women fetishize that aspect of my appearance. But that doesn’t bother me. It opened the door for genuine connections back when I was in the dating pool. I did have a few women hit on me that did so in a manner I felt was objectifying but in those instances the issue was the objectification and not the fact they’re attracted to tall men. Everyone has their preference and things they are drawn to. Why do I see so many posts where people complain about being fetishized? You shouldn’t be upset unless they’re only attracted to that and not your personality. If they’re attracted to both I fail to see a problem.

AndyTheInnkeeper

2025-01-18 05:38:30

m87oyoj

Youre making "fetishize" not mean much. Liking, interest in, preference for and so on don't rise to the level of fetish in my book. The bar here is "obsessive" and obsession leads to a limiting g of other "criteria" which is going to lead to objectification almost certainly. E.g. the obsession has to me a dimished care for other things.

iamintheforest

2025-01-20 14:28:14

m7svedp

With children it’s because they’re too young for any kind of healthy sexual relationship, particularly with an adult. With lesbians as a straight man you’re specifically attracted to a trait that by nature means they don’t reciprocate your attraction. Either one only leads to an unhealthy obsession that has no capacity to end in a healthy relationship.

AndyTheInnkeeper

2025-01-18 08:55:53

CMV: The Concept of Race is Inherently Harmful

As I see it, some of the greatest civil injustices have happened because we saw one group as "not like us" because of the color of their skin. What makes POC amazing is their culture, not their race. A few examples: Race-Based Slavery: Africans were seen as less intelligent, less capable, less human, and less deserving of fair treatment. Segregation: Even after being freed from the bondage of slavery, African-Americans were still "the other" and were forced into the schools, restaurants, libraries, and dozens of other supposedly public places. All of this because their skin was a darker shade. Demonization of Immigrants: Seen as "poisoning the blood of our country" when they flee from the results of our government's actions. Restricting immigration is one thing, demonizing the people is another. Systemic Racism: Another contemporary example of racism is seeing black americans as inherently violent, less intelligent, and less capable. I believe this view fuels discriminatory police violence around the country. The Division of Africa: European leaders gathered up to divide up "ownership" of Africa. Africans became an obstacle to this ownership, and were killed or mutilated when they stood up for their country. In addition to all of this, it seems obvious that there is no such thing as race in the first place. We have our own ethnicities, but are all part of the human race. Our ability to breed with each other makes this obvious. Edit: That last bit is technically a confusion between species and race. But race still seems like an incredibly broad way to describe people culturally and physically. Looking at culture and even heritage on a specific and individual level would make more sense. And when I say POC culture can be amazing, I mean that on an individual level. Race as a cultural label still seems harmful to me.

OkParamedic4664

2025-01-20 22:32:30

m8asgly

While I get what you're saying, throwing out the concept of race completely might not be the best solution. Sure, the idea of race has definitely fueled some of the worst injustices in history. But dismissing race entirely ignores the important roles it plays in identity and social justice today. First off, many people find empowerment and community in their racial identity. It’s a meaningful part of who they are, intertwined with culture, traditions, and shared experiences. By saying race is harmful, you might be dismissing these aspects which are very real and valuable to many folks. And when it comes to tackling systemic issues, ignoring race doesn’t help. Acknowledging race helps highlight disparities that need addressing, like in education, healthcare, and the criminal justice system. The data often speaks for itself: disparities exist. Colorblindness can lead to ignoring these issues rather than solving them. Plus, racial categories are crucial in crafting policies aimed at reducing inequities. For instance, affirmative action and other reparative measures rely on understanding and acknowledging racial differences as they relate to historical and systemic inequalities. If we throw out the concept of race, how would we address these specific needs? Lastly, while you say there’s “no such thing as race,” in a biological sense that’s largely true. But race as a social construct is very real with tangible impacts. Dismantling the negatives associated with race doesn’t mean getting rid of the concept entirely—it means redefining it to promote equality and justice. Totally understand the frustration with race being used negatively, but maybe consider how acknowledging it can be part of building a better, more equitable future.

antaressian0r

2025-01-20 23:56:11

m8ann98

OP is right that you’d be better classifying people by specific alleles than racial categories if you’re worried about health though. That’s the only way that—for example—someone with combined African, Asian, and European ancestry (like pretty much every American blasian) would know for sure whether they were at risk for sickle cell, for instance. Even if you limit it to just “black” people in America, they have such a varied background (average of around [20% European](https://www.science.org/content/article/genetic-study-reveals-surprising-ancestry-many-americans) ancestry, but a tacit U.S. policy of hypodescent) that something much more specific than race needs to be the categories we use medically. Even if you’re just talking about Africa, there’s [more genetic difference](https://academic.oup.com/genetics/article/161/1/269/6049925) between regions of Africa than between Africa and Eurasia, so race also fails to be medically relevant there. (It only kind of works for black people outside of Africa because all of the slave trade came from the same region.) On the last note: Species *is* also an imperfect categorization for animals, but not as bad as race. The definition most biologists would use for species though (and which OP should have used) is whether they can interbreed to produce *fertile* offspring, unlike horses with donkeys.

Zer0pede

2025-01-20 23:23:58

CMV: The Concept of Race is Inherently Harmful

As I see it, some of the greatest civil injustices have happened because we saw one group as "not like us" because of the color of their skin. What makes POC amazing is their culture, not their race. A few examples: Race-Based Slavery: Africans were seen as less intelligent, less capable, less human, and less deserving of fair treatment. Segregation: Even after being freed from the bondage of slavery, African-Americans were still "the other" and were forced into the schools, restaurants, libraries, and dozens of other supposedly public places. All of this because their skin was a darker shade. Demonization of Immigrants: Seen as "poisoning the blood of our country" when they flee from the results of our government's actions. Restricting immigration is one thing, demonizing the people is another. Systemic Racism: Another contemporary example of racism is seeing black americans as inherently violent, less intelligent, and less capable. I believe this view fuels discriminatory police violence around the country. The Division of Africa: European leaders gathered up to divide up "ownership" of Africa. Africans became an obstacle to this ownership, and were killed or mutilated when they stood up for their country. In addition to all of this, it seems obvious that there is no such thing as race in the first place. We have our own ethnicities, but are all part of the human race. Our ability to breed with each other makes this obvious. Edit: That last bit is technically a confusion between species and race. But race still seems like an incredibly broad way to describe people culturally and physically. Looking at culture and even heritage on a specific and individual level would make more sense. And when I say POC culture can be amazing, I mean that on an individual level. Race as a cultural label still seems harmful to me.

OkParamedic4664

2025-01-20 22:32:30

m8aqp2u

Of course it's inherently harmful. Race as a category was created to be so! Race doesn't exist in the *world*, it exists in society. Just like how "define a fish" is not neatly possible in biology, we can't break humans up into any meaningful subgroups on a biological level since we're so painfully obviously the same species. Basically every understanding in the West about race descends from a bunch of 1700-1800s British men coming up with "race science" to backfill why they were in charge of the world. We knew that humans had skin color as soon as we had words to describe it. We've been able to pick out ethnic groups as defined by language, allegiance to a king, religion, whatever long as we've been human. So there was a king named X who ruled a tribe in the Congo in region Y that spoke Z language. Those describe a group *by things internal to the group.* But we didn't talk about "Africans" as a "race" as defined by *external appearance* until the British needed to explain why they totally *deserved* to be in charge of the world, and look how the bones of your face and the color of your skin determines your genetic ability to be civilized! Funny coincidence!

alephthirteen

2025-01-20 23:44:12

m8amiok

Culture is clearly one of multiple effects, but genetics is the other one, and this just brings us to the [nature vs nurture debate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture), which has been going on for ages. The concept of race may be inherently harmful in that it's a line that people fight over, but even if it didn't exist such a line would surely be drawn between such groups anyway, assuming all other differences remain. The other question is that of integration, that less visible differences would have led to less hostility and more integration, while likely true to some degree, I expect it would only be a marginal improvement, leaving them now similar to Middle Easterners, far more similar looking but with still enough differences to be widely considered an other. The main problem of your mentality is that you're saying grouping people is wrong, and I disagree with that. Racism is bad because it's blaming someone for the actions of the rest of their race. But it's wrong to yourself and your countrymen to ignore pattern recognition and even statistical data to give someone the benefit of the doubt.

Green__lightning

2025-01-20 23:16:44

CMV: If you identify as a libertarian then you consequently must be vegan

I would like to clarify that I am not a Libertarian and have a number of disagreements with the efficacy and feasibility of a Libertarian/minarchist/anarchocapitalist/voluntaryist form of governance. With this said, I am not here to debate the merits of Libertarianism but, rather to argue that if you identify as a Libertarian and subscribe to the [non-aggression principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle) as a defining principle of libertarianism then you must therefore be vegan. To start, the Non-Aggression Principle is defined as "[the] concept in which "aggression" – defined as initiating or threatening any forceful interference with an individual, their property[b] or their agreements (contracts) – is illegitimate and should be prohibited." Forceful interference, in this context, could be defined as murder, assault, rape, etc; ostensibly anything which causes an individual physical harm. Animals must fall under the umbrella of 'individual' for the following reason: Imagine there were a human with cognitive and empathic capabilities of a specific animal - say a cow. That human would, despite their intellectual disability, be subject to and protected by the non-aggression principle - as it is an inalienable concept designated to protect inalienable rights. Therefore, if these protections and principles extended to a human who is tantamount to a cow then they must therefore extend to the cow itself. Simply that they are of a different species does not serve as a rational justification for why these rights must not be conferred onto the cow. Hence, it is illegitimate and prohibited under the Non-Aggression Principle to initiate force against the cow - which would include murdering it for meat/leather, forcibly inseminating it as a prerequisite for milking it, or taking its milk at all; as it is the cow's property and it has not consented to that exchange. This logic can extended for all animals that are farmed. Therefore, if you subscribe to a Libertarian political philosophy you must be vegan.

Last_Iron1364

2025-01-21 23:54:32

m8hklpm

"Imagine there were a human with cognitive and empathic capabilities of a specific animal - say a cow. That human would, despite their intellectual disability, be subject to and protected by the non-aggression principle - as it is an inalienable concept designated to protect inalienable rights. " Why is a Libertarian obliged to believe this? If a Libertarian agrees with the NAP, isn't Vegan, and rejects your claim here, they would be acting completely consistently. Nothing about your assertion here follows solely from the NAP, since they can simply reject this hypothetical. Furthermore, nothing stops someone who believes in the NAP to reject that entities such as cows, unborn or very young children, or AI from being individuals. The relevance would be the cognitive and empathic capabilities to them, as you yourself empathize, so nothing stops them from going the opposite route and instead reject the rights of the cow-mind person under the NAP instead. Following this, nothing then further stops such a person from believing other principles which may avoid any such harm coming to such individuals, such as qualifying such individuals under the agreements portions as extensions of their family, their community, or other organizations who care for them, thus making it wrong under the NAP to hurt them, which would just as well apply to pets, young children, animal property of people as normal.

BurnedBadger

2025-01-22 00:07:48

m8hjzft

You assertion is that "animals fall under the umbrella of individual" is a massive assumption / assertion. You're using the transformative fallacy. Just because a human can posses physical or intellectual disabilities does not make the same as another object. Simply because someone can be in a coma with the "intelligence" of a cow does not mean we can't differentiate the two. This is like saying because a conversative valeus maximum capital output, that they must be okay with cannabilism of humans that are non-productive, because it would increase "output / GDP". Just because someone believes life begins at conception, doesn't mean they won't eat eggs. Just because someone believes in non-violence doesn't mean they can't hunt. Again most people are very okay with drawing lines between species. Even if a "characteristic" can be shared between a species and us. We understand the totality of an animal vs a human. A belief system is still allowed to have ethics, nuances, and an easy distinction between humans and species. Libertarianism specifically applies to humans. And it's extension to animals is just a gross mischaracterization of libertarianism.

RoboZandrock

2025-01-22 00:03:25

CMV: If you identify as a libertarian then you consequently must be vegan

I would like to clarify that I am not a Libertarian and have a number of disagreements with the efficacy and feasibility of a Libertarian/minarchist/anarchocapitalist/voluntaryist form of governance. With this said, I am not here to debate the merits of Libertarianism but, rather to argue that if you identify as a Libertarian and subscribe to the [non-aggression principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle) as a defining principle of libertarianism then you must therefore be vegan. To start, the Non-Aggression Principle is defined as "[the] concept in which "aggression" – defined as initiating or threatening any forceful interference with an individual, their property[b] or their agreements (contracts) – is illegitimate and should be prohibited." Forceful interference, in this context, could be defined as murder, assault, rape, etc; ostensibly anything which causes an individual physical harm. Animals must fall under the umbrella of 'individual' for the following reason: Imagine there were a human with cognitive and empathic capabilities of a specific animal - say a cow. That human would, despite their intellectual disability, be subject to and protected by the non-aggression principle - as it is an inalienable concept designated to protect inalienable rights. Therefore, if these protections and principles extended to a human who is tantamount to a cow then they must therefore extend to the cow itself. Simply that they are of a different species does not serve as a rational justification for why these rights must not be conferred onto the cow. Hence, it is illegitimate and prohibited under the Non-Aggression Principle to initiate force against the cow - which would include murdering it for meat/leather, forcibly inseminating it as a prerequisite for milking it, or taking its milk at all; as it is the cow's property and it has not consented to that exchange. This logic can extended for all animals that are farmed. Therefore, if you subscribe to a Libertarian political philosophy you must be vegan.

Last_Iron1364

2025-01-21 23:54:32

m8hl387

*Counter Point 1* Your argument lands entirely on the requirement of two things: 1. An individual must be a Libertarian 2. That same individual must follow the non-aggression policy. I am a Libertarian who does not stand by that policy, so technically, people like me contradict your viewpoint. *Counter Point 2* No matter the diet a human lives by, animals die in droves, whether it be directly killing a cow or murdering thousands of voles to till a field. The only caveat would be if your sole source of food was growing it yourself and guaranteeing that no animal died throughout that process. *Counter Point 3* You noted very directly that you don't want to discuss Libertarian policy, so I'll put it this way. Just like every other degree of political perspective, there is a spectrum. Not all Libertarians think the same just like not all Democrats, Republicans, and Tea Party members think alike. It is an unfair assessment for you to assume that "you are Libertarian, so you must think the same as every other Libertarian".

TheNorseHorseForce

2025-01-22 00:11:17

m8hkfck

What's up with the discrimination against plants? Your logic also applies to them. >Imagine there were a human with cognitive and empathic capabilities of a specific **plant** \- say a **potato**. >That human would, despite their intellectual disability, be subject to and protected by the non-aggression principle - as it is an inalienable concept designated to protect inalienable rights. Therefore, if these protections and principles extended to a human who is tantamount to a **potato** then they must therefore extend to the **potato** itself. Simply that they are of a different species does not serve as a rational justification for why these rights must not be conferred onto the **potato**. >This logic can extended for all **plants** that are farmed. >Therefore, if you subscribe to a Libertarian political philosophy you must **only consume synthetic food that are manufactured using chemical processes rather than being naturally derived from plants or animals.**

I_Fap_To_LoL_Champs

2025-01-22 00:06:33

CMV: If you identify as a libertarian then you consequently must be vegan

I would like to clarify that I am not a Libertarian and have a number of disagreements with the efficacy and feasibility of a Libertarian/minarchist/anarchocapitalist/voluntaryist form of governance. With this said, I am not here to debate the merits of Libertarianism but, rather to argue that if you identify as a Libertarian and subscribe to the [non-aggression principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle) as a defining principle of libertarianism then you must therefore be vegan. To start, the Non-Aggression Principle is defined as "[the] concept in which "aggression" – defined as initiating or threatening any forceful interference with an individual, their property[b] or their agreements (contracts) – is illegitimate and should be prohibited." Forceful interference, in this context, could be defined as murder, assault, rape, etc; ostensibly anything which causes an individual physical harm. Animals must fall under the umbrella of 'individual' for the following reason: Imagine there were a human with cognitive and empathic capabilities of a specific animal - say a cow. That human would, despite their intellectual disability, be subject to and protected by the non-aggression principle - as it is an inalienable concept designated to protect inalienable rights. Therefore, if these protections and principles extended to a human who is tantamount to a cow then they must therefore extend to the cow itself. Simply that they are of a different species does not serve as a rational justification for why these rights must not be conferred onto the cow. Hence, it is illegitimate and prohibited under the Non-Aggression Principle to initiate force against the cow - which would include murdering it for meat/leather, forcibly inseminating it as a prerequisite for milking it, or taking its milk at all; as it is the cow's property and it has not consented to that exchange. This logic can extended for all animals that are farmed. Therefore, if you subscribe to a Libertarian political philosophy you must be vegan.

Last_Iron1364

2025-01-21 23:54:32

m8hs5to

You are just using the wrong definition. The right one is the primary one, referring to humans. The fact that "individual" might mean other things in other contexts doesn't change what it means in the context of the NAP. >Mostly because we could bifurcate as 'humans' in Homo sapiens and Homo something and the non-aggression principle would cease to apply to the Homo something despite being ostensibly human. Any member of the genus _Homo_ is a human and would be subject to the NAP. But of course for practical purposes this is moot as only one species of genus _Homo_ is extant.

yyzjertl

2025-01-22 01:05:43

m8hmcfy

Why are you assuming everyone accepts that a human with, effectively, the mind of cow actually deserves rights, and isn't just given rights to prevent the legal system from "unpersoning" people who would actually deserve rights? Kind of like how we have an age consent despite knowing a 17 and 364 days old person doesn't suddenly gain some special insight allowing them to consent on their 18th birthday but still have that law to prevent the abuse that would occur if we had a legal system try to actually measure whether an particular individual is "mature" enough to consent.

UnplacatablePlate

2025-01-22 00:20:26

CMV: Both Political Parties should start campaigning under men's issues in order to make the male vote more of a competition.

This in in relation to the USA btw If it's clear you didn't read the entirety of my post or you are arguing in bad faith, I won't be responding to you. I wanna add some background to this post. Several months ago, I made [this ](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1fs3kf0/cmv_kamala_harris_is_likely_to_win_the/)post on this subreddit explaining how Harris should start campaigning over men's issues. I believed that she was likely to win the race but to secure a victory, she should still campaign over things that will get males excited to put her in office, apart from the normal economic issues. Of course, from what I could tell and I followed the election somewhat closely but still could have missed something, they did not do that. The general consensus I was brought to with that post was that campaigning for men's issues would only have lost Harris supporters on an already too close for comfort race. I understand it, but don't agree with it. And yes, I know that the right doesn't cater to men also. But if you read my title, you would understand that I know that. I don't know why men predominantly vote conservative but that's not something I'm talking about here. And now we sit here today, Trump has won the election and is being put back in office. Now I don't care how you feel about Trump. That's not the point of this conversation. The point is that we will be discussing how fighting over male votes might have made it a closer race or ever have cause a democrat victory. But first you might be asking, what is an issue that men might might vote for. Well I have a list below: \* The education gap among men v women is quite insane. Men have a higher likelihood of not pursuing secondary education, much less being successful in school at all. \* Violent crime and rape against men is taken much less seriously in the justice system, especially when it is perpetuated by women. \* Men do not have full bodily autonomy. This is because parents have the ability to circumcise their infants and children without their permission. Which is estimated to kill around 100 infants a year from botched procedures. \* Men are pretty much required to sign up for selective service AKA the draft. Many believe that it should either go both ways or not be a thing at all. And the list goes on. **Now, this should go without saying but this is not an attack on women's issues. Men and women both suffer equally and in different ways in this world and the issues of one should not overshadow that of another.** Now why do I think that politicians advocating for men's rights would be beneficial to their overall campaigns? Because men are one of the primary voting groups, aside from women of course. They make up \~50% of the voting base. Men are normally ignored in political campaigns like these from what I've seen, now I am still young and this previous election was the first I've followed in depth because it's the first I could vote in. And I feel like highlighting men's issues would better push voters to one side or the other. How can you change my mind in this debate? I just need to be explained why fighting over men's issues wouldn't split the men's vote more and bring men over to either side. Yes men can vote based on other peoples issues, but where is the real fairness in men being unrepresented in politics.

Top_Row_5116

2025-01-20 16:23:39

m88m9t5

Your post discussed secondary (though I assumed you mean post secondary as in college). K-12 learning is primarily again, a state issue, and parenting has a major role over that. Perhaps teaching methods can be improved but I don't see how that can be a discussion in a federal election setting. There are sentencing minimums in place. Your issue seems to be more that those sorts of crimes against men are not prosecuted in the same way as against women. You're also having to take into account domestic violence there, which is statistically a higher chance to happen to women than men, though that gap is not what I'd have initially thought. Again, the age when circumcision happens for children in religions where it's a practice is a long standing religious practice. Yes, I don't personally agree with it but I don't think the stats support an overwhelming problem where the government needs to step in. Also that kind of thing is definitely going to go to the Supreme Court if implemented, and with the current group of Justices, I don't see them intervening on the side of banning that practice or limiting it in some way. "May have great affects" isn't really a reason to bring it up in an election setting. Politicians discuss things that poll well. Men's issues don't seem to be high on the list when it comes to polling data. And also they'd have to come up with some sort of actual solution to those issues that the government is allowed to take action on or would be influential in. Your view is that men's issues would improve the performance of a party by bringing them to the forefront but then you say it might not, you don't know. So there's really no view to change because we can argue your examples but your defense to that is really just "well I think it would be a good idea"

tbcwpg

2025-01-20 16:57:29

m88je2g

>The education gap could be related to the fact that women make up less than 10% of all skilled trades workers in the US. Those trades do not require post secondary education. [https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2023-06-01/constructing-a-place-for-women-in-the-skilled-trades](https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2023-06-01/constructing-a-place-for-women-in-the-skilled-trades) How does this change the fact that men struggle very much does k12 and secondary education? >Violent crime being taken less seriously is primarily an issue for states, not federal prosecution. In the end, though, it's down to local policing and also a societal belief that assault against men isn't as big of a deal. You'd have to change that perception first. I'm not a master of the justice system in the USA. But why can't their be sentencing minimums for specific crimes put into place? >Men not having bodily autonomy - circumcision is a religious practice in many cases, and the government is separate (in theory at least) from legislating against religious procedures. Plus there's no guarantee it's going to sway men one way or the other; what about all the Jewish men who have had that done or have fathered children who they have had circumcised? I don't think it should be outright banned, I think it should be limited to a specific age where the child can consent on it. Now when that is, I don't know. But when it comes to the health of the child, that should take presidence over religious customs. >What you haven't really done in your post is define HOW these issues are A) supposed to be brought up in a way that highlights these supposed issues, B) offered what stance the two parties could take that would sway men one way or another, or C) demonstrated that "men's issues" were a factor in voting patterns for men. All of this is not what I am arguing, except for the last point somewhat. Men's issues have best left out of the political discussion for awhile and it may have great effects in being brought in. I can't be omnipotent and knowing that for sure though.

Top_Row_5116

2025-01-20 16:44:39

CMV: All of the political moral outrage posts are worthless

With the re-election of Donald Trump, and 8 years of moral outrage posts trying to sway voters. He is back. The idea that we can post about how immoral and abjectly awful he and his administration are doesn't sway anyone's vote. The only people who care probably didn't vote for him anyways and the constant bombardment of the new awful thing seems to only be blackpilling and alienating people from leftists more. I am not saying don't speak up and share what happened, but nobody actually cares enough en masse to do anything except comment and upvote you. I personally don't know what the best way to fight his administration is, but I know complaining about how unfair this all is changes nothing, especially since he rapid fires so many awful things and policies at minorities that we can't keep up anyways [seems to be his plan]. I really do empathize that people are hurt and nothing feels fair, but these people aren't swayed by our outrage, and sometimes it fuels them (see I drink liberal tears type rhetoric for more on that). So what's the point? Is there no better way to fight these people than just constantly pointing at how awful and hypocritical they are?

metcalta

2025-01-20 16:51:49

m88u0pb

I'd like to point out that we're getting pretty far from your initially stated view, and that's usually an indicator that your view has changed somewhat since we started here. But liberals had plenty of energy and they didn't pick him. It was the independents that picked him. Turns out they cared more about the price of eggs, and weirdly believed that's a thing the president can control, than they cared about electing a criminal. To that point, it's not like less moral outrage posts would've improved that situation.

XenoRyet

2025-01-20 17:33:37

m88n3us

I don't disagree. I admit there is a catharsis to it. Catharsis is good, but I'm speaking more broadly, and the amount of look what this person is doing posts is very high, and will continue to get higher just like it did during trumps first term. I don't see how catharsis during a time of crisis helps anything. The left Reddit's I'm on mostly seem to focus on what awful thing is going on, and much less so what amazing thing we are doing to help. That could just be the way news travels nowadays though.

metcalta

2025-01-20 17:01:16

CMV: All of the political moral outrage posts are worthless

With the re-election of Donald Trump, and 8 years of moral outrage posts trying to sway voters. He is back. The idea that we can post about how immoral and abjectly awful he and his administration are doesn't sway anyone's vote. The only people who care probably didn't vote for him anyways and the constant bombardment of the new awful thing seems to only be blackpilling and alienating people from leftists more. I am not saying don't speak up and share what happened, but nobody actually cares enough en masse to do anything except comment and upvote you. I personally don't know what the best way to fight his administration is, but I know complaining about how unfair this all is changes nothing, especially since he rapid fires so many awful things and policies at minorities that we can't keep up anyways [seems to be his plan]. I really do empathize that people are hurt and nothing feels fair, but these people aren't swayed by our outrage, and sometimes it fuels them (see I drink liberal tears type rhetoric for more on that). So what's the point? Is there no better way to fight these people than just constantly pointing at how awful and hypocritical they are?

metcalta

2025-01-20 16:51:49

m88sxba

The issue is that Reddit is a gigantic echo chamber which is specifically designed around an upvote system that amplifies the most popular takes in each sub, which creates a feedback loop of people trying to "one up" each other with increasingly apocalyptic hot takes to try to get visibility. The opinion of the average Redditor is so far outside of the mainstream that most people look in and conclude that we're all either insane or liars. I would argue that Reddit has had the net effect of making Trump MORE popular and the Republicans look BETTER because of how extreme, unreasonable, and divorced from reality a lot of the takes here are. Mainstream Republican propaganda outlets regularly repost Reddit threads because they know it helps their cause for people to see people claiming that Trump is going to round up and kill illegal immigrants or LGBT people. If you want to fight Republicans, the best way to do that is with solid policy proposals and even-keeled criticism of how Republican policies could harm causes you care about, not by claiming that Trump is literally moustache man and everyone to the right of Biden is a Nazi.

LordofSeaSlugs

2025-01-20 17:28:24

m88oqmm

It's never worthless for people to express their views. Especially during his presidency, it is important for people to continue to express themselves. Trump isn't entitled to silent complicity from society. Persuasion is not the only purpose of communication. Also, whether other people are "fueled" by hatred for Trump is irrelevant to the fact of the matter that the hatred exists. People don't have any obligation to pretend otherwise as a means of "persuasion." Now, there may be plenty of other strategies that are better for fighting Trump policies, sure. But just like persuasion isn't the only purpose of communication, resistance isn't the only purpose. People forget, Trump barely won. Biden won by a larger margin in 2020. We are essentially a 50/50 nation electorally. The people on the slightly losing side get to take comfort in their community to whatever extent they want to.

AhsokaSolo

2025-01-20 17:08:47

cmv: the best thing about trump is that he says a lot but doesnt follow through

its a relief to watch the inauguration, he read from the prompter for once and he stated thinking. but since most is - either very general “i will make america great again”, then he just says it “america is great again” and its done, doesnt mean much, doesnt do much damage or do anything really but words - or he says he will do X and then totally backtracks… he started bannjng tiktok, now he wants to unbann, ultimately he didnt do mych but talk talk talk so in conclusion, a dog that barks dont bite ? looking forward to all the things he wont be following through with….

Affectionate-Pay3450

2025-01-20 13:23:49

m87u8ph

The only problem with relying on this premise is that it was formed on his track record from his first term where his entire campaign and administration admitted that they were surprised they won in 2016 and were not prepared. This go around he has packed state and federal courts, has extreme loyalist from school boards all the way to the Supreme Court. He has been given presidential immunity and he will use it. He has two years to push as much radical policies through and is beginning without delay.

WhiskeyCasper

2025-01-20 14:52:06

m87jhh9

Trump bragged about how much of Project 2025's predecessor Agenda 47 he implemented, about 60%. Trump can screw around with whatever (probably golfing), while the Heritage Foundation plants in his administration carry out their fascist agenda. His gross negligence with our tax dollars (including funneling them into his own pockets) will cause damage lasting well past 4 years. I think you have a very privileged take because with everything I've seen, we're pretty fucked.

Several_Leather_9500

2025-01-20 14:03:21

cmv: the best thing about trump is that he says a lot but doesnt follow through

its a relief to watch the inauguration, he read from the prompter for once and he stated thinking. but since most is - either very general “i will make america great again”, then he just says it “america is great again” and its done, doesnt mean much, doesnt do much damage or do anything really but words - or he says he will do X and then totally backtracks… he started bannjng tiktok, now he wants to unbann, ultimately he didnt do mych but talk talk talk so in conclusion, a dog that barks dont bite ? looking forward to all the things he wont be following through with….

Affectionate-Pay3450

2025-01-20 13:23:49

m87tt68

The best thing about Trump is his diet.  This "saying a lot of things, even if he doesn't follow through" empowers his sycophants and cronies to make catastrophic decisions in his name. Or it empowers a nation of cult-like followers to eat away at the fabric of a diverse and democratic society within our boundaries. The world, let alone our nation, would be much better off if Trump would stick to publicity stunts at McD's followed up with shots of him taking home a meal on Air Force One.

Substantial_Desk_670

2025-01-20 14:50:08

m87n8b6

I mean the best thing about him is that he’s very old and is very unhealthy. So…y’know. Not gonna be our problem much longer. But yes, I’ve always felt we would be in a lot more trouble if someone like Mike Johnson was president. He would push his theocratic policies for real day 1. It’s hard to know what Trump will actually act upon out of the 30 bullshit things he says every day. He might seem very passionate about a subject one hour and then forget about it or even flip flop next week.

Realsorceror

2025-01-20 14:20:19

cmv: the best thing about trump is that he says a lot but doesnt follow through

its a relief to watch the inauguration, he read from the prompter for once and he stated thinking. but since most is - either very general “i will make america great again”, then he just says it “america is great again” and its done, doesnt mean much, doesnt do much damage or do anything really but words - or he says he will do X and then totally backtracks… he started bannjng tiktok, now he wants to unbann, ultimately he didnt do mych but talk talk talk so in conclusion, a dog that barks dont bite ? looking forward to all the things he wont be following through with….

Affectionate-Pay3450

2025-01-20 13:23:49

m87rgpa

I find that to be one of the worst things about Trump. He says things that he knows he will never do to get support. He gets the support and does whatever he wants. His followers dont get upset with him because he spins the narrative to his favor, allowing him near complete immunity to any reprecutions. The only people with the power to stop him have been so conditioned to submit to money that he seems to be able to allude to financial gain for their support and they roll over and assume the position. There are very few people it seems that have both the power and will to stand against him.

134608642

2025-01-20 14:39:32

m87u8ph

The only problem with relying on this premise is that it was formed on his track record from his first term where his entire campaign and administration admitted that they were surprised they won in 2016 and were not prepared. This go around he has packed state and federal courts, has extreme loyalist from school boards all the way to the Supreme Court. He has been given presidential immunity and he will use it. He has two years to push as much radical policies through and is beginning without delay.

WhiskeyCasper

2025-01-20 14:52:06

CMV: Elon Musk is not a Nazi

My view is simple. Elon Musk is not and never has been a Nazi, or has ever shown signs of sharing Nazi ideology. His recent hand gesture (made twice), the one where he passionately places his hand over his heart and flings it forward to the crowd, were of spontaneous nature and not a reference to the Nazi salute. I believe this was an unfortunate coincidence that has stoked the flames of anxiety surrounding the Trump administration (which I believe are valid anxieties). I personally share in this anxiety for our future and I fear that the USA will become a dictatorship. However, at the same time, I do not believe Elon is a Nazi or purposely made Nazi salutes. To change my view, I’m looking for any reasonable argument that Elon is a Nazi. Specifically, I want to know about any evidence that his ideology is indeed in alignment with Nazism. Personally, I think the hand gesture he made was very universal and intuitive before it became associated with Hitler and the Nazi Regime, similar to the symbol of the swastika. So in no way do I personally consider a gesture like this as reasonable evidence that Elon is a Nazi. Thank you for reading, and thank you for any genuine responses. Edit: My view has changed. While I do not think it is certain that Elon is a specifically a antisemite or Nazi, I can now agree he does show strong signs of being so. I can see why people think he is. So thank you everyone for helping me change my view!

DreamCentipede

2025-01-21 10:13:49

m8d22xd

One of the most important yet least talked about aspects of the Fascist Nazi movement in Germany on the elite and political side was the merger of state and corporate power by directly including loyal business owners in government positions.   It was a means to quell worker led movements for the companies and get cooperation from the wealthy for the political agenda of the party.  Elon fits the bill here. He is basically moving in with the administration to make sure his interests are directly attended to.  He’s purged leftist accounts on twitter and shaped it to the benefit of one movement in one party.   Matching theNazi  suppression of dissent/ dissent is treason ideal.  He may differ on policy regarding immigrants with the regular folk supporters - they don’t like the idea of skilled immigrants, and indeed all immigrants are the scapegoat for the America First crowd, but for Elon skilled immigrants are just a good tool to better control all workers. It’s fully in line with being a Nazi for him to pursue his class interest through direct connections in federal power. Having a public spat over it is just because he is stupid and gets in the way of every well functioning plan. He has to be actively managed by his employees to keep him out of the way.  He’s pretty directly following the playbook of German elites at the end of Weimar Germany AND he’s doing the damn salute.  I get that you want to see the gesture as innocent, but this is the guy who tried to jump and make an “X” with his body on stage. I don’t think he’s capable of performing a heartfelt gesture without some  intended reason behind it. 

adminhotep

2025-01-21 10:35:57

m8cynhf

Demonstrating that he is a full-blown nazi is a pretty high bar, but you also assert that he has never shown any signs of sharing nazi ideology, which means you are probably unaware of his recent support for the AFD party in Germany, a far-right party with a history of anti-Semitism and nazi sympathies. Germany Puzzles at Elon Musk's Embrace of Its AfD Populists [https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/germany-puzzles-at-elon-musks-embrace-of-its-afd-populists-0c17c877](https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/germany-puzzles-at-elon-musks-embrace-of-its-afd-populists-0c17c877) Elon Musk's Article Supporting Far-Right AfD Sparks Row in Germany [https://www.yahoo.com/news/elon-musks-article-supporting-far-174725237.html](https://www.yahoo.com/news/elon-musks-article-supporting-far-174725237.html) Musk Calls AfD ‘Last Spark of Hope’ for Germany in Op-Ed in Welt [https://www.politico.eu/article/musk-calls-far-right-afd-last-spark-hope-for-germany-op-ed-rightwing-scholz-merz-welt-am-sonntag/](https://www.politico.eu/article/musk-calls-far-right-afd-last-spark-hope-for-germany-op-ed-rightwing-scholz-merz-welt-am-sonntag/) Elon Musk Backs Far-Right AfD in Controversial German Op-Ed [https://www.dw.com/en/elon-musk-backs-far-right-afd-in-controversial-german-op-ed/a-71176801](https://www.dw.com/en/elon-musk-backs-far-right-afd-in-controversial-german-op-ed/a-71176801)

derelict5432

2025-01-21 10:18:59

CMV: Elon Musk is not a Nazi

My view is simple. Elon Musk is not and never has been a Nazi, or has ever shown signs of sharing Nazi ideology. His recent hand gesture (made twice), the one where he passionately places his hand over his heart and flings it forward to the crowd, were of spontaneous nature and not a reference to the Nazi salute. I believe this was an unfortunate coincidence that has stoked the flames of anxiety surrounding the Trump administration (which I believe are valid anxieties). I personally share in this anxiety for our future and I fear that the USA will become a dictatorship. However, at the same time, I do not believe Elon is a Nazi or purposely made Nazi salutes. To change my view, I’m looking for any reasonable argument that Elon is a Nazi. Specifically, I want to know about any evidence that his ideology is indeed in alignment with Nazism. Personally, I think the hand gesture he made was very universal and intuitive before it became associated with Hitler and the Nazi Regime, similar to the symbol of the swastika. So in no way do I personally consider a gesture like this as reasonable evidence that Elon is a Nazi. Thank you for reading, and thank you for any genuine responses. Edit: My view has changed. While I do not think it is certain that Elon is a specifically a antisemite or Nazi, I can now agree he does show strong signs of being so. I can see why people think he is. So thank you everyone for helping me change my view!

DreamCentipede

2025-01-21 10:13:49

m8d7d2k

here is elon musk explicitly endorsing the antisemitic lie that jews are pushing anti-white hatred. https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1724908287471272299 and here is elon musk accusing george soros, a jew and frequent target of antisemitic conspiracy theories, of wanting to destroy humanity shortly after comparing him to magneto, a marvel supervillain that survived auschwitz and who generally wants to conquer the world and repress norman non-mutant humans. https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1658294821679951872

Insectshelf3

2025-01-21 11:01:17

m8czkwl

So there are several things that lead me to believe he is at least nazi adjacent. First and foremost, his Twitter timeline. He constantly retweets accounts that are insanely antisemitic, including straight holocaust deniers. He said, "You speak the absolute truth" on a post about how jews are flooding the US with immigrants to replace white people. He is unbanned and has been friendly with Nick Funetes And finally He is incredibly friendly with the AFD, a far-right borderline nazi party in Germany.

3dprinthelp53

2025-01-21 10:23:39

CMV: Elon Musk is not a Nazi

My view is simple. Elon Musk is not and never has been a Nazi, or has ever shown signs of sharing Nazi ideology. His recent hand gesture (made twice), the one where he passionately places his hand over his heart and flings it forward to the crowd, were of spontaneous nature and not a reference to the Nazi salute. I believe this was an unfortunate coincidence that has stoked the flames of anxiety surrounding the Trump administration (which I believe are valid anxieties). I personally share in this anxiety for our future and I fear that the USA will become a dictatorship. However, at the same time, I do not believe Elon is a Nazi or purposely made Nazi salutes. To change my view, I’m looking for any reasonable argument that Elon is a Nazi. Specifically, I want to know about any evidence that his ideology is indeed in alignment with Nazism. Personally, I think the hand gesture he made was very universal and intuitive before it became associated with Hitler and the Nazi Regime, similar to the symbol of the swastika. So in no way do I personally consider a gesture like this as reasonable evidence that Elon is a Nazi. Thank you for reading, and thank you for any genuine responses. Edit: My view has changed. While I do not think it is certain that Elon is a specifically a antisemite or Nazi, I can now agree he does show strong signs of being so. I can see why people think he is. So thank you everyone for helping me change my view!

DreamCentipede

2025-01-21 10:13:49

m8ddnjv

Musk doesn’t promote free speech. He promotes “free for me” speech. If you call him a Nazi, you get a 12 hour ban on Shitter right now. * **Endorsement of Antisemitic Post**: In November 2023, Musk responded to a post on X (formerly Twitter) that accused Jewish communities of promoting hatred against white people, stating, "You have said the actual truth." This endorsement was widely condemned, including by the White House, which described it as "abhorrent promotion of antisemitic and racist hate." [CBS News](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elon-musk-antisemitic-comments-x-post-actual-truth/?utm_source=chatgpt.com) * **Criticism of George Soros**: In May 2023, Musk compared financier George Soros to the X-Men villain Magneto, stating that Soros "hates humanity." The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) criticized these remarks as perpetuating antisemitic tropes. [VICE](https://www.vice.com/en/article/elon-musk-george-soros-antisemitic-tweets/?utm_source=chatgpt.com) * **Interaction with Antisemitic Conspiracy Theories**: Musk has engaged with various conspiracy theories, including the "Great Replacement" theory, which has antisemitic undertones. In November 2023, he agreed with a post referencing this theory, later acknowledging it as a mistake. [Austin Chronicle](https://www.austinchronicle.com/daily/news/2023-11-27/recapping-elon-musks-antisemitic-shitstorm/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)

vagabondvisions

2025-01-21 11:30:58

m8cynhf

Demonstrating that he is a full-blown nazi is a pretty high bar, but you also assert that he has never shown any signs of sharing nazi ideology, which means you are probably unaware of his recent support for the AFD party in Germany, a far-right party with a history of anti-Semitism and nazi sympathies. Germany Puzzles at Elon Musk's Embrace of Its AfD Populists [https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/germany-puzzles-at-elon-musks-embrace-of-its-afd-populists-0c17c877](https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/germany-puzzles-at-elon-musks-embrace-of-its-afd-populists-0c17c877) Elon Musk's Article Supporting Far-Right AfD Sparks Row in Germany [https://www.yahoo.com/news/elon-musks-article-supporting-far-174725237.html](https://www.yahoo.com/news/elon-musks-article-supporting-far-174725237.html) Musk Calls AfD ‘Last Spark of Hope’ for Germany in Op-Ed in Welt [https://www.politico.eu/article/musk-calls-far-right-afd-last-spark-hope-for-germany-op-ed-rightwing-scholz-merz-welt-am-sonntag/](https://www.politico.eu/article/musk-calls-far-right-afd-last-spark-hope-for-germany-op-ed-rightwing-scholz-merz-welt-am-sonntag/) Elon Musk Backs Far-Right AfD in Controversial German Op-Ed [https://www.dw.com/en/elon-musk-backs-far-right-afd-in-controversial-german-op-ed/a-71176801](https://www.dw.com/en/elon-musk-backs-far-right-afd-in-controversial-german-op-ed/a-71176801)

derelict5432

2025-01-21 10:18:59

CMV: Elon Musk is not a Nazi

My view is simple. Elon Musk is not and never has been a Nazi, or has ever shown signs of sharing Nazi ideology. His recent hand gesture (made twice), the one where he passionately places his hand over his heart and flings it forward to the crowd, were of spontaneous nature and not a reference to the Nazi salute. I believe this was an unfortunate coincidence that has stoked the flames of anxiety surrounding the Trump administration (which I believe are valid anxieties). I personally share in this anxiety for our future and I fear that the USA will become a dictatorship. However, at the same time, I do not believe Elon is a Nazi or purposely made Nazi salutes. To change my view, I’m looking for any reasonable argument that Elon is a Nazi. Specifically, I want to know about any evidence that his ideology is indeed in alignment with Nazism. Personally, I think the hand gesture he made was very universal and intuitive before it became associated with Hitler and the Nazi Regime, similar to the symbol of the swastika. So in no way do I personally consider a gesture like this as reasonable evidence that Elon is a Nazi. Thank you for reading, and thank you for any genuine responses. Edit: My view has changed. While I do not think it is certain that Elon is a specifically a antisemite or Nazi, I can now agree he does show strong signs of being so. I can see why people think he is. So thank you everyone for helping me change my view!

DreamCentipede

2025-01-21 10:13:49

m8dkzup

A Nazi tweeted this well known anti Semitic talking point   Okay. Jewish communties have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them. I'm deeply disinterested in giving the tiniest shit now about western Jewish populations coming to the disturbing… And Elon responded with “you have said the whole truth” On its own I would agree this wouldn’t be enough, however when combined with OP and his other behavior it forms a compelling picture. You can’t know for certain what’s in someone’s head, but if he is a Nazi he’s not doing a particularly good job hiding it

Km15u

2025-01-21 12:04:44

m8cz250

I don't think that Elon is a Nazi either, but I'd like to challenge this part of your view: >His recent hand gesture (made twice), the one where he passionately places his hand over his heart and flings it forward to the crowd, were of spontaneous nature and not a reference to the Nazi salute. Musk isn't dumb and he's been speaking in public for a long time now. He also knows that a lot of people label him as alt- or far-right. I think you're missing the possibility that he does this just to create a frenzy online. He's not a nazi but he did the nazi salute with the thinest veneer of deniability to sow devision between the left and right.

vexx_nl

2025-01-21 10:21:02

CMV: I don’t see a fair way to approach sexual assault allegations

Gonna put a TL;DR upfront. The issue is basically twofold: 1. Innocent people should never be punished for anything that they did not do. 2. It is extremely difficult to prove that sexual assault took place and the process of investigation is inherantly traumatic for the accuser. Let's examine each point. Point one - Put yourself in the shoes of a wrongly accused person. You would not accept any kind of negative sanction from a false accusation, nor should you. And this is not just legal repercussions. There are cases of people who have lost their jobs and who have been expelled from universities because of unproven allegations of sexual assault. This is unjust. If a person maintains their innocence, if they have not been provided with the opportunity to confront or cross examine the accuser, it seems completely unjust that they should suffer severe consequences for an unproven transgression. Point two - Many people avoid reporting sexual assault because they are afraid that they won't be taken seriously and/or that the process of investigation will expose them to extreme scruntiny. I understand their reservations. And while we can and should outlaw questions such as, "what were you wearing when this happened" or "had you been flirting with the assaulter" because these kinds of queries only reinforce misogyny and victim blaming, it is not possible to avoid an uncomfortable investigation. It is essential to establish a timeline, to interrogate and reinterrogate the accuser and accused to determine if they are able to keep to a consistent story, to question witnesses who knew both parties and to ascertain the nature of their relationship. To not do so would be irresponsible on the part of investigators. People who are trying to hide the truth or to cover up a lie often have trouble retelling a sequence of events. People who have a history of conflict and disagreement may seek to take revenge out of desperation or frustration. We need to know if there are patterns of false statements or sexual harassment among the accused and accuser. I don't see a way to avoid a painful period of inquiry once an allegation has been made. Therefore there seems to be an impasse. How can we encourage victims to report their crimes and reassure them that we take them seriously without infringing on the rights of the accused? Is there a way?

BluePillUprising

2025-01-20 10:47:13

m86i9o0

>"How can we encourage victims to report their crimes and reassure them that we take them seriously without infringing on the rights of the accused? Is there a way?" Suppression orders, closed courts, and media bans until the case is finalised. Harsh penalties for those who breach these privacy laws while the case is still in progress. It's unavoidable that the process will be painful for all involved, but at least the victims' privacy is protected and they don't have to face constant and widespread scrutiny. If the alleged perpetrator turns out to be innocent, they won't have had their life ruined over a false accusation.

sincsinckp

2025-01-20 11:15:29

m86s9pl

Sorry I didn't explain my point fully. If the issue is lack of evidence or a he-said-she-said situation that arises from an initially consensual encounter then I don't think this is exclusive to sexual crimes. 2 people dancing and kissing at a club then turns into coerced sex, there might be evidence or even admission that sex occurred but no real way to determine if there was consent. Similarly, if someone loans money to another person there may be evidence of this but if one person says it was a loan and another a gift then it may be theft but may also be very difficult to prove without needing to pick someone to believe.

ReluctantRedditPost

2025-01-20 12:01:47

CMV: I don’t see a fair way to approach sexual assault allegations

Gonna put a TL;DR upfront. The issue is basically twofold: 1. Innocent people should never be punished for anything that they did not do. 2. It is extremely difficult to prove that sexual assault took place and the process of investigation is inherantly traumatic for the accuser. Let's examine each point. Point one - Put yourself in the shoes of a wrongly accused person. You would not accept any kind of negative sanction from a false accusation, nor should you. And this is not just legal repercussions. There are cases of people who have lost their jobs and who have been expelled from universities because of unproven allegations of sexual assault. This is unjust. If a person maintains their innocence, if they have not been provided with the opportunity to confront or cross examine the accuser, it seems completely unjust that they should suffer severe consequences for an unproven transgression. Point two - Many people avoid reporting sexual assault because they are afraid that they won't be taken seriously and/or that the process of investigation will expose them to extreme scruntiny. I understand their reservations. And while we can and should outlaw questions such as, "what were you wearing when this happened" or "had you been flirting with the assaulter" because these kinds of queries only reinforce misogyny and victim blaming, it is not possible to avoid an uncomfortable investigation. It is essential to establish a timeline, to interrogate and reinterrogate the accuser and accused to determine if they are able to keep to a consistent story, to question witnesses who knew both parties and to ascertain the nature of their relationship. To not do so would be irresponsible on the part of investigators. People who are trying to hide the truth or to cover up a lie often have trouble retelling a sequence of events. People who have a history of conflict and disagreement may seek to take revenge out of desperation or frustration. We need to know if there are patterns of false statements or sexual harassment among the accused and accuser. I don't see a way to avoid a painful period of inquiry once an allegation has been made. Therefore there seems to be an impasse. How can we encourage victims to report their crimes and reassure them that we take them seriously without infringing on the rights of the accused? Is there a way?

BluePillUprising

2025-01-20 10:47:13

m8bd0ix

The solution is this. Sexual allegations should NEVER be a political or any other kind of spectacle. If someone is criminally convicted we should hang them high. Otherwise it should be handled primarily legally and not be broadcast by the media or anyone else. This: A. Discourages false allegations for political or other nefarious purposes. B. Protects the privacy of real victims so it is easier for them to come forward. The circus we’ve turned SA allegations into currently is shameful.

AndyTheInnkeeper

2025-01-21 02:48:45

m86kwz9

Universities and corporations in general are *not* meant to be fair. This is by design. You can get expelled/fired for any arbitrary reason, including unproven allegations. This is done to avoid the headache of "yeah, our valedictorian might be a mass murderer but we won't know for sure until the trial concludes". The university will suspend/expel that individual and re-admit them if they're cleared of all charges. Does it suck for innocent people accused of a crime? Sure. Is it unfair? Sure. But universities are not meant to be fair.

Adorable_Ad_3478

2025-01-20 11:27:53

CMV: The US Has Weaponized The Idea Of Democracy

Enforcing an idea that even its enforcers do not subscribe to is strange—unless it serves as a means to target those who don’t align with their capitalist interests. Assuming the US is a democracy is absurd; one would have to be grossly complacent or, more likely, influenced by propaganda. In a country predominantly operating under a two-party system—where other parties receive little funding—people still don’t question it. Why are politicians being endorsed with hundreds of millions of dollars by corporations? Do corporations have any intentions beyond profit? As a result, the people’s voice ultimately has very little impact on the outcome. Instead, a clever rat race has been set up to keep the public engaged as they oscillate between one party and the other. Politicians compete for the chance to be paid, while corporations remain silent. To be clear, I’m not implying a deep state or a generation-spanning oligarchy. Rather, I’m highlighting a system designed to be leveraged by money—those who have more, have a louder voice. That is not democracy. Yet the US, as the self-proclaimed glorious keepers of democracy, has uprooted nations and left them worse off. The entire world, including the American people, has suffered from this system where money rules all.

Flaky-Freedom-8762

2025-01-19 15:48:52

m839uxc

>Social media ads cost a lot of money, bloggs require dedicated teams to run, rallies require venues, and the bigger the more expensive, especially if you're hosting Beyonce, who also costs money. Some of our most prominent political candidates come from humble beginnings, Barack Obama was not born into wealth, he built his reputation through a lifetime of service and work. But I get it, most methods of getting your messaging out cost some amount of money. Sure I suppose, but that's true everywhere, does that mean there are no democracies anywhere? >The two parties did build a foundation over decades and put in far more effort, but does effort translate into ideas that align with the people Broadly speaking most people fall into one of the two camps, the parties put a lot of effort into building the broadest possible base of support. Maybe some other version of democracy would lead to better and more accurate representation, like a parliamentary system or a ranked choice vote. But this isn't really the subject of your CMV, the point is that voters ultimately decide the election results through a democratic process. There are wedge issues in both parties, these often get debated through the primary to come to a consensus before the election. >But I also think it's unfair because values seem to be thorn into a binary, which I believe isn't that simple. Are the Americans split down the middle, either libral or conservative. If you have a liberal stance on gender issues, are you automatically prescribed to hold libral agendas regarding immigration and welfare. I think the section above this quote addresses this, but didn't want you to think I was ignoring this part. Again, this is moving the goal posts of the CMV. >You stripped it out of context, buddy!  I'm trying to be good faith but you explicitly said the US is not a democracy multiple times, not only in your original post but also in comments since then. There's no world where I didn't accurately reflect what your stated view was, you may have been unclear or misunderstood your own position. I'm not trying to be confrontational but we can’t have a conversation if I can’t hold you to account for what you explicitly said your position was. The US is absolutely a democracy, you said it was not. >I think it's an absurd claim to make if similar standards aren't applicable to other nations. Is this directed at me? Who exactly isn't holding other nations to the same standards? What nations are being treated differently? >I'd have loved to change my view, but I still think US politics is dictated by money. Regardless whether the people have free voting rights a person with more money can reach more people and engage with them better. That's not fair is all I'm saying. The party with the bigger donation lead did not win in 2024. The candidate born from wealth did not win in 2020. You are putting forward this idea that money rules all based on vibes but contrary to results. The elections are fair for all the reasons I went through already. No political party has a right to equal funds just by existing, nor should they. It would lead to a distortion of the political conversation where any ridiculous or extreme position has outsized sway simply by forming a political party and therefore being entitled to funds.

probablyaspambot

2025-01-19 20:50:27

m81tohk

>In a country predominantly operating under a two-party system—where other parties receive little funding—people still don’t question it. Why are politicians being endorsed with hundreds of millions of dollars by corporations? Do corporations have any intentions beyond profit? As a result, the people’s voice ultimately has very little impact on the outcome. Instead, a clever rat race has been set up to keep the public engaged as they oscillate between one party and the other. Politicians compete for the chance to be paid, while corporations remain silent. This is so dumb, and fundamentally misunderstands both the purpose of democracy and that of a two party system. I understand that your teenage years are a time for revelation and exploration, but... just because you think you've penetrated into some great conspiracy doesn't make it so. The people's voice is the *only impact on outcomes*. What you mean to say is that other people disagree with you, and instead of confronting the fact that your opinion isn't very popular, you want to find some boogeyman on whom to blame suboptimal outcomes. That's cowardly. >To be clear, I’m not implying a deep state or a generation-spanning oligarchy. Rather, I’m highlighting a system designed to be leveraged by money—those who have more, have a louder voice. That is not democracy. Well that is simply untrue. What, exactly, do you think democracy is "supposed" to be? Some voices are always heard louder than others. Some people literally have louder voices. Or they're more charismatic, more attractive, more intelligent, more eloquent. All people should be created equal in the eyes of the law *but not all people are equals*. So what do you want? We know that it is impossible for there to be a system in which each person's voice is heard exactly equally - many people are uninterested in speaking up, after all, and would rather vote in silence or not vote at all. >Yet the US, as the self-proclaimed glorious keepers of democracy, has uprooted nations and left them worse off. The entire world, including the American people, has suffered from this system where money rules all. OK, name them? Thinking recently, it's hard to argue that Afghanistan is any worse off than it was 25 years ago. in fact, it's back where it started with the same theocratic rulers. Iraq is unquestionably better off. Where else have we directly intervened that you'd like to talk about? Some of this is just a gross limousine liberal vantage point. You talk about leaving people "worse off" and "uprooting nations" and yet... you take it as a given that the people in these places are actually worse off! My guess is many if not most women living in Afghanistan would *strongly* disagree that they were worse off under an American-sponsored government. The Sunnis and whatever was left of the Kurds and Marsh Arabs after years of genocide might have strongly disagreed that the country was "better off" under Saddam. One could certainly argue that the US is too zealous in pushing a mandate that all nations should be democracies. But however you want to discuss it, democracy seems to be the best (or to paraphrase Churchill, least worst) form of government. Should we be forcing everyone into it at the point of a sword? No, I don't think so, but to act as though that's what the US is doing is insane. Moreover, it holds the USA to a massively hypocritical standard which you seem unwilling to apply to anyone else.

Ok_Swimming4427

2025-01-19 16:19:49

CMV: Restricting access to abortions is not a massive novel violation of bodily autonomy because our bodily autonomy is already undermined in several other legislations.

Let me preface this with I AM NOT PRO-LIFE/ANTI CHOICE. Please don't explain to me why abortion is good, I already agree with you there. I am also not looking for arguments to convince me to become pro-life. to Please read the rest of the post before commenting. The point I'm trying to make is pro choice activists frame abortion as this massive intrusion into bodily autonomy when we really don't have complete control over our bodies. If I want to do a bunch of drugs that's illegal, if I want to hypothetically sue my parents for circumcising me as a boy I'd be pissing a lot of money down the drain, if I want to voluntarily find a doctor to perform an assisted suicide (assuming I don't have a terminal illness because a small minority of jurisdictions allow assisted dying in those cases atleast). Now I am completely pro-choice but I am also pro bodily autonomy on all of those other things. I am pro-legalizing the possession and use of all drugs, I am pro male bodily autonomy by being against circumcision and I'm pro voluntary assisted dying for any reason whatsoever regardless of what that reason may be (I know that's controversial lol but I'm super libertarian on anything that doesn't have the potential to harm any other living human). So I guess what I'm looking for with this post is for a bodily autonomy advocate to explain to me why they choose abortion access as the hill to die on over all these other cases where our bodily autonomy is infringed upon. What makes abortion so different from all of these other cases? Please refrain from debating whether abortion access should be legal or not, I think it should be and I'm not going to change my mind and think it should become illegal.

emoskeleton_

2025-01-19 18:54:00

m82spoo

I would argue that the reason pro-choice advocates are zealous - rightly so - about the repealing of the right to an abortion is evident in this sentence: repealing. It is a loss of a previously established and upheld form of bodily autonomy that was very hard-won to begin with - and its abrogation is predominantly for a combination of religious fever, obscene misogyny, and to regress sociocultural norms of ‘womanhood’ to ‘subservience to her husband’ (a fundamentally gross regression for a multiplicity of reasons). The same cannot be said for euthanasia or the consumption of ‘illicit’ substances. Laws prohibiting euthanasia are arguably as old civilisations themselves who have seemingly rarely - if ever - carved out exemptions in their murder laws to permit assisted suicide. The prohibition of drug consumption - on the other hand - dates back as far as 1378 when Soudoun Sheikouni, the Emir of the Joneima in Arabia, prohibited the use of cannabis in his jurisdiction. So, the distinction I see is that abortion rights are ones which those who argue fervently for bodily autonomy had won - they had managed to secure that victory. Thus priorities have shifted to maintaining the rights ‘we’ (I am not American and abortion is legal where I live) already have rather than expanding the rights we’ve never had.

Last_Iron1364

2025-01-19 19:17:45

m84hp9x

Ignoring fetus here for a second. All rights granted come with the assumption of bodily autonomy. If you don't have rights to an abortion, (either medical or you do it yourself) then you don't have rights to bodily autonomy. I'm with all those other things but abortion is the hill to die on because it is the one most attacked. It is also the only one where how rights work start to come into question. Functionally you cannot give rights to both Person A and Person B inside of Person A without also revoking some rights of Person A. Rights to Person B require that Person A doesn't have rights. Additionally, pregnancy is not an obvious thing you can identify. So you will have to start revoking rights to woman who are not pregnant as well because you can't really tell. And also revise manslaughter charges, and reckless homicide. You'll also have to inform doctors what to do when working with pregnant mothers with complications. On one hand you can knowing kill the fetus to save the mother. But the fetus also has a right to live (no matter how small), so they cannot kill this fetus and thus must let nature run it's course and both have the high potential to die. Too many things to sideways because abortion affects bodily autonomy far deeper than any other issue.

AbsoluteRunner

2025-01-20 01:55:02

CMV: The vitriolic response against the "Male Loneliness Epidemic" only makes things worse.

On the one hand, it probably shouldn't be called the male loneliness epidemic as both men and women of my generation (Z) are displaying noticeably higher levels of loneliness than those that came before it. On the other, from what I have seen, young men do tend to be higher in loneliness than their counterpart. This being said, the vitriolic response from women that it is non-existent or a right-wing goober talking point just serves to divide people in line with Neo-liberalism individualism. The marketplace mentality that has been enforced on people my age is awful. The dating "market" is a constant battle against competing actors that are inherently unequal in terms of attractiveness, wage, age, social class etc. This just leads to those not in relationships to view themselves as losers. Take Love Island or the Bachelor (for my US readers). If you don't get the guy/girl, YOU LOSE. I see posts/rants by women all the time that the depressed lonely men of my generation are just Andrew Tate watching, Steak and Egg chopping board eating incels who demonise women and blame them for the loneliness. I truly feel that this view just works to divide people more. Loneliness, depression and suicidality are increasing, as well as the virginity rate and sexual-relationships, and your solution is to go on the attack? I completely understand that there are a lot of Incels that believe that women have been elevated to a position in the dating world that they believe gives them the authority, and that this is driving a large amount of their hate and violence towards women. So attacking them and making fun of them is the solution? That's just going to radicalize them further IMO. The fatalistic worldview that Incels hold, that celibacy among men is rising rapidly therefore their position is doomed, is only going to be worsened by people, whether it is justified or not, making fun of them. I'm not saying that it is the women's fault or the women's job to fix it, but I do think both young men and women need to work together to foster better attitudes when it comes to relationships/socialisation. Bit of a rant myself, but I would love to hear some good responses so change my view! TLDR: I don't think making fun of lonely, depressed young men is going to do anything but radicalize them further.

ProfessionalPop4711

2025-01-20 07:57:08

m85nz1q

Yes and that's happened to me with anti-vax people: at first I tried to convince people by trying to be nice about it, trying to use logic or rational arguments but at one point you realize that some people are not only dumb but unable to consider they might be wrong and you're losing time trying to argue. So yes insulting people makes things worse, being too open minded about crazy stuff also makes things worse and ignoring and leaving dumb stuff unchallenged is also making things worse.

Galious

2025-01-20 08:32:50

m85nyxf

(I live in the UK and am 20 for context) It seems to me that this self-made meritocratic worldviews has had an adverse affect on socialization and especially relationships. I probably shouldn't have used individualism and rather self-determination, but it feels to me that the fatalistic worldview incels have is reinforced by the idea that are equal to other dudes, therefore the blame is on them for not getting a gf/bf. Probably a bit of a misunderstanding so feel free to correct me.

ProfessionalPop4711

2025-01-20 08:32:49

CMV: I believe 9/11 was a black magick Aleister Crowley-John Dee blood sacrifice portal ritual to bring in Ahriman (AI Antichrist) and the Eighth Sphere AI Fallen Angel Matrix hell grid as predicted in 1919 by the legend Rudolf Steiner

Please someone refute me > > > [https://neoanthroposophy.com/2023/07/16/ahrimans-eighth-sphere](https://neoanthroposophy.com/2023/07/16/ahrimans-eighth-sphere) \- [https://archive.is/5W9A0](https://archive.is/5W9A0) In the Matrix, Neo's (Thomas Anderson's) passport expires 9/11/2001. In 1968, the Rockefellers began construction on the Twin Towers, 911 became the official emergency number, the Rockefeller Medical Institute coined the term "coronavirus", and Stanley Kubrick released "2001: A Space Odyssey". The Millennium Hilton hotel which overlooked the WTC during 9/11 was designed to be the black monolith portal from the movie. The Rockefellers began construction in 1968 specifically to knock down the towers 33 years later in the Freemasonic mass ritual. The two towers represent the two pillars of the Freemason tracing board. The sphere that was in between then represents the Eighth Sphere. Read the book "The Most Dangerous Book in the World: 9/11 as Mass Ritual" for more. 9/11 was an occult portal ritual (remember that upside down triangle head demon in the smoke? Has a striking resemblance to Ahriman as portrayed by Rudolf Steiner 100 years before). Things that happened in 1968: * 911 becomes official emergency phone number * Rockefellers begin construction on the Twin Towers * 2001: A Space Odyssey is released by Stanley Kubrick * Astroworld theme park opens in Houston. Interesting because Travis Scott's "The Prayer" music video is all about the book of Revelation and the 9/11 Space Odyssey Millennium Hilton Hotel Monolith ritual to bring in Antichrist/Lucifer/Ahriman. Travis Scott knows all about the 9/11 Aleister Crowley ritual, and did his own blood sacrifice demon portal Crowley ritual with Astroworld "see u on the other side" Also Jay Z released "The Blueprint" album on 9/11/01 and named his record label Roc-a-Fella Records after the Rockefellers who built the twin towers with construction beginning in 1968 specifically to be brought down 33 years later in the Freemasonic Aleister Crowley ritual. By releasing "The Blueprint" album on 9/11, Roc-A-Fella (Rockefeller-Rothschild) slave Jay Z confirmed that 9/11 was a mass occult Freemason Luciferian ritual to open the portal for Ahriman (Antichrist). Songs "Free Mason" and "Lucifer" feat. Jay Z. Kate Rothschild runs the London branch of Roc Nation. Do u know why Luciferians Elon Musk and his witch gf Grimes posted 🧫🧬🦠+💉💉💉=🛸 on 9/4/19, which is 8 days beford Wuhan Lab locked down and deleted their lab-made coronavirus sequences on 9/12/19 and El-on's boss DARPA released COVID-19? Let me help. Lucifer is a fallen angel and an agent of Satan. Lucifer appears as a UFO when summoned by ancient Egyptions in the Kenneth Anger/Aleister Crowley movie "Lucifer Rising." Lucifer and the fallen angels gave Queen Elizabeth top advisor/dark magician the blueprint for the one world tyranny known as the New World Order via John Dee's Enochian Magick method of communicating with them. Aleister Crowley was a John Dee disciple, MI6. "Kenneth Anger: how I made Lucifer Rising" > > [https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/jul/22/how-we-made-lucifer-rising](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/jul/22/how-we-made-lucifer-rising) "Apotheosis: The Ultimate Beginner's Guide to Luciferianism & the Left-Hand Path" by Michael W Ford "‘Demonic texts’: The enemy can use technology, says exorcist" [https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1354888/demonic-texts-the-enemy-can-use-technology-says-exorcist](https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1354888/demonic-texts-the-enemy-can-use-technology-says-exorcist) > > > [https://neoanthroposophy.com/2023/07/16/ahrimans-eighth-sphere](https://neoanthroposophy.com/2023/07/16/ahrimans-eighth-sphere) \- [https://archive.is/5W9A0](https://archive.is/5W9A0) **Rudolf Steiner, 1919** > > It can bring good over the long term insofar as we wake up to the spirit through resistance against Ahriman’s materialistic impulses. If Ahriman is not recognised, his influence will be harmful. **Rudolf Steiner:** “The important thing is that humanity should not sleep through Ahriman’s appearance.”

Ok_Classic_7487

2025-01-19 13:21:11

m80yycz

Rational discourse has no power over irrational people. To believe in the nonsense you've posted, you *have* to be irrational. Rational people can see this plainly. This is perhaps a wakeup call for you to realize that your mind doesn't work the way normal ones do. The filter of logic and rationality that most people have to sniff out obvious bullshit is missing in you, because you can believe what you've posted above. You probably don't *feel* irrational, but that's sort of the problem with that whole thing - irrational people can't realize their deficit, because they haven't got anything to compare to. Just as an example, clues that lead rational, normal minded people to see the diatribe above as obvious unhinged nonsense are things like obsessing with 911 as a number group and using it to "connect dots" and prove relations between things (like 9/11 sharing numbers with 911 emergency and have the Rockefellers build the towers in the same year 911 was designated). This is pattern recognition, a basic human trait, run overspeed and off the rails. If all of this stuff had happened in 1911 you'd have also said SEE! 1**911**! IT'S RIGHT THERE, THEY'RE TAUNTING US BUT I CAUGHT THEM! But no, it happened in 1968. Can't worm your way into getting a 911 out of that, so you ignore it and decide what's left that *does* fill your intended pattern is enough to prove ominous portent. But here's the issue with that. You're not noticing these "clues" and forming a conclusion based on evidence. You're *deciding* that evidence must exist, and that for some reason a sinister dark society bent on portals and other nonsense would leave clues to their existence in obvious places like associating numbers, in order to let people know about their secret stuff. That makes no sense. Why would a secret society be so public and obvious? The answer is *because it doesn't exist and you're just forming meaning out of nothing*. It's overactive imagination. The same process is at play everywhere else in your post, but I'll bet dollars to donuts you can't figure out where/how/why. Because your mind doesn't operate correctly. It lacks insight and the ability to rationalize and think about these things meanignfully. You get distracted by random pattern associations, derive intense meaning from those meaningless connections, and then confirm your belief when those connections imply some greater meaning - almost always under the styling of "we're the only people smart enough to crack the code of recognizing '911' in a few places across decades".

C47man

2025-01-19 13:53:25

m818ra8

Look, these coincidences you're connecting don't actually prove anything. The human brain is wired to find patterns even where none exist - it's called apophenia. Let's take the 1968 examples: The 911 emergency number was chosen simply because it was quick to dial on rotary phones and wasn't used as an area code. The WTC construction started then because NYC needed more office space during an economic boom. And Kubrick made 2001 because he was fascinated by space exploration during the Apollo era. The Jay-Z album release on 9/11 was literally just bad timing - the music industry traditionally released new albums on Tuesdays back then, and 9/11/01 happened to be a Tuesday. The album was actually recorded months before. I used to research conspiracy theories too, but I realized most of them fall apart when you apply Occam's Razor: What's more likely - that thousands of people kept a massive ritual secret for 33 years, or that Al-Qaeda terrorists attacked symbols of American power like they explicitly said they would? The Steiner/Crowley/occult connections are just retrofitting meaning onto random events. Real conspiracies (like MK-ULTRA or Iran-Contra) leave paper trails and whistleblowers. Where's the actual evidence for any of these ritual claims beyond coincidences and symbolism?

jaKobbbest3

2025-01-19 14:39:57

CMV: Abortion is murder, I can accept that some murder should be socially acceptable.

I am pro-choice. I would describe my view as aligning with what Bill Clinton said. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. I understand that pro-life people call abortion murder and that it's illegal and thus so should be abortion. The thing is, I agree that it's murder, I'm just okay with murder in a limited range of situations. As I am okay with murder being carried out by the state in some cases of law enforcement and in war. In several states a homicide of a pregnant woman results in 2 murder charges, so the states (including California) acknowledge that terminating a fetus is murder. I was taught in 5th grade science that life begins at fertilization, and if it's a "life" then forcibly ending it is murder. I think the argument that it's not murder came from a need to counter the pro-life argument, not from an honest and logical place. Is it just an emotional position to hold or is there any science or logic in the argument that abortion isn't murder? Edit: If you prefer "premeditated killing of a human" to "murder" I can accept that. I used "murder" as that is the language used in the debate by the pro-life people, and I can accept their use of the word and say that I'm okay with that "murder" then (with some limitations). And at present in many states in many cases at present it is not lawful. **Δ**: Perhaps we should say "killing a potential human", but that doesn't really counter the pro-life argument of "abortion is murder" quite as effectively to say "I'm okay with killing a potential human" as it is to say "I'm okay with a little limited murder". :)

Glum_Macaroon_2580

2025-01-19 23:04:02

m840vtl

"safe legal and rare" is in conflict with "murder" As murder is the term for a crime. You might mean "Justifiable homicide" or something else. But it's not. It's not homicide, not even a person. A bacterium is a "alive," but that doesn't make it human. Human blood cells and tumors are "alive," but they're not "people." A person is a person, and a fetus isn't that. We declare people dead when their brain dies, even if the other cells are alive. A fetus is that.

Kakamile

2025-01-19 23:37:58

m83zdjm

Just switch it to "killing". Because murder has a bunch of legal implications. So it would be factual to say that, in states where it is legal, abortion is not murder. Whereas, you can simply argue that it is "killing a person", and then argue that yes, sometimes killing people is fine. Such as when they are inside you without your consent. Or the fact that we have 2A and that, where you can argue self-defense, you can kill people. Etc.

Meatbot-v20

2025-01-19 23:27:04

CMV: Chinese economy was at its peak in 2019 and now it's going to be a nosedive to the bottom.

There are many crashes happening in China since 2019. One really important thing to remember is that in 1990s, almost 95% of the land in China was owned by the provinces. For 35 years now, the provinces have provided almost all social services and infrastructure projects by selling off land to developers. Now that developers are bankrupt and not buying land anymore, the provinces have no real income. They have no system set up to bring in taxes like a normal regional or state government can do ... and as they do find ways to tax residents directly, that is putting pressure on consumer spending. The other real death cycle is the number of middle class people who are paying a mortgage for a home that was never finished. You have a huge amount of people being forced to pay a mortgage and rent at the same time. In some cases it is even worse because the people got multiple mortgages thinking they could rent out their other homes. Having to pay double housing costs means people have far less money to spend in the economy on other things. Which leads to deflation. Deflation is bad, even inflation under 2% is bad, because it means if you are a consumer, there is no reason for you to buy items today, because you know that in a month the item will be the same price or cheaper. This is why the USA and most EU countries have an inflation goal of 2%. It is low enough that it doesn't really hurt anyone, but it is high enough that it encourages consumer purchases. This keeps the economy churning. Deflation is also terrible for businesses, especially retail items like food, because if you buy an item for your store today, it might sit in your store for a month and have a lower price when you can actually sell it. This is crushing for low-margin businesses like supermarkets and retail stores. This is all terrible, but equally bad is the covert ' decoupling ' by western companies, which have similar effects on the economy. P.S. As pointed out by Chinese economist Gao Shanwen, China's GDP in the past five years has been faked, and the actual GDP is more close to 2% instead of 5%. All major economists point out that China's 2024 GDP of 5% is baloney. Not to mention the fact that Xi Jinpping muzzles, fires, and jails economists who disagree with him.  

nstuch120

2025-01-20 10:41:01

m86r68x

There are many things I'm inclined to agree with here. China is not in a good situation right now. I would say this is their worst economic situation in the post Deng Xiaoping era. And politically Xi is running around with a machete lopping off that post 1980 dream team Chinese institutions put together for heir leadership. Mao rewrote Chinese philosophy with a violent bloody purge. Xi is rewriting Chinese philosophy with a slow dull killing of reality with strongly worded hints of violence. It's pretty fucked up and it's doing bad things to the country. But saying they are going to the bottom is going absurdly too far. It's still a very wealthy country with some very strong infrastructure and industrial base. Their institutions and educational system is IMO rapidly eroding but it's not kaput yet. It's still a gigantic dynamic highly valuable SETA country with tons of resources and highly valuable in the global economic theater. I work in the renewable energy space. The Chinese story for everything I'm aware of is one where they're growth is is being stifled by their political problems which are slowing but not stopping progression. Yes western companies are diversifying their supply chains. They're only doing that because they kicked themselves for not doing so when faced with an overly reliance on Chinese production over the last 20 years. They didn't realize it was a problem until even China sized cities can be shut down by said government for extended periods. China is not going to be a monopoly on manufacturing like we all let it become. They are, unless something truly disruptive upends the direction, going to be an extremely valuable and important manufacturing source for a long time. The Chinese companies I'm more or less aware of are suffering from demand problems because of the problem China's government is causing but they're just kind going dormant. They're not going bankrupt or shutting down. They're waiting. If they can't get orders or supplies they just shutter the factories and tell everyone to come back when they can turn the factories back on when they can start shipping globally. Or even just locally in many cases. Most of our equipment has to be made to order, most somewhat bespoke, cheaper in China which has expertise and localized suppliers to do so. The problem isn't that China can't produce, no one in China wants to buy it now and economically it's not smart for anyone else to place the orders at the scales needed until demand can be understood. And no one can understand demand until China isn't listing positive GDP in their statistical books while clearly shitting the bed every other metric. And American companies are being viciously canceled from competing in China even if it's makes sense and losing a truly massive potential market because they aren't local. Tesla being the latest example. No doubt, China's economy is stagnant compared to its potential if we were all friends. But at least in this sector no one in the world expects anyone to come close to meeting China's rate of production, cost, or supply stockpiles any time in the foreseeable future if China gets anywhere close to solving its politics. The EU and the USA are both fighting to dramatically increase their supply in China. But they're both tripling their TAXES and import tariffs in China counter-Dumping offenses across about 100 commodities. China will be hurt by the tariffs. The EU thinks it's worth the pain for the revenue increase. They both did the math and are willing to implement the taxes even accounting for the offset tbey expect form the dampened supply response the taxes will induce. Again this is really the key part: there is still a massive untapped demand in China. Renewable production for instance. China is a massive producer and it still can't make enough for itself PLUS what it could export if it politically managed to stop fighting everyone over all the seas and get friendly again. Yes supply and demand are fucked and no one trusts China. It's killing itself politically. But economically everyone is doing everything they can to stay scraping the frostiest bits of frost at the surface of the iceberg to stay compliant with everyone's new anti-China centered production Compliance they can while remaining in a stance to capitalize on a recovery in China. The largest expansion of production for China is the USA. Europe and Asia aren't that far behind. They're still a goldmine.

prathiska

2025-01-20 11:56:48

m86gbuo

Looking at the manufacturing industry, the United States is about 2.65 trillion US dollars, accounting for about 10%. China is nearly 3.8 trillion US dollars, which is more than 140% of the United States, accounting for a terrifying 26.3%. China is the world's largest manufacturing country today and the largest manufacturing country in human history. Compared with China, the biggest advantage of the United States is precisely in real estate. One item alone is more than 3 trillion US dollars, accounting for 12% of GDP. In contrast, China's real estate is just over 1 trillion US dollars, less than 1/3 of the United States, accounting for 7.2% of GDP. From this point of view, if China's real estate is a bubble, it can only be said that the US bubble is bigger. After real estate, the United States ranks first in healthcare, with $1.86 trillion, accounting for 7.2%, making it the world's number one healthcare power. China, on the other hand, has less than $350 billion, accounting for 2.4% of GDP. The average life expectancy in the United States is 77.5 years, lower than China's 78.1 years. The United States has spent more than five times the money of China, but the effect is not as good as China, far less than Japan's 85 years, and Europe's 83 years. There is also a large part of the US GDP, called professional and business services, which is $3.3 trillion, accounting for nearly 13%. China's GDP is pitifully small, only more than $400 billion, accounting for 3.2%. It should not be difficult to see from the GDP structure that China's first and second industries have absolute advantages. The tertiary industry is absolutely at a disadvantage. [https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9vmym2jvy9o](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9vmym2jvy9o) Trump even recently launched his own virtual currency. I am speechless about this behavior. Anyone who wants to do manufacturing in the United States is a naive and pathetic person. At the same time, China is taking off its sixth-generation fighter jets. So maybe China just needs to wait for the United States to kill itself.

leng-tian-chi

2025-01-20 11:06:19

CMV: Chinese economy was at its peak in 2019 and now it's going to be a nosedive to the bottom.

There are many crashes happening in China since 2019. One really important thing to remember is that in 1990s, almost 95% of the land in China was owned by the provinces. For 35 years now, the provinces have provided almost all social services and infrastructure projects by selling off land to developers. Now that developers are bankrupt and not buying land anymore, the provinces have no real income. They have no system set up to bring in taxes like a normal regional or state government can do ... and as they do find ways to tax residents directly, that is putting pressure on consumer spending. The other real death cycle is the number of middle class people who are paying a mortgage for a home that was never finished. You have a huge amount of people being forced to pay a mortgage and rent at the same time. In some cases it is even worse because the people got multiple mortgages thinking they could rent out their other homes. Having to pay double housing costs means people have far less money to spend in the economy on other things. Which leads to deflation. Deflation is bad, even inflation under 2% is bad, because it means if you are a consumer, there is no reason for you to buy items today, because you know that in a month the item will be the same price or cheaper. This is why the USA and most EU countries have an inflation goal of 2%. It is low enough that it doesn't really hurt anyone, but it is high enough that it encourages consumer purchases. This keeps the economy churning. Deflation is also terrible for businesses, especially retail items like food, because if you buy an item for your store today, it might sit in your store for a month and have a lower price when you can actually sell it. This is crushing for low-margin businesses like supermarkets and retail stores. This is all terrible, but equally bad is the covert ' decoupling ' by western companies, which have similar effects on the economy. P.S. As pointed out by Chinese economist Gao Shanwen, China's GDP in the past five years has been faked, and the actual GDP is more close to 2% instead of 5%. All major economists point out that China's 2024 GDP of 5% is baloney. Not to mention the fact that Xi Jinpping muzzles, fires, and jails economists who disagree with him.  

nstuch120

2025-01-20 10:41:01

m86f4b9

I agree that it's quite likely that we'll see a long depression in the PRC. But few things are ever certain in macroeconomics, so here are 3 alternatives where the depression doesn't happen: 1. The growing wave of anti-China tariffs from almost every nation on Earth could have the paradoxical benefit of forcing China to sell to the home market. The extreme savings glut caused much of the Chinese housing bubble. Let them spend it on useful goods that actually improve their quality of life, and you may see a huge gain in consumer confidence as the economy gets out of Soviet mode. 2. As you said, some parts of China's government infrastructure, like local taxes (and sewage and old age pensions and honest data, etc) are primitive. But that means that if, in a panicked response, the Party actually does fix these huge mistakes, there are huge gains to productivity! 3. The dark scenario. China has an endless industrial surplus, and a population that's younger than it will be for the foreseeable future. What is that good for? War. It starts with Taiwan. If it goes poorly, they lock into a decades-long war economy trying to wait out their enemies for that one precious island. If it goes well, there are a dozen other expensive expansionist ideas that the Party occasionally floats, only to dismiss as too reckless - taking the Spratleys, "solving" Korea, playing 17th Century merchant imperialism, building USA-style bases in every corner of the world. That could string itself out for a very long time before it collapsed under its own weight.

tomveiltomveil

2025-01-20 11:00:38

m86o6c2

The issues you mention with the developers and with overleveraging on property are acknowledged by the Chinese government. This is literally why they've spent the last several years tearing down their asset bubble piece by piece. Taking control over certain projects, forcing divestment, funding government backed non-luxury housing. They're dealing with that problem head on before that bubble you describe could pop itself. >Deflation is bad, even inflation under 2% is bad, because it means if you are a consumer, there is no reason for you to buy items today, because you know that in a month the item will be the same price or cheaper. This is not how consumers actually spend. Lets flip that around. Today you're not going to rush out and buy a new computer or armchair out of fear of what it'll cost in a year. No one actually plans out purchases according to inflation/deflation rates. Rarely are you sitting on some stockpile of goods that you only have to interface with the economy if you really wanted to. Even for businesses this is mainly important if they're heavily indebted, rather than on day-to-day function. But if we're looking at indebted zombie companies that could never pay off their debt without substantial inflation, why are you proposing that they're so important to prop up? That is just welfarism for businessmen.

EffNein

2025-01-20 11:43:03

CMV: Chinese economy was at its peak in 2019 and now it's going to be a nosedive to the bottom.

There are many crashes happening in China since 2019. One really important thing to remember is that in 1990s, almost 95% of the land in China was owned by the provinces. For 35 years now, the provinces have provided almost all social services and infrastructure projects by selling off land to developers. Now that developers are bankrupt and not buying land anymore, the provinces have no real income. They have no system set up to bring in taxes like a normal regional or state government can do ... and as they do find ways to tax residents directly, that is putting pressure on consumer spending. The other real death cycle is the number of middle class people who are paying a mortgage for a home that was never finished. You have a huge amount of people being forced to pay a mortgage and rent at the same time. In some cases it is even worse because the people got multiple mortgages thinking they could rent out their other homes. Having to pay double housing costs means people have far less money to spend in the economy on other things. Which leads to deflation. Deflation is bad, even inflation under 2% is bad, because it means if you are a consumer, there is no reason for you to buy items today, because you know that in a month the item will be the same price or cheaper. This is why the USA and most EU countries have an inflation goal of 2%. It is low enough that it doesn't really hurt anyone, but it is high enough that it encourages consumer purchases. This keeps the economy churning. Deflation is also terrible for businesses, especially retail items like food, because if you buy an item for your store today, it might sit in your store for a month and have a lower price when you can actually sell it. This is crushing for low-margin businesses like supermarkets and retail stores. This is all terrible, but equally bad is the covert ' decoupling ' by western companies, which have similar effects on the economy. P.S. As pointed out by Chinese economist Gao Shanwen, China's GDP in the past five years has been faked, and the actual GDP is more close to 2% instead of 5%. All major economists point out that China's 2024 GDP of 5% is baloney. Not to mention the fact that Xi Jinpping muzzles, fires, and jails economists who disagree with him.  

nstuch120

2025-01-20 10:41:01

m86vw0m

It's also worth pointing out that most of the economic and fiscal statistics released by China aren't worth spit. We just saw in Bangladesh, for example, that all of their numbers about growth for the last 15 years were falsified to the point where they just basically doubled everything. China is almost certainly no different. I mean, why would anyone trust the word of a government which is so open about the fact that it gleefully suppresses anything which has even a hint of negativity about it?

Ok_Swimming4427

2025-01-20 12:18:27

m86jffx

Possibly fair, but you seem to have forgotten where you're commenting. Rule 1 for this sub: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).

jptiger0

2025-01-20 11:20:56

CMV: socialist capitalist societies provide a better quality of life for their citizens compared to communist societies

based on research and observation, it appears that the worst off class of people under socialist capitalism (capitalist societies with some social welfare programs) will still be better off than the worst off under communism. in critiques of capitalism we talk a lot about wealth disparity, and while i agree this needs to be curbed, i'd argue that the engine of competition and profit drives members of capitalist societies to create innovations which (while disproportionately enriching them) still lift up the worst off members of a society and give them a better quality of life compared to communist nations. ex. americans had a much higher quality of life than soviet russians, many of whom didn't own a fridge or car well into the 1980's. before you say 'owning things doesn't mean a better quality of life'... well, death by pollution and preventable disease was also way higher. i speak both from research and experience- my family grew up in soviet russia (i live in the US now). don't even get me started on china- Mao's failed attempts to make command economy work (spoiler alert: it literally never works) killed millions of Chinese people by famine. in an attempt to better understand how even a fictional communist society could function, i've been reading 'the disposessed' by ursula le guin. while i'm loving the book as a piece of art, i don't find it to be a compelling fictionalized example of functioning communism/anarchism. it seems like le guin avoids grappling with the sort of interpersonal and intertribal violence, physical and mental illness, and environmental pressure that would make a society like this collapse in the real world. i think her values (mutual aid, community, creation v. consumption) are all more likely to be achieved in a socialist capitalist society. 

tiny_friend

2025-01-20 00:09:44

m84dagl

>don't even get me started on china- Mao's failed attempts to make command economy work (spoiler alert: it literally never works) killed millions of Chinese people by famine. China's growth in life expectancy at birth from 35–40 years in 1949 to 65.5 years in 1980 is among the most rapid sustained increases in documented global history. [*An exploration of China's mortality decline under Mao: A provincial analysis, 1950–80*](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4331212) >“The simple facts of Mao’s career seem incredible: in a vast land of 400 million people, at age 28, with a dozen others, to found a party and in the next fifty years to win power, organize, and remold the people and reshape the land–history records no greater achievement. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, all the kings of Europe, Napoleon, Bismarck, Lenin–no predecessor can equal Mao Tse-tung’s scope of accomplishment, for no other country was ever so ancient and so big as China. Indeed Mao’s achievement is almost beyond our comprehension.” To put it briefly Mao: >Doubled China’s population from 542 million to 956 million, >Doubled life expectancy from 35 years to 70 years >Gave everyone free healthcare >Gave everyone free education >Doubled caloric intake >Quintupled GDP >Quadrupled literacy >Liberated women >Increased grain production by 300% >Increased gross industrial output x40 >Increased heavy industry x90 >Increased rail lineage 266% >Increased passenger train traffic from 102,970,000 passengers to 814,910,000 >Increased rail freight tonnage 2000%, increased the road network 1000% >Increased steel production from zero to thirty-five MMT/year >Increased industry’s contribution to China’s net material product from 23% to 54% percent. [https://mronline.org/2017/10/18/mao-reconsidered/](https://mronline.org/2017/10/18/mao-reconsidered/) When Mao took over China, China had basically no industrial capacity, and all foreign exchange and gold were taken to Taiwan by Chiang Kai-shek. Then he spent 20 years to realize the automobile industry, aircraft manufacturing, fighter jets, artificial satellites, artificial synthesis of crystalline bovine insulin, atomic bombs, and hydrogen bombs. If this is called "never works", I am curious about your definition of “works”.

leng-tian-chi

2025-01-20 01:15:55

m8485kx

You should keep reading *The Dispossessed*, because it delves into a lot of what you're describing. There's interpersonal violence and direct confrontation with both mental illness and environmental pressures. We see the society wrestling with what it means to remain Odonian. A problem with your comparison here is simply the different levels of development present in historically communist countries as opposed to the capitalist west. These places were hardly on equal footing at the time of the revolution, with the west significantly more industrialized than Russia, for instance. Add to this that about 27 million Russians died during WWII (compared to about half a million US casualties, almost all military), plus a couple more million dead during WWI. Throw in emerging from the Civil War, which also killed around 7 million. And then add to that the intense economic pressure of having to keep up with a nuclear arms race with the reigning capitalist superpower benefiting from a once-in-a-century economic boom and tight-knit alliances with the other economic powerhouses of the west. Even given these conditions, the USSR catapulted what was basically a technologically under-developed agrarian country into a global superpower and serious economic competitor of the west. I am not suggesting, here, that there weren't serious problems with the Soviet command economy, or that it can't go badly, or that the USSR economy was simplistically superior to the American. But capitalist economies have also gone horrifically. For one thing, they have historically and to a significant extent remain dependent on colonial exploitation. The history of capitalism has to include a reckoning with slavery, with atrocities like the horrors of the Belgian Congo, with the dispossession and genocide of indigenous peoples for settler-colonial societies like Canada, America, Australia, and South Africa. To this day, swathes of the global south are hyper-exploited to keep the global north in cheap goods, while a climate crisis exacerbated by the inability of a market economy to shift rapidly into sustainable energy ravages entire regions. Given all of these factors, I think the comparison you're drawing is a lot harder to make clearly than you're suggesting. "Socialist capitalist" society is a bit of a contradiction in terms, by the way. The term you are probably looking for here is "social democratic."

Delduthling

2025-01-20 00:33:12

CMV: socialist capitalist societies provide a better quality of life for their citizens compared to communist societies

based on research and observation, it appears that the worst off class of people under socialist capitalism (capitalist societies with some social welfare programs) will still be better off than the worst off under communism. in critiques of capitalism we talk a lot about wealth disparity, and while i agree this needs to be curbed, i'd argue that the engine of competition and profit drives members of capitalist societies to create innovations which (while disproportionately enriching them) still lift up the worst off members of a society and give them a better quality of life compared to communist nations. ex. americans had a much higher quality of life than soviet russians, many of whom didn't own a fridge or car well into the 1980's. before you say 'owning things doesn't mean a better quality of life'... well, death by pollution and preventable disease was also way higher. i speak both from research and experience- my family grew up in soviet russia (i live in the US now). don't even get me started on china- Mao's failed attempts to make command economy work (spoiler alert: it literally never works) killed millions of Chinese people by famine. in an attempt to better understand how even a fictional communist society could function, i've been reading 'the disposessed' by ursula le guin. while i'm loving the book as a piece of art, i don't find it to be a compelling fictionalized example of functioning communism/anarchism. it seems like le guin avoids grappling with the sort of interpersonal and intertribal violence, physical and mental illness, and environmental pressure that would make a society like this collapse in the real world. i think her values (mutual aid, community, creation v. consumption) are all more likely to be achieved in a socialist capitalist society. 

tiny_friend

2025-01-20 00:09:44

m8ieho5

And my claim is that it depends at the nation and every case is unique. A small island nation would probably better of in a more communist economy. With several thousand citizens, they'd be better off if the work together and share a rather similar lifestyle. People could choose to leave, but those that stay, need to supportd the local enconomy in a commune organization. Same goes for poor nations. Having a large wealth disparity in a poor nation leads to tension, as those with means are not viewed as successful, but as corrupt cheaters. Young nations would also benefit from a communist model. It is a risk having foreign money and influence come into your nation. Because there is no guarantee that the wealth and the people who bring it will trickle it down and not become sone supreme ruling class. The thing is, its not black and white. I am Israeli, israel was basically founded by Socialists/communists. At a certian point in history, that was more advantageous. But as the country and population and economy grew, they became to large to support a communist/socialist model, and more and more capitalistic approaches were introduced. Its important to note that each system has its pros and cons, and a smart government can evolve to current needs

s_wipe

2025-01-22 04:39:45

m84b9qy

The Nordic model isn't some magical middle ground - it's still fundamentally exploitative. Those countries maintain their high standard of living through neo-colonial exploitation of the Global South and massive oil wealth (looking at you, Norway). I think you're falling into the classic trap of comparing the USSR/China (both primarily agrarian societies that industrialized rapidly) to already-developed Western nations. That's not a fair comparison at all. Look at the quality of life improvements in Cuba compared to similar Caribbean nations, despite decades of crushing US sanctions. Their literacy rate went from 60% to nearly 100%, they have lower infant mortality than the US, and universal healthcare that actually works. Speaking of healthcare - here in the Bay Area we literally step over dying homeless people while Pharma CEOs make billions. Is that the "innovation" you're talking about? The "engine of competition" seems great at creating 15 different kinds of acne cream but terrible at solving actual human needs. Also, you mention Le Guin but seem to miss her core critique - that capitalism commodifies everything, even our relationships and creativity. The "socialist capitalism" you advocate for just puts a friendly face on the same system of exploitation. Real change requires completely reimagining how we organize society, not just adding some welfare programs to make capitalism feel less bad. Look at the growing climate crisis - do you really think a system built on endless growth and consumption can solve that? The market has had 40+ years to address climate change and has utterly failed.

pipswartznag55

2025-01-20 00:58:39

CMV: People who believe in tarot readings, physics etc are really gullible and stupid

psychics, tarot readers, mediums etc are all charlatans who con people out of money. The people they con are usually grieving soma death or in a bad mental space so they subconsciously want to believe the generic nonsense these scammers provide them. If someone could actually talk to the dead (or dogs, believe me there are people who claim this too) then they would do it for free right? But instead they charge plenty of money to spread complete lies. I chatted to someone last night who said "when my father died last year like 4 days after it I went to a medium and they told me that my father forgives me for working so much" Like this is such generic and easy bullshit to say to convince a gullible person. I'm aware some of these people are simply delusional and believe that they actually can do this ( I have friend who's sister believes and I actually believe that she believes) but the majority of these people know they are lying and know they are acting immoral and unethical. If you truly believe in any of this stuff, to me, you're extremely stupid. Edit : I made the funniest and most ironic typo in this folks😆 sorry Edit : "stupid" is too harsh, ignorant and mean. I retract that and will focus on these people being "gullible"

Guapo_1992_lalo

2025-01-19 13:19:32

m80tddg

Specifically about Tarot: Tarot decks and such aren't meant to be ways to tell the future. I don't believe any deck or real "user" of them would tell you such. Instead, they are used to act as a self-reflection tool that pushes certain ideas you may have about your life to the fore front. It helps some people to have an "outside" person(in this case the tarot decks) bring certain archetypes of their life to a position where they would think about them more than they otherwise would. For instance, the Tower is a sign of great and sudden, often violent, upheaval in your life. Some people might need to think about a time in their past they need to get over in a healthier way. Some people might need that push to better prepare for a trying time they know is coming but are putting off.

Tobias_Kitsune

2025-01-19 13:27:23

m81hlij

**Hello /u/Guapo_1992_lalo, if your view has been changed or adjusted in any way, you should award** ***the user who changed your view*** **a delta.** Simply reply to their comment with the delta symbol provided below, being sure to include a brief description of how your view has changed. >∆ or > !delta For more information about deltas, use [this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=changemyview&utm_content=t5_2w2s8). If you did not change your view, please respond to this comment indicating as such! *As a reminder,* **failure to award a delta when it is warranted may merit a post removal and a rule violation.** *Repeated rule violations in a short period of time may merit a ban.* Thank you!

Jaysank

2025-01-19 15:22:59

CMV: Opinions CAN be wrong

Let's say my opinion is that Jesus was the best person on Earth. Someone else might say that Hitler was the best person in earth. Those are both opinions, and since they are contradictory, one must be wrong. I myself am a Christian. I believe God is real. (My opinion). The majority of people disagree with me (Their opinion). One of those opinions must be wrong, because they are contradictory. There are so many more examples I could come up with that offer contradictory opinions, so one of them has to be wrong if they disagree with each other. Even this very argument happening proves me right. It might very well be impossible to convince me wrong, because this is an opinion I have, so it would be impossible to be wrong (Because it creates a paradox that if I was wrong, then I would be right, if that makes any sense. It's hard to put into words.) Edit: I am here to change my view, or at least understand others views. The last thing I said makes it sound like I won't change my view, but it is possible if you prove the last paragraph wrong Note: posted this yesterday with an incorrect title. I'm trying again today

Beneficial_One_1062

2025-01-19 23:16:06

m840xdo

Keeping with your religious theme. You believe in God - Opinion I don't believe in God - Opinion Both of the above are opinions and do NOT contradict each other. Whether or not god exists, doesn't change you or my belief in the matter. You say God is Real - Statement I say God is not Real - Statement Now we have a contradiction is that the above two statements cannot both be correct at the same time. But we also no longer have opinions

KingOfTheJellies

2025-01-19 23:38:17

m8407zn

What they are probably trying to say is tha opinions that are objectively true would be a fact and therefore not an opinion. I would argue against your friends that objectively true facts are not universally accepted and that opinions exists in contradiction to them still. But the example you used about who is the best person between Hitler and Jesus would be subjective and could be opinions held by two different people without either one being objectively wrong.

theTruthseeker22

2025-01-19 23:33:09

CMV: Opinions CAN be wrong

Let's say my opinion is that Jesus was the best person on Earth. Someone else might say that Hitler was the best person in earth. Those are both opinions, and since they are contradictory, one must be wrong. I myself am a Christian. I believe God is real. (My opinion). The majority of people disagree with me (Their opinion). One of those opinions must be wrong, because they are contradictory. There are so many more examples I could come up with that offer contradictory opinions, so one of them has to be wrong if they disagree with each other. Even this very argument happening proves me right. It might very well be impossible to convince me wrong, because this is an opinion I have, so it would be impossible to be wrong (Because it creates a paradox that if I was wrong, then I would be right, if that makes any sense. It's hard to put into words.) Edit: I am here to change my view, or at least understand others views. The last thing I said makes it sound like I won't change my view, but it is possible if you prove the last paragraph wrong Note: posted this yesterday with an incorrect title. I'm trying again today

Beneficial_One_1062

2025-01-19 23:16:06

m8540rw

But why do you believe that? You have an objective sense of morality. If you had a subjective sense of morality then wanting to commit genocide is not morally wrong _for you_. In order for an opinion to be wrong, it requires something to be "right". If there is no right then there can be no wrong.

Noodlesh89

2025-01-20 05:44:14

m83zywt

A fact is not really an opinion. If I say that in my opinion rocks are made of cotton that’s just being wrong. If I say in my opinion gasoline tastes delicious that’s bizarre, but one can’t say it’s incorrect. If in my opinion murder is good, that’s morally wrong but not factually wrong.

talashrrg

2025-01-19 23:31:19

CMV: Germany was not the sole blame for the holocaust

Germany wasn't the sole source of the holocaust. I dislike how Germany is pinned with the sole responsibility of causing the holocaust, and while I am well aware of them being the main perpetrators behind it, if Germany was the only country that despised the jews, the holocaust wouldnt have happened. The whole thing seems like a deflection from other countries so they dont own up to their part of the holocaust The truth is anti-semitism was widespread world-wide. Prior to the extermination of the jews, Germany tried to deport all of the jews within their territories to other countries. No other countries wanted them. United states for instance, only accepted 12,000 jewish people PER YEAR. U.K only accepted around 15,000 per year. There were 9 million jews in europe, many of them being in east europe. Nobody wanted them. This lead to germany resorting to the "final solution" which, as its name implied, was the last option they had to rid themselves of their 'enemy' when they had no other way to do so. Then when the holocaust was actually happening, nobody cared. The Vatican didn't care, the americans largely didnt care, the UK didnt care. If they did mention it, their focus was mainly to paint Germany as the enemy and rally support against Germany. I've read many survivor books, especially the ones where the survivor escaped from the Extermination camps in Operation Reinard. Many of these escapees were targetted not by the germans, but by the polish citizens. They would be robbed and killed when found by the polish. One camp survivor and her husband returned to her home in Holland, and expressed how people would tell them "What are YOU doing here.. we barely have enough food for ourselves." Germany was essentially doing what the vast majority of the people in europe wanted to happen, to get rid of all the jews. After the war, many survivors came out of hiding and to the dismay of the europeans, they'd say "There's still more of you?" The hate was so rampant that many jewish people were "mercifully" deported to Israel by their governments. I just think so many more people played a part in the extermination of the Jews than just Germany, I dislike how these people are absolved of their contributions by deflecting the blame on Germans. Edit: What I want: when people discuss the holocaust, there needs to be a focus on how widespread hatred towards a group of people that if left unchecked, can lead to the holocaust. Stop the emphasis on Nazi Germany and focus on each individual that played a part by allowing or enabling the holocaust to occur. 2nd edit: My view was changed. I may have been conflating widespread anti-semitism as the source of the holocaust. While it definitely was a contributing factor, anti-semitism isnt what built gas chambers and burned millions of jewish bodies

MelodicAd3038

2025-01-19 18:46:41

m82szud

It's not clear to me what your point is. Too often we build straw-man arguments by exploiting semantics. Sole, primary, predominant, people use these words differently and extract meaning from them differently, and it's all kind of silly and pointless do argue over the differences between them. We insert the word absolutely when the person didn't say it. We argue against a statement for it being a generalization when the person was clearly stating it as a simplification. I don't think any serious historians have claimed that the long history of anti-semitism dating back to the middle-ages was not a major contributing factor to the German holocaust. Germany still was the country that rounded 'em up and killed 'em by the millions, not the other countries you listed, so yeah maybe Germany wasn't the solely or exclusively or absolutely to blame but it was predominantly to blame. Happy now? ... I love pizza with all kinds of toppings. what are you saying, all pizza? What about pizza with poop as a topping? ok, not all pizza, most pizza, any pizza without poop or vomit or razor blades as toppings.

Dazzling_Occasion_47

2025-01-19 19:19:14

m82qwsw

If Nazi Germany was the only antisemitic European country in WW2, and all of the other countries that fell under their control were not antisemitic, then the holocaust would have been far less severe than it was, *but it still would have happened*. There still would have been mass deportations to concentration camps, and there still would have been mass deaths at these camps. Depending on how many people they were still able to round up in other countries and how urgently they felt they needed to execute those people, there may have still been death camps. Hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, would have still died. However, without Nazi Germany, there would probably not have been an event on-par with the holocaust, or even with what the holocaust would have been had Germany been the only antisemitic country. While there would have been violence against Jews, it simply wouldn't have been anywhere on the same scale as what Nazi Germany implemented. So while the existing antisemitism in other countries certainly did add to the severity of the holocaust, Nazi Germany is still uniquely responsible for the holocaust actually happening.

sapperbloggs

2025-01-19 19:08:05

CMV: Germany was not the sole blame for the holocaust

Germany wasn't the sole source of the holocaust. I dislike how Germany is pinned with the sole responsibility of causing the holocaust, and while I am well aware of them being the main perpetrators behind it, if Germany was the only country that despised the jews, the holocaust wouldnt have happened. The whole thing seems like a deflection from other countries so they dont own up to their part of the holocaust The truth is anti-semitism was widespread world-wide. Prior to the extermination of the jews, Germany tried to deport all of the jews within their territories to other countries. No other countries wanted them. United states for instance, only accepted 12,000 jewish people PER YEAR. U.K only accepted around 15,000 per year. There were 9 million jews in europe, many of them being in east europe. Nobody wanted them. This lead to germany resorting to the "final solution" which, as its name implied, was the last option they had to rid themselves of their 'enemy' when they had no other way to do so. Then when the holocaust was actually happening, nobody cared. The Vatican didn't care, the americans largely didnt care, the UK didnt care. If they did mention it, their focus was mainly to paint Germany as the enemy and rally support against Germany. I've read many survivor books, especially the ones where the survivor escaped from the Extermination camps in Operation Reinard. Many of these escapees were targetted not by the germans, but by the polish citizens. They would be robbed and killed when found by the polish. One camp survivor and her husband returned to her home in Holland, and expressed how people would tell them "What are YOU doing here.. we barely have enough food for ourselves." Germany was essentially doing what the vast majority of the people in europe wanted to happen, to get rid of all the jews. After the war, many survivors came out of hiding and to the dismay of the europeans, they'd say "There's still more of you?" The hate was so rampant that many jewish people were "mercifully" deported to Israel by their governments. I just think so many more people played a part in the extermination of the Jews than just Germany, I dislike how these people are absolved of their contributions by deflecting the blame on Germans. Edit: What I want: when people discuss the holocaust, there needs to be a focus on how widespread hatred towards a group of people that if left unchecked, can lead to the holocaust. Stop the emphasis on Nazi Germany and focus on each individual that played a part by allowing or enabling the holocaust to occur. 2nd edit: My view was changed. I may have been conflating widespread anti-semitism as the source of the holocaust. While it definitely was a contributing factor, anti-semitism isnt what built gas chambers and burned millions of jewish bodies

MelodicAd3038

2025-01-19 18:46:41

m82vjja

Germany might not have been the only country with issues of antisemitism, but it was Nazi Germany that planned, executed, and industrialized the Holocaust. Sure, other countries could have done more to help, but let’s not get confused here – the Holocaust didn’t happen because of widespread antisemitism alone. It happened because specific actions were taken by the Nazi regime, in Germany, to systematically murder millions of people. This wasn’t just a case of other countries not giving a crap, it was a well-oiled genocide machine, driven by Nazi ideology. And dude, saying things like "Germany was essentially doing what the vast majority of the people in Europe wanted" doesn't hold water. Many people risked their lives to save Jews, and entire countries like Denmark made massive efforts to help. Sure, Poland had issues with antisemitism – but they were under occupation and Polish citizens didn’t orchestrate the mass murder inside death camps. Yes, we should recognize antisemitism was a global problem, but that historical context doesn’t mean all other countries are equally responsible for the Holocaust. It doesn’t exonerate Germany’s role. Talking about shared blame dilutes the responsibility of those who actively engineered, carried out, and perpetuated the actual mass killing. Differentiate between latent antisemitism and active genocide. The focus on Nazi Germany isn’t just pinning blame; it's about acknowledging the uniquely horrific actions they took that others did not. Let's not lose sight of the fact that anti-semitic sentiment wasn’t equivalent to orchestrating genocide, which Nazi Germany absolutely did.

ercantadorde

2025-01-19 19:32:40

m82q3s3

Germany gets blame for most of it as they actually not only perpetuated it, but expanded their persecution of the Jews to most European countries. Yes, citizens of those European countries WERE incredibly antisemitic, but the Germans spread their influence, and rhetoric to other countries. I doubt the Holocaust, for instance, would have reached Greece, or Holland in the scale that it did were it not for the Germany-led Axis. Another important note is that Germany is seen as a country which actually learned a lesson from the Holocaust, as they turned themselves completely around (or so popular opinion goes, at least). It's much easier to point out antisemitism in Germany, for instance, who actively educates their population about antisemitism, than it is to point out antisemitism in Egypt, for instance, where the government run newspapers publish Holocaust-denial material. Also, your knowledge on the Final Solution and the Jewish exodus from Europe is faulty. Germany didn't really try to deport in a larger scale its Jews to other countries, and the Final Solution wasn't caused because "not enough Jews were accepted in other countries". It occurred regardless, and Jews weren't "deported to Israel" afterwards; The truth is, communication between Jewish communities was faulty, the Jewish community in Europe was relatively poor, Jews had been living in Europe for Millenia at the start of WW2, and the German advance was quick as well. Jews weren't deported to Israel either, they voluntarily left, either because they lived (even beforehand) somewhat secluded in Europe, or because they were kicked out from most Arab countries. The fact that most already knew Hebrew to some degree made it logical. It was the 1940's, technology could only go so far back then.

artisticthrowaway123

2025-01-19 19:03:57

CMV: TikTok is deliberately suppressing anti-China content, and this is sufficient to justify banning the app.

EDIT: I will report every comment that breaks rule 1, all they do is clog up the comment section. I'm here to learn something new. EDIT 2: If you're making a factual claim (ex. the US is forcing Facebook/Instagram/etc to manipulate content), I'm *much* more likely to give you a delta if it comes with a source. I've seen a lot of posts about TikTok recently, but relatively few posts with sources, so I thought I'd throw my hat into the ring. [This substack article](https://thezvi.substack.com/i/142559317/tiktok-promoting-chinese-interests) was what convinced me of my current views. It's very long, but I'll focus this CMV on what is IMO the strongest point. In December 2023, a think tank did a [study](https://networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/A-Tik-Tok-ing-Timebomb_12.21.23.pdf) comparing how common different hashtags are on Instagram and TikTok. Using ordinary political topics like Trump, Biden, BLM, MAGA, etc as a baseline, they found a few significant differences (page 8), but nothing that I don't think could be explained by selection effects. On the other hand, when they looked at content related to China, [they found a rather different pattern:](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F429fa831-69e8-4faf-bf10-7925282c513c_1042x759.jpeg) - Pro-Ukraine, pro-Uighur, and pro-Taiwan hashtags are about 10x less common on TikTok as they are on Instagram. - Hashtags about Tibet are about 25x less common. (Edit: A [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1i4wew7/cmv_people_dont_actually_understand_what_the/m809rst/) in another thread suggested that you could get 25x because TikTok wasn't around when Tibet was a bigger issue.) - Hashtags about [Hong Kong](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F5a2856f7-af25-4f08-91cd-fe9a43bf51af_978x1003.png) and Tianenmen Square are over 100x (!!) less common. - Conversely, hashtags about Kashmir separatism in India are [~1000x *more* common.](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F51e2a055-b3f3-43f5-8430-f0192da03e97_974x227.png) I don't think you can explain this with selection bias. Absent a coordinated effort from everyone who posts about Tianenmen Square to boycott TikTok, a 100x difference is *far* too large to occur naturally. The cleanest explanation is that the CCP is requiring TikTok--a Chinese company that legally has to obey them--to tweak their algorithm to suppress views they don't like. I think this justifies banning TikTok on its own. Putting aside the other concerns (privacy, push notifications in a crisis, etc), the fact that an unfriendly foreign country is trying to influence US citizens' views via content manipulation--and not just on trivial stuff, on major political issues--is an enormous problem. We wouldn't let Russia buy the New York Times, so why let China retain control over an app that over a third of all Americans use? (I'm fully aware that the US government has pressured US social media companies about content before. That said, if my only options are "my government manipulates what I see" and "my government *and* an unfriendly government manipulate what I see", I would prefer "nobody manipulates what I see" but would settle for the former if that's not an option.) Here's a few possible ways you could change my view (note: if you can give me links or sources I will be much more likely to award deltas): - Find major problems with the posted studies that make me doubt the results. - Convince me that the bill is problematic enough that it's not worth passing even if TikTok *is* manipulating content. - Show that the US is pressuring social media companies to suppress anti-US content on a similar scale (this wouldn't change my views about banning TikTok, but it would change my views about the US). - Convince me that most of the bill's support in Congress comes from reasons other than content manipulation and privacy (you'll need a good argument for how strong the effect is, I already know that e.g. Meta has spent boatloads lobbying for this bill but I'm not sure how many votes this has bought them). CMV!

Tinac4

2025-01-19 12:36:59

m80x344

The methodology in those studies are flawed and biased. While the ratio of pop culture is understandable, for politics and geo politics makes zero sense. Even disregarding the user size of each platforms people or even bots on IG repost and share simple posts in support of a cause. Even people without proper understanding or anything to say post using these hashtags. While on Tiktok people that post these issues are people that has something to say, and once the content is published It is not endlessly reposted using the same hashtag. Consider this simple example, a school of 1000 students might have 200 students that reposted/shared content relating to the Uyghur Genocide due to It's high probability of being in the same user circle/community. While the same school of 1000 students might only have 1 student that created a tiktok talking about the issue. The IG reposts does in fact add to the hashtag count, while the tiktok content being shared/reposted does not, considering It links back to the original content. Remember that for an issue to be viewed or heard, the content itself needs to exist in the first place. Meaning that there is no easy way to simply fake an agenda, for a bad actor to sway the mass public the content needs to exist in the first place for it to be pushed. On IG a support or call to action can simply be in text or a photo that Is reposted over and over. While on tiktok, any text heavy and repetitive posts are simply ignored and skipped. The only way that a state actor can truly use Tiktok for such influance is If the actual large content creators are actual assets, and It cant be only 10 or 20 considering that people wont be swayed by a low volume of arguments being made, and not everyone would be in the algo for the 10 to 20 creators that are "assets". The misconception of the Tiktok algo is that It's so good that they know you better than you know yourself. This is false as a user likes those tiktoks because they exist to begin with and by interacting with some those topics that you did not skip started to grow on you and you begin to like them. Users like content that other people have created, content was not created specifically for certain users most suitable preferences. If the algo was really that good or accurate you would have stopped skiping videos after a while, and even in that scenario It would still not make sense as suddenly there is no preprences being trained on considering you did not skip any. I find It quite hard for a non beliver to be swayed on Tiktok, If free Palestine videos did not resonate with you, most of the time you insta skipped them and there would be less and less of them on your feed (even if there are more most likely you simply skip them again), but on IG if your friends or even public figure posts them you see them everywhere, the IG content in most cases are consumed instantly upon viewing without you being interested.

OnitsukaTigerOGNike

2025-01-19 13:44:44

m81bg22

>Yes I agree that this is a problem. I don’t think that justifies banning one company. This sets a dangerous precedent and would be extraordinarily corrupt. For that reason I don’t agree with your assembly that “well it’s better than nothing.” It’s actually worse than nothing because it would be a case of the government directly censoring speech just because it is alleged to be pro-China. You’re basically saying it’s okay for our government to censor speech. Hm, then where do you think we should draw the line? There's a weird philosophical gray area here between unfriendly influence and censorship (see [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1i53y3p/cmv_tiktok_is_deliberately_suppressing_antichina/m80mrwo/)), and I'm not sure what a good policy that works around both would look like. "No social media companies owned by unfriendly countries" seems like an *okayish* precedent to set, although I'd change my mind on that pretty quickly if the US started playing fast and loose with the "unfriendly countries" list. >I actually don’t care one way or the other…I don’t use tik tok. But I also think it’s suspicious how much US competitors are lobbying for the ban. I also think it’s funny that Trump was the one that first tried to ban it but is now promising to save it. Don't get me wrong, I think there's plenty of self-interest floating around. Meta has an obvious stake in this and they're lobbying heavily for the ban, Trump accepted a donation from a major TikTok stakeholder immediately before announcing that he had changed his mind and was against the ban, and so on. If you have other examples of stuff like this having an observable political impact--if you can convince me that non-security stuff has an even bigger influence on the bill than I think it does, IMO the biggest reason Congress voted for it is security--I'd probably give you a delta.

Tinac4

2025-01-19 14:53:02

CMV: TikTok is deliberately suppressing anti-China content, and this is sufficient to justify banning the app.

EDIT: I will report every comment that breaks rule 1, all they do is clog up the comment section. I'm here to learn something new. EDIT 2: If you're making a factual claim (ex. the US is forcing Facebook/Instagram/etc to manipulate content), I'm *much* more likely to give you a delta if it comes with a source. I've seen a lot of posts about TikTok recently, but relatively few posts with sources, so I thought I'd throw my hat into the ring. [This substack article](https://thezvi.substack.com/i/142559317/tiktok-promoting-chinese-interests) was what convinced me of my current views. It's very long, but I'll focus this CMV on what is IMO the strongest point. In December 2023, a think tank did a [study](https://networkcontagion.us/wp-content/uploads/A-Tik-Tok-ing-Timebomb_12.21.23.pdf) comparing how common different hashtags are on Instagram and TikTok. Using ordinary political topics like Trump, Biden, BLM, MAGA, etc as a baseline, they found a few significant differences (page 8), but nothing that I don't think could be explained by selection effects. On the other hand, when they looked at content related to China, [they found a rather different pattern:](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F429fa831-69e8-4faf-bf10-7925282c513c_1042x759.jpeg) - Pro-Ukraine, pro-Uighur, and pro-Taiwan hashtags are about 10x less common on TikTok as they are on Instagram. - Hashtags about Tibet are about 25x less common. (Edit: A [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1i4wew7/cmv_people_dont_actually_understand_what_the/m809rst/) in another thread suggested that you could get 25x because TikTok wasn't around when Tibet was a bigger issue.) - Hashtags about [Hong Kong](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F5a2856f7-af25-4f08-91cd-fe9a43bf51af_978x1003.png) and Tianenmen Square are over 100x (!!) less common. - Conversely, hashtags about Kashmir separatism in India are [~1000x *more* common.](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F51e2a055-b3f3-43f5-8430-f0192da03e97_974x227.png) I don't think you can explain this with selection bias. Absent a coordinated effort from everyone who posts about Tianenmen Square to boycott TikTok, a 100x difference is *far* too large to occur naturally. The cleanest explanation is that the CCP is requiring TikTok--a Chinese company that legally has to obey them--to tweak their algorithm to suppress views they don't like. I think this justifies banning TikTok on its own. Putting aside the other concerns (privacy, push notifications in a crisis, etc), the fact that an unfriendly foreign country is trying to influence US citizens' views via content manipulation--and not just on trivial stuff, on major political issues--is an enormous problem. We wouldn't let Russia buy the New York Times, so why let China retain control over an app that over a third of all Americans use? (I'm fully aware that the US government has pressured US social media companies about content before. That said, if my only options are "my government manipulates what I see" and "my government *and* an unfriendly government manipulate what I see", I would prefer "nobody manipulates what I see" but would settle for the former if that's not an option.) Here's a few possible ways you could change my view (note: if you can give me links or sources I will be much more likely to award deltas): - Find major problems with the posted studies that make me doubt the results. - Convince me that the bill is problematic enough that it's not worth passing even if TikTok *is* manipulating content. - Show that the US is pressuring social media companies to suppress anti-US content on a similar scale (this wouldn't change my views about banning TikTok, but it would change my views about the US). - Convince me that most of the bill's support in Congress comes from reasons other than content manipulation and privacy (you'll need a good argument for how strong the effect is, I already know that e.g. Meta has spent boatloads lobbying for this bill but I'm not sure how many votes this has bought them). CMV!

Tinac4

2025-01-19 12:36:59

m81fq57

>Evidence and conclusive proof are distinct, though. If a defrosting steak mysteriously vanishes off the counter, and I didn't see my dog steal and eat it, I may not have proof that he ate the steak but I'm still going to make assumptions based on past behavior. If you're basing your assumptions off known behavior, then US media amplification/depreciation of certain narratives, e.g. Israel and Palestine, ought to suffice as evidence of content manipulation in US social media too. If you believe that to be too lax a standard of evidence, then that ought to apply for the Chinese case wrt to TikTok as well. >For what it's worth, I'll apply an equal standard of evidence here: If someone can find a non-US social media site (maybe a country in Europe/SA/Asia that's not a major ally or enemy of the US?) and it turns out that US-sensitive content on that site is far more common than it is in, say, Instagram within that country, I'll call that good evidence that US social media is doing the same thing. Maybe this is unfair because most large social media companies are American, but I'll put it out there regardless. Yes, but what's even a sizeable non-US or non-Chinese social media site? If it's niche and small, it would not be imperative for big state actors (US/China/Russia) to promote/suppress certain content anyway. >Interesting, could you elaborate on this? From https://www.spectator.co.uk/podcast/social-credit-system/ : >But more fundamentally, the social credit system is not just one system. ‘It’s more of an umbrella term’, Jeremy Daum tells me on the episode. He is the senior research fellow at Yale Law School’s Paul Tsai China Center, who also runs the blog China Law Translate (which does what it says on the tin). Jeremy has spent years myth-busting the social credit system. He says that for some institutions, social credit is a financial record (‘credit’ as in ‘credit card’); for others, it is a way of black-marking unscrupulous companies that in the past fell short of, say, food safety standards (a particularly sensitive topic in China, given the milk powder scandal). In fact, social credit often functionally works as a way of determining how trustworthy a company is, like a government-run Yelp or Trustpilot system (the Merics report found that most targets of are companies rather than individuals).

himesama

2025-01-19 15:13:52

m80kwcq

>(I'm fully aware that the US government has pressured US social media companies about content before. That said, if my only options are "my government manipulates what I see" and "my government *and* an unfriendly government manipulate what I see", I would prefer "nobody manipulates what I see" but would settle for the former if that's not an option.) This is the part I want to interact with. Information presented to you will always be manipulated, even if it's done in good faith. We choose words, we rhythm, diction, emphasis. People need to be educated on how to see information, assume a few biases, and then step back and reflect on what else they know. We need to be educated on how information affects us, how the choices other people (and institutions) make affect us. I don't like short form content, I don't like how it makes me feel, I don't like how much time it takes from the people I see who use it, I don't like how the past 15 years seems to be a race to the bottom for online discussions. And I think there are people now who say "Yeah, this didn't work out" who had nothing but optimism before. Some people learned (or they and I are wrong, which is always an option). What seems self evident to some people requires first hand experience for others to learn (just look at the trope of children ignoring their parents advice). Certainly that's how I've had to learn some hard life lessons. If Americans were informed enough, disciplined enough, if we had enough leisure time, if we weren't over-worked and desperate, if we had more time to read, if we valued longer discussions with more nuance, if we aspired to live like Picards and Bartlets, then tiktok would just be something people flipped on for five or ten minutes while the car heats up to see updates on cat rescues and home renovations. Tiktok shouldn't need to be banned, people just shouldn't want to use it as much. Same as with elections - if we want the awesome responsibility of freedom, then we need to equip ourselves appropriately.

SatisfactoryLoaf

2025-01-19 12:48:10

CMV: Conservatives Will Dominate America for the Next ~20 Years

Note: By “conservatives,” I mean both Republicans and conservative Democrats. Trump’s win in November was resounding in every way except the final popular vote tally. Trump won every swing state, and every state moved to the right. Trump fell short of a true majority of the popular vote and only won it by 1.5 points, but it was still the first time a Republican won the popular vote since 2004. Additionally, Republicans won over millions of voters from majority-Democratic voting blocs. Many left-leaning people have claimed, falsely, that Democrats lost due to low turnout. In truth, the 2024 election saw the second-highest turnout of any presidential election, and swing states like Georgia and North Carolina saw record turnout. By all metrics, the Harris-Walz team’s attempts to “get out the vote” worked. They successfully got out the vote… for Trump. Indeed, Trump won both Independents and first-time voters. Trump won *because* of high turnout. High turnout no longer benefits Democrats. All post-election polling has suggested that Republicans are now the more popular party. Overall, America shifted to the right by four points in 2024. One poll found that 43 percent of voters viewed Democrats favorably and 50 percent viewed them unfavorably. Increasingly, Democrats are viewed as affluent, out-of-touch, college-educated elites who ask for votes and never return the favor. Most voters trust Republicans more on the economy, immigration, and crime. The economy and immigration were the two most important issues for voters last year. Most voters support mass deportations, which Trump has repeatedly promised to begin on day one. It’s obvious that MAGA has won over the majority of voters, which is also why Democrats are starting to move towards the center on issues, immigration chief among them. The shifts among key demographics are even more alarming. Harris barely won a majority of the Latino vote, and most Latino men voted for Trump. Harris won Asians nationally, but Asians in Nevada shifted to the right by more than *50 points*. Democrats may have permanently lost the Muslim vote because Muslims hate ~~Jews~~ ~~Israel~~ “genocide,” and the recent ceasefire deal, in which Trump was apparently instrumental, might have been the final nail in the coffin, especially considering Muslims’ social views make white evangelicals seem progressive. That could mean that Democrats will never again win Michigan. Other racial and religious groups, such as blacks and Jews, also shifted to the right by smaller amounts. However, the most alarming shift is among young voters. According to the AP VoteCast, Harris only won young voters by 4 points; Biden carried them by more than 30. Young men especially are rapidly shifting towards the GOP. The reasons for this shift are debated, though many attribute it to perceived abandonment and/or demonization of men by the left. Also worth noting are the issues that are genuinely worse for men, such as the male suicide rate. For instance, the percentage of college students who are female now is roughly equal to the percentage of college students who were male prior to Title IX, and college enrollment among men is declining. More and more men are opting for trade schools instead, largely due to costs. This is important because college-educated people tend to be more liberal (the so-called “diploma divide”), while tradespeople tend to be very conservative. Lastly, since young voters’ views tend to be the most malleable, it stands to reason that more and more young voters will embrace MAGA. This shift to the right is not limited to the US. In fact, the West as a whole is moving sharply to the right, largely for the same reasons as the US: the economy and immigration. The Conservatives are all but guaranteed to take control of Canada later this year and were even before Trudeau’s resignation. Although Labour took control of Parliament just last year, its popularity has already plummeted, and Reform UK’s popularity has surged. The SPD is poised to get voted out this year, and the AfD is becoming more popular by the minute. Now, the situation in Europe is different - and frankly, more dire - than the situation here in the States. Europe is currently facing widespread economic stagnation, and European society is being upended by immigration, particularly from the Islamic world. Similarly, largely unrestricted immigration in Canada has inflated home prices and created numerous social issues. As a result, left-wing parties haven’t been this unpopular since the Cold War, and right-wing populist parties who claim to have solutions are rapidly gaining popularity. Arguably, Trump’s comeback was the final nail in the coffin for the progressivism of the early century. At the time of writing, all signs point to a generation of right-wing dominance of America and the West as a whole.

Emperor_Kyrius

2025-01-19 16:37:13

m837hw2

You're suffering from recency bias. You've paid attention to one or two elections and you're making big conclusions based on only these couple elections, and I'm not sure how true many of your conclusions are. After Bush, Republicans looked like shit, and it took some time before Trump revitalized the party with xenophobia, nationalism, and illiberalism. Then we had a couple terms of Obama, and people wanted change, and that was Trump. But Trump has never done all that well, not like Obama. He barely won in 2016, losing the popular vote, and that was with a whole foreign disinformation campaign aiding him. In 2020, he lost, again with a massive disinformation campaign (much more locally led this time). Now he won again, but it wasn't some landslide victory. He barely won the popular vote, and the Democratic campaign was *historically bad*. There's never been anything like it where the primary winner, the incumbent president, had to drop out with less than three months to the general election. If Democrats had won it would have been a miracle, honestly. Trump was a known quantity, while Harris wasn't, and people were nostalgic for pre COVID times. All of these things make it very difficult to extrapolate very far, because they were very unique situations. So, we'll see how Trump's term goes. He has a lot of shit plans that people are going to feel pretty quickly that could very well result in Republicans shitting the bed for the next decade or two. If the ACA gets repealed, social security and Medicare get cut, etc. people are going to start getting pretty pissed off, especially when they see how much debt the country is going into to make sure billionaires like Trump and Musk get to hoard every dollar. We have no idea who's going to be running in 2028, we have no idea how much damage will be done to our institutions, we don't know if Trump will try passing the torch to one of his children to start a dynasty, and if that happens then a Democrat could be the "outsider" in 2028. You're just drawing way too many conclusions from a single election, basically. It really doesn't say as much as you seem to think it does.

neotericnewt

2025-01-19 20:37:23

m82j2c4

As you said in you're post, right wing politics is getting popular because of the economy. If Trump fails to fix the economy (or the economy gets worse under his presidency) then Republicans will have a hard time winning in 2028. And the youth vote may be going more right, but I think it's too early to tell. One of the bigger problems was that youth voter turnout was lower than 2020 (only 42% of eligible youths voted compared to 52% in 2020). Part of that may be because people who lean democrat didn't feel Biden enacted enough change so they didn't vote. While Trump represented change, so young people who lean republican were incentivized to vote. If Democrats can get more youth to vote, it may help them. Also, the biggest issue for youth voters was the Economy, with 40% of young men and 39% of women saying that was their biggest issue. Again, if Trump fails to fix the economy, republicans may struggle with the youth vote. The source for all my numbers is: [https://now.tufts.edu/2024/11/12/young-voters-shifted-toward-trump-still-favored-harris-overall](https://now.tufts.edu/2024/11/12/young-voters-shifted-toward-trump-still-favored-harris-overall) It's not shocking the Republican Party is viewed favorably right now, people see a lot of problems in the country (economy, immigration, etc.) and are blaming the party in power. But it's too early to tell is Republicans are going to do well in the future. Maybe Trump will have a great economy and enact immigration reform, paving an easy path in 2028. Or maybe his tariffs will badly hurt the economy, maybe China will attack Taiwan and cause a lot of inflation due to chip shortages, maybe Trump will die 2 years into his term. It's too early to tell.

avancini12

2025-01-19 18:25:11

CMV: Conservatives Will Dominate America for the Next ~20 Years

Note: By “conservatives,” I mean both Republicans and conservative Democrats. Trump’s win in November was resounding in every way except the final popular vote tally. Trump won every swing state, and every state moved to the right. Trump fell short of a true majority of the popular vote and only won it by 1.5 points, but it was still the first time a Republican won the popular vote since 2004. Additionally, Republicans won over millions of voters from majority-Democratic voting blocs. Many left-leaning people have claimed, falsely, that Democrats lost due to low turnout. In truth, the 2024 election saw the second-highest turnout of any presidential election, and swing states like Georgia and North Carolina saw record turnout. By all metrics, the Harris-Walz team’s attempts to “get out the vote” worked. They successfully got out the vote… for Trump. Indeed, Trump won both Independents and first-time voters. Trump won *because* of high turnout. High turnout no longer benefits Democrats. All post-election polling has suggested that Republicans are now the more popular party. Overall, America shifted to the right by four points in 2024. One poll found that 43 percent of voters viewed Democrats favorably and 50 percent viewed them unfavorably. Increasingly, Democrats are viewed as affluent, out-of-touch, college-educated elites who ask for votes and never return the favor. Most voters trust Republicans more on the economy, immigration, and crime. The economy and immigration were the two most important issues for voters last year. Most voters support mass deportations, which Trump has repeatedly promised to begin on day one. It’s obvious that MAGA has won over the majority of voters, which is also why Democrats are starting to move towards the center on issues, immigration chief among them. The shifts among key demographics are even more alarming. Harris barely won a majority of the Latino vote, and most Latino men voted for Trump. Harris won Asians nationally, but Asians in Nevada shifted to the right by more than *50 points*. Democrats may have permanently lost the Muslim vote because Muslims hate ~~Jews~~ ~~Israel~~ “genocide,” and the recent ceasefire deal, in which Trump was apparently instrumental, might have been the final nail in the coffin, especially considering Muslims’ social views make white evangelicals seem progressive. That could mean that Democrats will never again win Michigan. Other racial and religious groups, such as blacks and Jews, also shifted to the right by smaller amounts. However, the most alarming shift is among young voters. According to the AP VoteCast, Harris only won young voters by 4 points; Biden carried them by more than 30. Young men especially are rapidly shifting towards the GOP. The reasons for this shift are debated, though many attribute it to perceived abandonment and/or demonization of men by the left. Also worth noting are the issues that are genuinely worse for men, such as the male suicide rate. For instance, the percentage of college students who are female now is roughly equal to the percentage of college students who were male prior to Title IX, and college enrollment among men is declining. More and more men are opting for trade schools instead, largely due to costs. This is important because college-educated people tend to be more liberal (the so-called “diploma divide”), while tradespeople tend to be very conservative. Lastly, since young voters’ views tend to be the most malleable, it stands to reason that more and more young voters will embrace MAGA. This shift to the right is not limited to the US. In fact, the West as a whole is moving sharply to the right, largely for the same reasons as the US: the economy and immigration. The Conservatives are all but guaranteed to take control of Canada later this year and were even before Trudeau’s resignation. Although Labour took control of Parliament just last year, its popularity has already plummeted, and Reform UK’s popularity has surged. The SPD is poised to get voted out this year, and the AfD is becoming more popular by the minute. Now, the situation in Europe is different - and frankly, more dire - than the situation here in the States. Europe is currently facing widespread economic stagnation, and European society is being upended by immigration, particularly from the Islamic world. Similarly, largely unrestricted immigration in Canada has inflated home prices and created numerous social issues. As a result, left-wing parties haven’t been this unpopular since the Cold War, and right-wing populist parties who claim to have solutions are rapidly gaining popularity. Arguably, Trump’s comeback was the final nail in the coffin for the progressivism of the early century. At the time of writing, all signs point to a generation of right-wing dominance of America and the West as a whole.

Emperor_Kyrius

2025-01-19 16:37:13

m8dyjji

You're assuming a few things here that are really important oversights: 1. You're assuming that Trump's policies are 100% going to work. When it doesn't, people will be less likely to listen to the republicans. That's why Trump didn't win 2020. Far Right incumbency is a curse for them. 2. You're assuming Trump and Kamala were on the same playing field... Trump is a white billionaire with a Trusted name and a flair for drumming up media attention. Kamala is a Black, Asian woman who was given 104 days to campaign for her party, who had been staunchly against her for her whole term as vice president. You can remove everything else from that except for their gender and race and Trump is still on top. 3. You are correct in saying that this election had a higher turnout than usual. But you're still incorrect in saying that the turnout did not have a role to play. It is a known fact that higher turnouts tend to be better for the democrats. In fact, in most high turnout elections, the democrats win the popular vote. The other thing is that 64% turnout nationally is not high. I'll give you that it was BETTER in some swing states but the majority of them had a turnout within 2% of the national turnout.

Alexhasadhd

2025-01-21 13:06:33

m82ixet

Well, lets see how people feel once they've had another 4 years of the GOP. It's easier to be a conservative in modern America, since you are explicitly trying to *not* solve problems and just kick the can down the road, which is good for campaigning, but you either believe that the electorate will eventually hold them accountable for that or not. If not, then why bother participating in the process at all? However, the easiest response to this is to go back one election cycle. Prior to inflation kicking off, Democrats were absolutely *crushing* Republicans. I mean, all the arguments you make about Mr Trump in 2024 are probably broadly true in 2020. Biden/Harris won a *far* more resounding victory than Mr Trump did in 2024 or 2016. This is sort of the prejudice of lower standards, you know? We're so used to Republicans being so wildly unpopular and relying on gerrymandering and the last holdover of the slaveocracy (the Electoral College) to become elected that even a narrow win in the popular vote gets transformed into something it isn't. TL;DR - you need to explain why this shift to the right is more meaningful, more sharp, and more permanent than the shift to the left was in 2020 before we can even *begin* to debate the merits of your post. Fundamentally all you've done is prove how susceptible you are to recency bias.

Ok_Swimming4427

2025-01-19 18:24:27

CMV: Conservatives Will Dominate America for the Next ~20 Years

Note: By “conservatives,” I mean both Republicans and conservative Democrats. Trump’s win in November was resounding in every way except the final popular vote tally. Trump won every swing state, and every state moved to the right. Trump fell short of a true majority of the popular vote and only won it by 1.5 points, but it was still the first time a Republican won the popular vote since 2004. Additionally, Republicans won over millions of voters from majority-Democratic voting blocs. Many left-leaning people have claimed, falsely, that Democrats lost due to low turnout. In truth, the 2024 election saw the second-highest turnout of any presidential election, and swing states like Georgia and North Carolina saw record turnout. By all metrics, the Harris-Walz team’s attempts to “get out the vote” worked. They successfully got out the vote… for Trump. Indeed, Trump won both Independents and first-time voters. Trump won *because* of high turnout. High turnout no longer benefits Democrats. All post-election polling has suggested that Republicans are now the more popular party. Overall, America shifted to the right by four points in 2024. One poll found that 43 percent of voters viewed Democrats favorably and 50 percent viewed them unfavorably. Increasingly, Democrats are viewed as affluent, out-of-touch, college-educated elites who ask for votes and never return the favor. Most voters trust Republicans more on the economy, immigration, and crime. The economy and immigration were the two most important issues for voters last year. Most voters support mass deportations, which Trump has repeatedly promised to begin on day one. It’s obvious that MAGA has won over the majority of voters, which is also why Democrats are starting to move towards the center on issues, immigration chief among them. The shifts among key demographics are even more alarming. Harris barely won a majority of the Latino vote, and most Latino men voted for Trump. Harris won Asians nationally, but Asians in Nevada shifted to the right by more than *50 points*. Democrats may have permanently lost the Muslim vote because Muslims hate ~~Jews~~ ~~Israel~~ “genocide,” and the recent ceasefire deal, in which Trump was apparently instrumental, might have been the final nail in the coffin, especially considering Muslims’ social views make white evangelicals seem progressive. That could mean that Democrats will never again win Michigan. Other racial and religious groups, such as blacks and Jews, also shifted to the right by smaller amounts. However, the most alarming shift is among young voters. According to the AP VoteCast, Harris only won young voters by 4 points; Biden carried them by more than 30. Young men especially are rapidly shifting towards the GOP. The reasons for this shift are debated, though many attribute it to perceived abandonment and/or demonization of men by the left. Also worth noting are the issues that are genuinely worse for men, such as the male suicide rate. For instance, the percentage of college students who are female now is roughly equal to the percentage of college students who were male prior to Title IX, and college enrollment among men is declining. More and more men are opting for trade schools instead, largely due to costs. This is important because college-educated people tend to be more liberal (the so-called “diploma divide”), while tradespeople tend to be very conservative. Lastly, since young voters’ views tend to be the most malleable, it stands to reason that more and more young voters will embrace MAGA. This shift to the right is not limited to the US. In fact, the West as a whole is moving sharply to the right, largely for the same reasons as the US: the economy and immigration. The Conservatives are all but guaranteed to take control of Canada later this year and were even before Trudeau’s resignation. Although Labour took control of Parliament just last year, its popularity has already plummeted, and Reform UK’s popularity has surged. The SPD is poised to get voted out this year, and the AfD is becoming more popular by the minute. Now, the situation in Europe is different - and frankly, more dire - than the situation here in the States. Europe is currently facing widespread economic stagnation, and European society is being upended by immigration, particularly from the Islamic world. Similarly, largely unrestricted immigration in Canada has inflated home prices and created numerous social issues. As a result, left-wing parties haven’t been this unpopular since the Cold War, and right-wing populist parties who claim to have solutions are rapidly gaining popularity. Arguably, Trump’s comeback was the final nail in the coffin for the progressivism of the early century. At the time of writing, all signs point to a generation of right-wing dominance of America and the West as a whole.

Emperor_Kyrius

2025-01-19 16:37:13

m87x6cl

This isn't really true, though, given the electoral college. Most of the falloff in Democratic turnout was in safe blue states like California and New York, or super red states like Florida and Texas. In Georgia, Nevada, Wisconsin, and North Carolina, Harris beat Biden's 2020 numbers. Meanwhile, Trump's 2024 numbers beat Biden's 2020 numbers in every swing state. Democratic turnout was not the issue in the swing states this election; high turnout for Republicans was

IAmTheNightSoil

2025-01-20 15:05:28

m82wkj0

The current democratic party is just Republican lite. The corporate donors do not want left leaning policies or candidates to hold away. You can easily have the voters swing in favor for the democratic favor. Trump just continued his outsider narrative while Harris seems like a normal political appointee. Have some candidates who are really willing to stir the pot up and you will see massive support for the democrats

Ok_what_is_this

2025-01-19 19:38:04

CMV: Stat Wars was not intended to be, nor is, an allegory for Vietnam (and it's incredibly dumb to think that)

*Look for edit at the bottom* This drives me absolutely insane. It makes my blood boil. I want to start violent fights with people that confidently spout this nonsense. It's one of those things that people mindlessly repeat because they heard someone else on the internet say it and it sounds smart. It's also the perfect "gotcha" card when people argue about Star Wars being political. Yet, when you think about it for more than two seconds, and have the most basic, grade school understanding of history, it should be clear that this claim is utterly absurd. George Lucas wanted to make a film adaptation of Flash Gordon, but couldn't get the rights to it. He then set out to make his own fun fantasy space opera. Lucas drew inspiration from many other works, such as WWII films, Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and, of course, Flash Gordon. Back in 1977, Lucas was clear about the sort of movie he was trying to make, saying things like "The plot is simple—good against evil—and the film is designed to be all the fun things and fantasy things I remember. The word for this movie is fun." As far as I'm aware, it's only long after the release of Star Wars that Lucas and others started claiming "oh yeah, it was totally an allegory for like, Vietnam, and stuff. The rebels were the Vietcong, and the Empire was America, and it's all about how underdogs can win if they use enough force, man." This brings me to the second part of the argument: HOW ARE PEOPLE DRAWING PARALLELS BETWEEN STAR WARS AND VIETNAM THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY GOD DAMN SENSE READ A HISTORY BOOK OH MY GOD. Sorry for that, but really, what? How do you arrive at this conclusion? You essentially have to start at USA=Empire because both are evil, and then awkwardly work your way backwards from there. The Empire is aesthetically based on, most obviously, the Nazis, with a bit of the British Empire mixed in. WWII in general inspires a great deal of the look and sound of Star Wars. The politics are a bit light in the first Star Wars movie, but it's clear that the galaxy is under the rule of a fascist military dictatorship that is perfectly happy to annihilate an entire planet. The film takes place in a desert environment, and then inside of a scifi space military installation, and then ends with a Dam Busters attack on that installation. What about this remotely fits the politics of Vietnam and the Cold War more generally? I'm a leftist, and I'm certainly not one to say that the US was always the good guy, but where exactly is the parallel between a fascist military dictatorship controlling the whole galaxy and a capitalist not-a-dictatorship-but-still-very-far-from-a-healthy-democracy country locked in a competition for power and influence against a diametrically opposed communist foe? Who is the USSR of Star Wars? China? South Vietnam? I understand that not everything will be 1:1 in an allegory, but I truly don't see how anything lines up with Vietnam in A New Hope. Even if we expand out to TESB and RotJ, I don't see the parallels. No, the Ewoks are not like the Vietcong. That is insane. That is asinine. Contrary to what pop-history and brain-dead memes would have you believe, the Vietnamese were not armed with sticks and rocks. They were generously armed by the Soviets with plenty of guns, tanks, planes, and artillery. The bulk of the North Vietnamese strategy utilized combined arms conventional warfare, and in doing so, the North Vietnamese frankly tended to "lose" quite often, going by casualties suffered and (lack of) strategic goals achieved. You simply cannot fight a full-scale war on guerilla warfare alone, even though that is what everyone imagines when they picture the Vietnam War. If the Ewoks were actually meant to be a stand-in for the North Vietnamese, that would frankly be insulting to both sides. Besides that, we all know that the Ewoks were one of Lucas's attempts to appeal to children because, by the time of RotJ, he realized that's where all of the money is. Besides those furry bastards, nothing else remotely fits the framing of Vietnam. Star Wars absolutely is political. I would even say that, in the abstract, Lucas's views were probably shaped by the Vietnam War in some way. However, that's true for practically every American that was alive at the time. To go from that to "obviously it's all an allegory for Vietnam or Nixon or communism or whatever" is just completely baseless, and it frustrates me because it speaks to a complete lack of media literacy, political literary, and historical literacy. But hey, maybe I'm wrong about that. Let's see! ***Edit*** u/the_guynecologist provided me with primary sources detailing the way in which Vietnam inspired Lucas's original vision for Star Wars. You can see my reply to this comment below, but anyway, I'll consider this "changing my view." I still wouldn't call Star Wars, especially in the state it released in, an "allegory" for Vietnam, but rather that Lucas's original idea for Star Wars drew some inspiration from Vietnam. However, I fully recognize that is more an argument about the meaning of "allegory," and is rather pedantic. Thanks, u/the_guynecologist! Everyone else thay just skipped over what I wrote and said "nuh uh, Lucas said it is," I'm still annoyed by you.

Jackson31174

2025-01-18 19:56:56

m7wjs0a

You're wrong but you are *partially* right. Star Wars is not a 1:1 political allegory to Vietnam and the people who say that are just repeating something they've heard on the internet. However the Vietnam thing has always been there, George Lucas didn't just start claiming that years after the fact, he was talking about it at least as early as 1974. This is one of George Lucas's *earliest* notes when he was writing the backstory to A New Hope, this is roughly dated to early 1974: >Aquilae \[the planet which eventually evolved into Tatooine\] **is a small independent country like North Vietnam threatened by a neighbor or provincial rebellion**, instigated by gangsters aided by empire. Fight to get rightful planet back. Half of system has been lost to gangsters … The empire is like America ten years from now, after gangsters assassinated the Emperor and were elevated to power in a rigged election … We are at a turning point: fascism or revolution.” Plus George Lucas was originally going to direct Apocalypse Now, that was actually originally his project. When he failed to secure funding for it he ended up making Star Wars instead (only for his mate/mentor Francis Ford Coppola to then find the money only for George to be knee deep into reproduction on Star Wars and was unable to direct it) but a ton of ideas that would've been in *his* version of Apocalypse ended up in Star Wars instead. Easy example: if you look at Lucas's early scripts (specifically the first script, the rough/first draft) the third act has an entire elongated sequence where the heroes crash land on the 4th moon of Yavin which is inhabited by a tribe of primitive Wookees (not a typo.) They then have to help the Wookees take back their territory from Imperial forces in a large scale land battle with the primitive Wookees overcoming the Empire despite their superior technology. Here's just 2 pages from the rough draft: [https://i.imgur.com/Tq4fgFU.png](https://i.imgur.com/Tq4fgFU.png) That's one of the main things Lucas's referring to when he talks about the Vietnam war parallels. Now in the final script of A New Hope the Wookiees had been reduced to one (Chewbacca) and the Wookee tribe itself had evolved into the rebel base on Yavin. However he'd then revisit this whole idea in Return of the Jedi with the Ewoks filling the role instead and in Phantom Menace with the Gungans vs the droid army. (EDIT: I mean the whole smaller, technologically inferior/primitive force somehow beating this massive, industrialized war machine despite the odds is one of the main recurring themes of the entire series - you'd have to be daft not to notice that) Again it's not a 1:1 parallel and anyone who tells you that is silly. But Star Wars is (or rather was) just basically everything George Lucas likes and is interested in put in a blender and given a Flash Gordon/John Carter from Mars aesthetic, I don't think that's controversial to say at all. It's just that that's always included Lucas's political views as well. Sources: *The Making of Star Wars* by J.W. Rinzler (2007) "The Star Wars" Rough Draft (cover dated May 1974)

the_guynecologist

2025-01-18 20:33:20

m7wkkc5

The Empire absolutely represents American imperialism, just not in the oversimplified Vietnam-only way people often claim. The real parallel is broader - it's about military-industrial complexes and imperial powers worldwide. Look at the Death Star. It's literally a trillion-dollar superweapon project that can only be used for mass destruction. Sound familiar? The US military budget in 2024 was $886 billion. We build increasingly expensive weapons while people lack healthcare and education. The rebels aren't just the Vietcong - they're every resistance movement against imperial power. When Lucas made Star Wars, the US had already overthrown multiple democratically elected governments in Latin America. We weren't the good guys spreading democracy - we were the technologically superior force imposing our will through military might. Even the Empire's aesthetics aren't purely Nazi-inspired. Their uniforms and command structure mirror American military tradition, which itself borrowed heavily from European imperial powers. The clean, sterile look of Imperial installations reflects American military bases worldwide. The political messaging becomes even clearer in the prequels. A republic is transformed into an empire through manufactured fear, emergency powers, and endless war - exactly how the US PATRIOT Act expanded executive authority post-9/11. You're absolutely right that Star Wars draws from many sources, but its core political message is about how power corrupts and how empires justify violence through claims of peace and order. That's not just about Vietnam - it's about America's entire role as a global superpower.

flippitjiBBer

2025-01-18 20:37:49

CMV: The n-word shouldn't be used to refer to anybody who shouldn't be using the word themselves

Okay, this is NOT "why do black people call each other the n-word" ... that makes perfect logical sense to me. What doesn't make logical sense is black people calling *other* people that. A good example of this is [Snoop Dogg's roast of Justin Bieber](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLWJGjrIB18) ("n\*\*\*a you bought a monkey"). It's weird to me that it's totally normal for Snoop to call Bieber something that would cause shock waves, maybe even end Bieber's career, if he said the exact same thing in the exact same playful way to Snoop. It happens all the time, most commonly that I've seen in standup comedy ... there's "this n\*\*\*a said so-and-so" or "that n\*\*\*a did so-and-so" all over the place. Another example is [that famous Russell Westbrook response to a reporter question](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kS_qLzPWVg). I'm not saying it's morally wrong to do that, or that anybody who does that is a bad person, there is clearly no bad intent behind using it like that. But I just don't think it makes sense - if the goal is to reduce the use of that word, the normalization of this kind of usage seems counter-productive to it. p.s. I'm not black or white, and I'm not originally from the USA ... in case any of that matters UPDATE: A lot of the comments are taking this in the direction I did NOT want it to go (which is why my very first sentence in the post is what it is). I'll reiterate that it makes perfect sense for the black community to reclaim/re-appropriate the use of the word within the community in a positive way to take away its power, and that is NOT what my post is about.

nah_a_m

2025-01-18 15:12:35

m7uzv0q

The word has been reclaimed and transformed by the Black community - it's not just about "reducing use" anymore. The power dynamic is what makes it okay for Black people to use it flexibly while others can't. When Snoop calls Bieber that, he's actually demonstrating his cultural authority and comfort with Bieber, not degrading him. Think about other reclaimed slurs - the LGBTQ+ community uses "queer" freely among themselves and allies, but it hits different coming from someone trying to hurt them. Or how women can call each other "bitch" playfully but bristle when a man does it aggressively. >if the goal is to reduce the use of that word That's where you're wrong - the goal isn't elimination. It's about who controls the word's meaning and usage. When Black people use it broadly, they're exercising the power to define its context. It's like saying "only we get to decide how this word that was used against us gets used now." The fact that Bieber can't say it back is exactly the point. It's a linguistic reminder of the power dynamics and history involved. You're viewing it through a simplistic "fair/unfair" lens instead of understanding the deeper cultural significance.

ceasarJst

2025-01-18 15:36:19

m7v0fp6

>I never understood the anger it invokes. Then you just have no concept of what it's like to be enslaved and oppressed for a few hundred years by another ethnic group who invented a slur to refer to you and your fellow enslaved people based on a bastardization of a word used to describe the color of your skin. >I don't like the term boomer, because it's still about people of a certain age. They can't change their age, so why make slurs for them? Boomer isn't a slur. It's a reference to the term "baby boomer" which is the generation that was born to the young adult parents post WW2, and those of us using the word have no oppressed and marginalized Boomers. Making fun of or insulting Baby Boomers is *punching up* because the boomers still hold politcal and economic power - the lion's share of both. So you can't even begin to compare "boomer" to the "n word." >those people that the slur defines are the ones who allow the word to have the power to negatively effect them. The n word has its power still because racist white people - who still exist - continue to try to use their political power to marginalize and discriminate against black people. Long standing policies and systems continue to make life harder for black people in the US than it needs to be. The justice system. School funding through property taxation. Gerrymandering and voter suppression. >Call me a boomer, and it's up to me whether I allow it to offend me or not Sure. Good for you, buddy. Again, boomers aren't a marginalized group. >Black people have the same choice They might have a choice about whether they let it ruin their day or not. They don't have a choice about how it still feels that ignorant white people call them racial slurs that remind them of 4 hundred years of oppression and the fact that the country is still systematically unequal to their disadvantage. It is 2025, buddy. Wake up. You have been on this earth for how long, now? You have the ability to learn, why don't you *try* to listen to folks?

Raise_A_Thoth

2025-01-18 15:39:20

CMV: Middle aged men dating/pursuing younger women is weirdly demonized on Reddit

I believe that a good relationship requires physical and mental attraction, and 18-20 something year olds would seem vapid and boring for most people. However, some people might not care about the mental aspect that much. And as long as the person you are pursuing is an adult, I don't see why anyone else should care? If a 35 year old wants to pursue a 20 year old, that's between them. Will it most probably not work out in the long term? Yes, probably, but then again most relationships don't work out in the long term. So why does that really matter? The most popular argument I have come across is that such men are looking for women that they can control through a power-imbalance brought about by the age difference. Possibly, but these are adults we are talking about. Power-imbalance can occur in a lot of cases such as wealth. But you don't find the same vitriol for a rich person dating down. In fact, large wealth-difference or power-difference is often seen as a desirable trait by a lot of women. Please feel free to ask for clarifications or explanations for anything that you find unclear in this post. I'm very open to changing my mind, but I would need some reasoning that is logically consistent when extended to analogous situations. Coz I really can't think of any. Edit: This CMV is focused on men because older women dating younger men don't seem to face the same demonization, and are often celebrated. I would also give a delta to anybody who can show that this perception is incorrect.

lwb03dc

2025-01-18 16:24:39

m7vi2f8

Let me challenge this from a different angle. Power imbalances due to wealth are actually fundamentally different from age gaps - money can be earned, lost, or equalized, but life experience cannot. A 20-year-old literally cannot have the same worldview and life experience as a 35-year-old, no matter how mature they think they are. I used to share similar views about individual freedom, but here's the thing: predatory patterns exist regardless of technical legality. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's ethically sound. Think about it - why would a 35-year-old specifically seek out someone who just became an adult? It's not about "preferences" - it's about wanting someone who hasn't developed full agency yet. You mention wealth differences, but that comparison doesn't hold up. Two 30-year-olds with different incomes still share generational experiences and cultural touchpoints. They can relate as equals despite financial differences. But a 20-year-old is still figuring out basic adult life while a 35-year-old has over a decade of adult experience to leverage. The fact that society celebrates older women with younger men is indeed a double standard - but that doesn't make large age gaps okay. Two wrongs don't make a right. Instead of using that to justify older men pursuing very young women, perhaps we should question ALL significant age gaps in relationships. I've seen how these dynamics play out in real life. The younger person almost always ends up realizing years later how they were manipulated, even if everything seemed consensual at the time. That's why communities react strongly to these patterns - they're protecting vulnerable people from learned predatory behaviors.

ercantadorde

2025-01-18 17:10:37

m7vd3x0

I'm in an age gap relationship myself (30 and 40), but your presentation of the case is just completely wrong minded and frankly...kind of gross. First, I'm not sure why you chose the extreme of 18-20 as your examples, but these are literally the most egregious examples. Although people that age are adults, they are not fully formed yet (physically, emotionally and mentally). They're also lacking in the experience and skills to manage relationships, leaving them highly vulnerable to manipulation and abuse. Second, while it's true that power imbalances can occur in any relationship, but they're *very* likely to occur in age gaps where the younger partner is not fully developed. They're incredibly vulnerable to being overpowered because they have not developed the life experience yet. Third, and this is VERY important....you don't create any distinction between people who *happen* to meet younger women and men that *pursue* very young women. Men that are targeting much younger women are doing it for a reason and that reason is not just "they're hot"....it's because those men have something wrong inside of them that makes them incompatible with mature, fully developed women. Let me say this plainly....there is nothing wrong with an age gap itself, but if you're targeting very young women specifically there is something wrong with you. Furthermore, if there is a significant maturity gap and you still pursue her, you are knowingly pursuing someone that isn't your peer or equal and that ALSO suggests there is something wrong with you. The shitty thing is....I *wanted* to agree with you. I saw the title and was thinking I might be able to take your side. Reddit is absolutely too trigger happy to shame ALL age gaps. But your argument is exactly why so many redditors are so hostile. You're not defending age gaps, you're defending middle aged men targeting barely legal adults and that is not right.

MCRemix

2025-01-18 16:45:51

CMV: Middle aged men dating/pursuing younger women is weirdly demonized on Reddit

I believe that a good relationship requires physical and mental attraction, and 18-20 something year olds would seem vapid and boring for most people. However, some people might not care about the mental aspect that much. And as long as the person you are pursuing is an adult, I don't see why anyone else should care? If a 35 year old wants to pursue a 20 year old, that's between them. Will it most probably not work out in the long term? Yes, probably, but then again most relationships don't work out in the long term. So why does that really matter? The most popular argument I have come across is that such men are looking for women that they can control through a power-imbalance brought about by the age difference. Possibly, but these are adults we are talking about. Power-imbalance can occur in a lot of cases such as wealth. But you don't find the same vitriol for a rich person dating down. In fact, large wealth-difference or power-difference is often seen as a desirable trait by a lot of women. Please feel free to ask for clarifications or explanations for anything that you find unclear in this post. I'm very open to changing my mind, but I would need some reasoning that is logically consistent when extended to analogous situations. Coz I really can't think of any. Edit: This CMV is focused on men because older women dating younger men don't seem to face the same demonization, and are often celebrated. I would also give a delta to anybody who can show that this perception is incorrect.

lwb03dc

2025-01-18 16:24:39

m7ww8rp

Your claim is that they are "weirdly" demonised: I want to change your view not in terms of justifying the demonisation (which I think is detached from genuine utilitarian concerns) but by dispelling the "weirdness" of it. When you understand the dynamics of the people shaming age-gap relationships you find that the loud protestations come from groups most threatened by age-gap relationships: young men (most of the Reddit user base) and middle-aged women (who dominate the relationship orientated subs). That they demonise these relationships isn't "weird": they are serving their own self-interest, expressing their own insecurities, and (also unsurprisingly) convincing themselves that because they don't like something there must be a moral problem with it. Normal human behaviour.

Learning-Power

2025-01-18 21:42:15

m7vbsn0

The French President, Emmanuel Macron, is married to a woman 24 years his senior. That was widely condemned when he was elected. People found it creepy and weird. Some said their relationship should be a crime and Birgitte Macron should be in prison. Her children have said they find it uncomfortable their stepfather is the same age as them. His parents took Emmanuel and moved cities when he was young to try and break up the relationship, because they felt he was being groomed by his now-wife. This doesn't sound to celebrated to me, and frankly I can't think of any men who recieved that level of blowback for dating a younger woman. Men dating younger women is normalised, it's been going on for centuries. 

badoopidoo

2025-01-18 16:39:10

CMV: When you are very naive, you believe the USA is the greatest country in the world. When you start to learn more, you believe it is a mess, almost a 3rd world country. When you are truly educated, you realize it is amazing compared to most of the world, and probably in the top 10 to live in.

this is at least what I gathered from fellow argentinians opinions on the US. The reality is that it has lots of very large problems to tackle, but in comparisson to the rest of the world, in terms of standard of living, it is one of the best countries in the world. for women, for LGBT people, for working people in general. countries that may be even better are probably in the single digits, or low double digits: norway and switzerland probably, then maybe denmark and finland. much more difficult to determine are countries such as germany which is probably about the same, sweden which is in my opinion slightly worse than the US, maybe taiwan, australia. the fact is, the US is very rich. it has ridiculous amount of disposable income, and while it is economically unequal, still most people have more purchasing power than in other developed countries. it is very good for doing business, inversting, it is very good compared to the world in LGBT laws and people's opinion on LGBT issues. it is one of the least racists countries in the world, if you travelled a lot you would know about it. in my 18-20s I was very anti-USA, then I educated myself and put it in the top 10 best countries to live in. which is specially commendable giving its very large land area and population to manage. the single worst issue compared to other developed countries is security: homicides and its GPI is very much worse than other comparable countries. then in democracy, GINI, health it could be better. but in median income, GDP PPP, GDP PPP per capita, poverty rates, unemployment rates, HDI, business, competitive, innovation indexes, economic freedom, etc. is a beast. It would be a pleasure for most people in the world to live in the US. I travelled to the US, and was able to see, apart from just reading and educating myself about it. it is spectacular. infrastructure, cleanliness, the level of houses in suburbia and city centre. whats more, in economic and population (fertility & immigration) fronts, it has a very bright future. europe and developed asia face much more challenges, though this is a little bit more subjective. BACK to the title: due to being the only superpower of the world, its bast cultural and propagandistic influences in the world makes it so that when you are naive, you think its amazing. then you start to learn about opioid crisis, health insurance crisis, uber-conservatives, etc so you think its a developing nation. after that, you get the gift of nuance and start to see that, comperatively, it is truly an amazing country to live in. to change my view, you need to 1. establish the US as a probably non top 10 country to live in 2. convince me that most naive people in the world 'worship' the US, then when they learn some stuff they hate it, and then people who are very passionate about global politics, economics, int. relations, that read & watch much about comparable standards of living from country to country with nuance and an open mind, love the US or at least respect it a lot. edit: well, after reading some very illuminating replies, I think in my imaginary weighted table of statistics, I put much too importance in purchasing power or disposable income. still think its the most important metric for quality of life, but I didnt take into account other expenses such as car maintanance, etc. and I did overweighted its importance. also, while reading, I begun to think just how difficult is to rank countries based on these metrics. many are very neck and neck. I would probably put the US 8-20 now. It is still very hard for me to put the US outside the top 10% countries in the world. edit 2: OK its been fun for the most part. thank you for changing my view.

cuervodeboedo1

2025-01-19 17:08:28

m829h83

It depends, am I a refugee or a skilled worker? What industry do I work in? What languages do I speak? Most likely they would end up in Spain as that is the easiest place for them to get a Visa and they would also get a fastrack to spanish citizenship as well. If you are a refugee you would probably head to the US because its geographically the closest developed nation to you. For me, personally, as an American, I moved to Germany. But I would acknowledge that my situation is somewhat unique. Also FYI, disposible income calculations dont take into account Car Payments, which is usually the second largest expense most americans have.

yumdumpster

2025-01-19 17:36:09

m825yeb

For whom? The average American has an average condition by definition.  For many groups and individuals America is a place where police cannot be trusted, drugs and gangs are a huge threat and influence, taxes and corporations punish any attempt at betterment of conditions.  America is a different country for every person living there.  So which America? Affluent, white gated community America? Downtown detroit America?  Comparing America to other countries means looking at statistics.  Comparing America within America means looking at experiences. Testimony.  Whose testimony do you look at? 

Dry_Bumblebee1111

2025-01-19 17:18:41

CMV: When you are very naive, you believe the USA is the greatest country in the world. When you start to learn more, you believe it is a mess, almost a 3rd world country. When you are truly educated, you realize it is amazing compared to most of the world, and probably in the top 10 to live in.

this is at least what I gathered from fellow argentinians opinions on the US. The reality is that it has lots of very large problems to tackle, but in comparisson to the rest of the world, in terms of standard of living, it is one of the best countries in the world. for women, for LGBT people, for working people in general. countries that may be even better are probably in the single digits, or low double digits: norway and switzerland probably, then maybe denmark and finland. much more difficult to determine are countries such as germany which is probably about the same, sweden which is in my opinion slightly worse than the US, maybe taiwan, australia. the fact is, the US is very rich. it has ridiculous amount of disposable income, and while it is economically unequal, still most people have more purchasing power than in other developed countries. it is very good for doing business, inversting, it is very good compared to the world in LGBT laws and people's opinion on LGBT issues. it is one of the least racists countries in the world, if you travelled a lot you would know about it. in my 18-20s I was very anti-USA, then I educated myself and put it in the top 10 best countries to live in. which is specially commendable giving its very large land area and population to manage. the single worst issue compared to other developed countries is security: homicides and its GPI is very much worse than other comparable countries. then in democracy, GINI, health it could be better. but in median income, GDP PPP, GDP PPP per capita, poverty rates, unemployment rates, HDI, business, competitive, innovation indexes, economic freedom, etc. is a beast. It would be a pleasure for most people in the world to live in the US. I travelled to the US, and was able to see, apart from just reading and educating myself about it. it is spectacular. infrastructure, cleanliness, the level of houses in suburbia and city centre. whats more, in economic and population (fertility & immigration) fronts, it has a very bright future. europe and developed asia face much more challenges, though this is a little bit more subjective. BACK to the title: due to being the only superpower of the world, its bast cultural and propagandistic influences in the world makes it so that when you are naive, you think its amazing. then you start to learn about opioid crisis, health insurance crisis, uber-conservatives, etc so you think its a developing nation. after that, you get the gift of nuance and start to see that, comperatively, it is truly an amazing country to live in. to change my view, you need to 1. establish the US as a probably non top 10 country to live in 2. convince me that most naive people in the world 'worship' the US, then when they learn some stuff they hate it, and then people who are very passionate about global politics, economics, int. relations, that read & watch much about comparable standards of living from country to country with nuance and an open mind, love the US or at least respect it a lot. edit: well, after reading some very illuminating replies, I think in my imaginary weighted table of statistics, I put much too importance in purchasing power or disposable income. still think its the most important metric for quality of life, but I didnt take into account other expenses such as car maintanance, etc. and I did overweighted its importance. also, while reading, I begun to think just how difficult is to rank countries based on these metrics. many are very neck and neck. I would probably put the US 8-20 now. It is still very hard for me to put the US outside the top 10% countries in the world. edit 2: OK its been fun for the most part. thank you for changing my view.

cuervodeboedo1

2025-01-19 17:08:28

m82g6jj

Copied from a Singaporean: We are comparing apples to apples: that is to say, for citizens of a nation, not foreign workers. I'm arguing that citizens (and PR) in Singapore enjoy some of the lowest costs of living amongst similarly developed cities. And I will back it up: In Singapore, even if you do not have an undegrad degree, your poly median pay is 2800 SGD. That means you get 1036 per month in CPF. In a year, 12432, or for a couple, 25,000. The median price of a 4 room BTO is 400k SGD in CCK area. The down payment for a BTO flat is 20%. That's 80k out of pocket in cash or CPF OA. A couple buying a flat can afford the downplayment after working 3.2 years. That's everything out from their compulsory savings without dipping into their take home pay. After they move in, excluding renovation, they can from there on foreward pay all installments using CPF. Name me another country whereby a fresh grad couple without even a uni degree can get a flat within 3 years of their working lives? Oh and btw, the 400k SGD price doesn't include grants, which, as a 5600 household income couple, you definitely qualify for. Go walk around HDB blocks sometimes. I see plenty of mercedes and BM in Yishun void decks. And Singapore has the highest taxes for cars in the world. You know how your heartlanders afford it? That's right, because housing as a necessity is actually *shocked Pikachu face* cheap. We are obviously not talking about landed or condos here. But the fact remains: most Singaporeans can comfortably afford a home after graduation. The same which COULD NOT be said of in any other large comparable metropolis.

JohnHenryMillerTime

2025-01-19 18:10:02

m828r52

[Numbeo](https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/rankings_by_country.jsp) “is a crowd-sourced online database of perceived consumer prices, real property prices, and quality of life metrics’s” They are cited in a lot of world country rankings from surveys and such. The USA doesn’t make the top 10 in categories like Quality of Life, Human Development Index, Safety, Cost of Living… USA doesn’t even come close in a lot of these. It’s unfortunate, because I appreciate your view for what it is. The fact is, most of the countries ranking highest on these lists are under US protection for all intents and purposes. They are safe from existential threats, and so thrive. The USA is definitely wealthiest nation on Earth. And I love my country. It is massive and beautiful and abundant. It is full of cultural diversity and its people can be wonderful. But I think the wildly varying perceptions of the USA are due to that fact: wealthiest nation, military superpower, but seriously flawed systems keeping it from topping those lists. Edit: I made an error. USA is #8 for Cost of Living from my source. But it’s the only category out of 9 they track where USA is in the top 10

AlphaWhiskeyOscar

2025-01-19 17:32:35

CMV: When you are very naive, you believe the USA is the greatest country in the world. When you start to learn more, you believe it is a mess, almost a 3rd world country. When you are truly educated, you realize it is amazing compared to most of the world, and probably in the top 10 to live in.

this is at least what I gathered from fellow argentinians opinions on the US. The reality is that it has lots of very large problems to tackle, but in comparisson to the rest of the world, in terms of standard of living, it is one of the best countries in the world. for women, for LGBT people, for working people in general. countries that may be even better are probably in the single digits, or low double digits: norway and switzerland probably, then maybe denmark and finland. much more difficult to determine are countries such as germany which is probably about the same, sweden which is in my opinion slightly worse than the US, maybe taiwan, australia. the fact is, the US is very rich. it has ridiculous amount of disposable income, and while it is economically unequal, still most people have more purchasing power than in other developed countries. it is very good for doing business, inversting, it is very good compared to the world in LGBT laws and people's opinion on LGBT issues. it is one of the least racists countries in the world, if you travelled a lot you would know about it. in my 18-20s I was very anti-USA, then I educated myself and put it in the top 10 best countries to live in. which is specially commendable giving its very large land area and population to manage. the single worst issue compared to other developed countries is security: homicides and its GPI is very much worse than other comparable countries. then in democracy, GINI, health it could be better. but in median income, GDP PPP, GDP PPP per capita, poverty rates, unemployment rates, HDI, business, competitive, innovation indexes, economic freedom, etc. is a beast. It would be a pleasure for most people in the world to live in the US. I travelled to the US, and was able to see, apart from just reading and educating myself about it. it is spectacular. infrastructure, cleanliness, the level of houses in suburbia and city centre. whats more, in economic and population (fertility & immigration) fronts, it has a very bright future. europe and developed asia face much more challenges, though this is a little bit more subjective. BACK to the title: due to being the only superpower of the world, its bast cultural and propagandistic influences in the world makes it so that when you are naive, you think its amazing. then you start to learn about opioid crisis, health insurance crisis, uber-conservatives, etc so you think its a developing nation. after that, you get the gift of nuance and start to see that, comperatively, it is truly an amazing country to live in. to change my view, you need to 1. establish the US as a probably non top 10 country to live in 2. convince me that most naive people in the world 'worship' the US, then when they learn some stuff they hate it, and then people who are very passionate about global politics, economics, int. relations, that read & watch much about comparable standards of living from country to country with nuance and an open mind, love the US or at least respect it a lot. edit: well, after reading some very illuminating replies, I think in my imaginary weighted table of statistics, I put much too importance in purchasing power or disposable income. still think its the most important metric for quality of life, but I didnt take into account other expenses such as car maintanance, etc. and I did overweighted its importance. also, while reading, I begun to think just how difficult is to rank countries based on these metrics. many are very neck and neck. I would probably put the US 8-20 now. It is still very hard for me to put the US outside the top 10% countries in the world. edit 2: OK its been fun for the most part. thank you for changing my view.

cuervodeboedo1

2025-01-19 17:08:28

m82ioa5

Well my intention was to try and question the premise a bit. Part of the problem with the premise is that these trends are not in isolation in a world capitalist system because of competition. If the US pushes austerity then other countries will. If Japan improves profits by a grueling work culture, US companies will adopt the “Japanese model.” If China dominates, then lots of countries will adopt state capitalist ways of doing things. Tbh I am not interested in if the US or Japan or Brazil or China are the best country and it’s a bit abstract. So I feel like whatever factors I choose will then turn out to be unimportant metrics to you so that’s why I was trying to establish this first if we are going to talk about what makes something good or bad. Because if you are middle class in the US or higher then it is ok though not as good as in the past. If you are a worker who is a baby boomer in a unionized industry, you are probably doing ok. If you are worker who is not a homeowner it can be very precarious. If you are a monopolistic corporation or part of the ruling class then things are better than anytime since the Edwardian era. If you are destitute then your official support options are mainly cops and jail or churches and NGOs rather than housing and steady economic support. The US is in the top 2 or 3 countries for personal debt and high housing costs and health insurance tied to employment (if you are lucky) ensure that US workers have less mobility that workers in other countries. US workers are the most productive workers in the world on average and have not seen consistent wage improvements due to productivity increases in two generations. The US is likely in the top 5 or 10 countries in terms of average hours we work. Middle class people also seem pissed off now too. They’ve seen relative decline. Small business rates look good, but idk it also seems like a lot of it is just due to more VC and capital around or by turning parts of production into independent contractors and breaking up larger production efforts. I’ve never been that bothered to look under the hood of these figures though.

ElEsDi_25

2025-01-19 18:23:06

m8289ur

Idk man, your conclusion is the perspective that the whole book Candide makes fun of for being naïve. Panglossian. For me, galaxy brain is realizing that we could get rid of capitalism and the state and live much better lives working cooperatively for needs and wants (rather than for endless competitive growth that fails to meet needs and also self-implodes when it produces too much of what people want and need and so resorts to war or mass layoffs to recover profitability.) 1) who are you talking about? The US is probably in the top 5 most unequal countries in the world. 2) well anecdotal, but you can ask lots of immigrant workers who send remittances if those relatives have unreasonable expectations for their life in the US. All my coworkers from other countries joke about how their family thinks they live like kings and are holding out sending money.

ElEsDi_25

2025-01-19 17:30:10

CMV: When you are very naive, you believe the USA is the greatest country in the world. When you start to learn more, you believe it is a mess, almost a 3rd world country. When you are truly educated, you realize it is amazing compared to most of the world, and probably in the top 10 to live in.

this is at least what I gathered from fellow argentinians opinions on the US. The reality is that it has lots of very large problems to tackle, but in comparisson to the rest of the world, in terms of standard of living, it is one of the best countries in the world. for women, for LGBT people, for working people in general. countries that may be even better are probably in the single digits, or low double digits: norway and switzerland probably, then maybe denmark and finland. much more difficult to determine are countries such as germany which is probably about the same, sweden which is in my opinion slightly worse than the US, maybe taiwan, australia. the fact is, the US is very rich. it has ridiculous amount of disposable income, and while it is economically unequal, still most people have more purchasing power than in other developed countries. it is very good for doing business, inversting, it is very good compared to the world in LGBT laws and people's opinion on LGBT issues. it is one of the least racists countries in the world, if you travelled a lot you would know about it. in my 18-20s I was very anti-USA, then I educated myself and put it in the top 10 best countries to live in. which is specially commendable giving its very large land area and population to manage. the single worst issue compared to other developed countries is security: homicides and its GPI is very much worse than other comparable countries. then in democracy, GINI, health it could be better. but in median income, GDP PPP, GDP PPP per capita, poverty rates, unemployment rates, HDI, business, competitive, innovation indexes, economic freedom, etc. is a beast. It would be a pleasure for most people in the world to live in the US. I travelled to the US, and was able to see, apart from just reading and educating myself about it. it is spectacular. infrastructure, cleanliness, the level of houses in suburbia and city centre. whats more, in economic and population (fertility & immigration) fronts, it has a very bright future. europe and developed asia face much more challenges, though this is a little bit more subjective. BACK to the title: due to being the only superpower of the world, its bast cultural and propagandistic influences in the world makes it so that when you are naive, you think its amazing. then you start to learn about opioid crisis, health insurance crisis, uber-conservatives, etc so you think its a developing nation. after that, you get the gift of nuance and start to see that, comperatively, it is truly an amazing country to live in. to change my view, you need to 1. establish the US as a probably non top 10 country to live in 2. convince me that most naive people in the world 'worship' the US, then when they learn some stuff they hate it, and then people who are very passionate about global politics, economics, int. relations, that read & watch much about comparable standards of living from country to country with nuance and an open mind, love the US or at least respect it a lot. edit: well, after reading some very illuminating replies, I think in my imaginary weighted table of statistics, I put much too importance in purchasing power or disposable income. still think its the most important metric for quality of life, but I didnt take into account other expenses such as car maintanance, etc. and I did overweighted its importance. also, while reading, I begun to think just how difficult is to rank countries based on these metrics. many are very neck and neck. I would probably put the US 8-20 now. It is still very hard for me to put the US outside the top 10% countries in the world. edit 2: OK its been fun for the most part. thank you for changing my view.

cuervodeboedo1

2025-01-19 17:08:28

m82atqi

*Their definition of the Quality of Life Index:* “Quality of Life Index is an estimation of the overall quality of life in a city or country.It takes into account various factors that impact one’s quality of life, including purchasing power, pollution levels, housing affordability, cost of living, safety, healthcare quality, commute times, and climate conditions.” I think this validates it at #15. That’s within the realm of believable for me because the USA is in a bit of crisis in a lot of these areas. We’ve had record inflation, housing market has been in crisis level for anyone at or below the median. Healthcare cost has been out of control and no solutions are being presented. And certain politicians are fighting bad to roll back climate protections. I’m not saying we’re the worst in these areas but #15 seems fitting rather than a survey error.

AlphaWhiskeyOscar

2025-01-19 17:42:55

m8289ur

Idk man, your conclusion is the perspective that the whole book Candide makes fun of for being naïve. Panglossian. For me, galaxy brain is realizing that we could get rid of capitalism and the state and live much better lives working cooperatively for needs and wants (rather than for endless competitive growth that fails to meet needs and also self-implodes when it produces too much of what people want and need and so resorts to war or mass layoffs to recover profitability.) 1) who are you talking about? The US is probably in the top 5 most unequal countries in the world. 2) well anecdotal, but you can ask lots of immigrant workers who send remittances if those relatives have unreasonable expectations for their life in the US. All my coworkers from other countries joke about how their family thinks they live like kings and are holding out sending money.

ElEsDi_25

2025-01-19 17:30:10

CMV: When you are very naive, you believe the USA is the greatest country in the world. When you start to learn more, you believe it is a mess, almost a 3rd world country. When you are truly educated, you realize it is amazing compared to most of the world, and probably in the top 10 to live in.

this is at least what I gathered from fellow argentinians opinions on the US. The reality is that it has lots of very large problems to tackle, but in comparisson to the rest of the world, in terms of standard of living, it is one of the best countries in the world. for women, for LGBT people, for working people in general. countries that may be even better are probably in the single digits, or low double digits: norway and switzerland probably, then maybe denmark and finland. much more difficult to determine are countries such as germany which is probably about the same, sweden which is in my opinion slightly worse than the US, maybe taiwan, australia. the fact is, the US is very rich. it has ridiculous amount of disposable income, and while it is economically unequal, still most people have more purchasing power than in other developed countries. it is very good for doing business, inversting, it is very good compared to the world in LGBT laws and people's opinion on LGBT issues. it is one of the least racists countries in the world, if you travelled a lot you would know about it. in my 18-20s I was very anti-USA, then I educated myself and put it in the top 10 best countries to live in. which is specially commendable giving its very large land area and population to manage. the single worst issue compared to other developed countries is security: homicides and its GPI is very much worse than other comparable countries. then in democracy, GINI, health it could be better. but in median income, GDP PPP, GDP PPP per capita, poverty rates, unemployment rates, HDI, business, competitive, innovation indexes, economic freedom, etc. is a beast. It would be a pleasure for most people in the world to live in the US. I travelled to the US, and was able to see, apart from just reading and educating myself about it. it is spectacular. infrastructure, cleanliness, the level of houses in suburbia and city centre. whats more, in economic and population (fertility & immigration) fronts, it has a very bright future. europe and developed asia face much more challenges, though this is a little bit more subjective. BACK to the title: due to being the only superpower of the world, its bast cultural and propagandistic influences in the world makes it so that when you are naive, you think its amazing. then you start to learn about opioid crisis, health insurance crisis, uber-conservatives, etc so you think its a developing nation. after that, you get the gift of nuance and start to see that, comperatively, it is truly an amazing country to live in. to change my view, you need to 1. establish the US as a probably non top 10 country to live in 2. convince me that most naive people in the world 'worship' the US, then when they learn some stuff they hate it, and then people who are very passionate about global politics, economics, int. relations, that read & watch much about comparable standards of living from country to country with nuance and an open mind, love the US or at least respect it a lot. edit: well, after reading some very illuminating replies, I think in my imaginary weighted table of statistics, I put much too importance in purchasing power or disposable income. still think its the most important metric for quality of life, but I didnt take into account other expenses such as car maintanance, etc. and I did overweighted its importance. also, while reading, I begun to think just how difficult is to rank countries based on these metrics. many are very neck and neck. I would probably put the US 8-20 now. It is still very hard for me to put the US outside the top 10% countries in the world. edit 2: OK its been fun for the most part. thank you for changing my view.

cuervodeboedo1

2025-01-19 17:08:28

m82mdtj

Maybe not top 10, but certainly top 25. There are a few things that make me hate it here: \-Your financial well-being is tied to your job. I'm not saying that there needs to be an UBI, but you lose health insurance when you lose your job, and right-to-work means you can get fired for any reason. You see how that kind of puts you in a shit condition if you lose your job or are unemployed and need medical attention? \-Did you know that mandatory overtime is a thing? Oh yeah, about that right to work part. \-So, like, everyone has the right to own a gun, but the only thing stopping someone from pulling the trigger is knowing that they'll probably spend the rest of their life in prison if they shot someone. Well, if that person has nothing left to lose, what's stopping them? And a little rant regarding car-centric infrastructure: \-Driving to work means you lose at least 2 hours of every workday doing nothing productive at all, while having to pay for maintenance and insurance on something that, frankly, you don't really need to have in a walkable place. Even if we put the cost of owning and driving a car aside, you can read a book on a bus or metro. You can get a good workout on a bike. Even just walking is immensely more healthy than driving. There are 52 weeks in a year, assuming you are somehow lucky enough to have 4 weeks of paid leave every year (most don't), then you've got 240 workdays a year. Over a 40 year career, that means you are spending **19,200** hours doing absolutely nothing but watching your time evaporate away in traffic when you could have spent all that time reading a book, sleeping on the train, getting a quick workout, or even just walking to your job. (That's 800 days, or 2.2 years of your life that you spend just sitting in traffic. If you sleep for 8 hours a day, that translates to 3.28 years!) Imagine if we could get all of America to just focus on nothing but self-improvement for 3.28 years and everyone gets a solid 8 hours of sleep every night. Think about the advancements that could be made with that amount of time. Or hell, imagine if all of America spends 16 hours a day walking at a comfortable pace for 3.28 years. We'd certainly lose the "fat american" stereotype not even halfway into the first year! But... apparently transit is communist and walking is for hobos, so sitting in traffic it is! But like, there are some great things that America has: \-We're probably never gonna be invaded. Like, I honestly don't think there would be an invading army setting their boots on American soil within the next 20 years, outside of insider work and sabotage. There is still a chance of that happening, but if you'd ask me if I would rather be in Western Ukraine or Western California in 2030, I'd probably say California. \-You can drink the tap water. (Unless you're in Flint lmao) \-America is actually a lot more accepting of foreigners and foreign topics/culture in general when compared to some other regions. It's also a lot easier to move upwards in social and economic standing (to a certain degree) than it is in some other regions. \-We (just about) have as many airports in the US as the rest of the world combined. We completely lack high speed rail and other forms of cheap, efficient, and convenient intercity travel, but if you are willing to part ways with an unreasonably high sum of cash (or get your employer to pay that for you), you can pretty much fly from anywhere in the US to anywhere in the US within 2 connections.

Kellykeli

2025-01-19 18:43:30

m828r52

[Numbeo](https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/rankings_by_country.jsp) “is a crowd-sourced online database of perceived consumer prices, real property prices, and quality of life metrics’s” They are cited in a lot of world country rankings from surveys and such. The USA doesn’t make the top 10 in categories like Quality of Life, Human Development Index, Safety, Cost of Living… USA doesn’t even come close in a lot of these. It’s unfortunate, because I appreciate your view for what it is. The fact is, most of the countries ranking highest on these lists are under US protection for all intents and purposes. They are safe from existential threats, and so thrive. The USA is definitely wealthiest nation on Earth. And I love my country. It is massive and beautiful and abundant. It is full of cultural diversity and its people can be wonderful. But I think the wildly varying perceptions of the USA are due to that fact: wealthiest nation, military superpower, but seriously flawed systems keeping it from topping those lists. Edit: I made an error. USA is #8 for Cost of Living from my source. But it’s the only category out of 9 they track where USA is in the top 10

AlphaWhiskeyOscar

2025-01-19 17:32:35

CMV: A lack of dating experience should not be seen as a red flag in dating even at ages 25+.

Of course, people *can* decide what their dating dealbreakers are and have absolute power here but that doesn't mean every decision is a good decision. In my opinion, I think there are certain reasons that someone might not get into a relationship til 25+. The base of what it tends to come down to is that many people assume a personality flaw when someone is single for that kind of time, though I think this is misguided. A person may've had a rough upbringing which made dating very difficult but has sorted their life out. To the contrary, I'd probably think it was admirable that someone waited til they were more stable to date. It can show care for themselves and their future partners. Alternatively, someone may just be physically unattractive. It is entirely plausible that someone is just that ugly or short to the point that they weren't able to find someone to be with for their SO. If that luck changes at an older age, I don't think the prospective partner should consider their previous lack of experience a red flag. It's not their fault nobody wanted them romantically for such a long time, especially if it's a more genetic thing like being short. I feel like instead of looking at dating experience, it is much better to look at things like how they interact with friends, their family if they keep in touch, and just their personality overall. I don't think dating experience or *especially* the lack thereof needs to be considered. As far as how I think dating experience should be discussed in relationships, I feel like it should be don't ask don't tell from both sides. I don't think there's particular benefit to knowing this. The one exception would be if one or both have kids, as the kids are likely still an important part of their lives. Else, past relationships or the lack thereof can stay in the past.

Early-Possibility367

2025-01-18 20:10:22

m7wte1k

>CMV: A lack of dating experience should not be seen as a red flag in dating even at ages 25+. I'm sure you'd agree that someone who didn't date before 25 because they were in prison would be a valid concern. Being solo until 25 *should* be seen as a red flag. But "red flag" doesn't mean "don't date this person, he's a monster." It means, "look into this a bit." I can think of a million reasons that *wouldn't* be a deal breaker, but none that I wouldn't want to know about. >The base of what it tends to come down to is that many people assume a personality flaw when someone is single for that kind of time, though I think this is misguided. The assumption is that there IS a reason. As I said above, figuring out if that reason is a problem for you or not is important. >To the contrary, I'd probably think it was admirable that someone waited til they were more stable to date. It can show care for themselves and their future partners. So it seems like you agree with me—you'd *WELCOME* someone seeing the age as a red flag because it would initiate the investigation that would show a positive aspect of your personality and separate you from the prison inmate example above. >It is entirely plausible that someone is just that ugly or short to the point that they weren't able to find someone to be with for their SO. This is very, very rare. Ugly people date. Ugly people have sex. Ugly people are off doing ugly things all the time. But to your point, are there some small percentage of people who are so conventionally unattractive that they simply can't find anyone. However, in most of these cases, their attractiveness isn't the singular—or even primary—issue, because again, ugly people date. What this *usually* implies is something not appearance related. Personality issues, religious issues, etc. You often see very unpleasant people blaming their station in life on their attractiveness when they are well within the normal range. >I don't think the prospective partner should consider their previous lack of experience a red flag. Lack of experience doing anything is a red flag. Who's going to throw a football better: me, the guy who played catch with his dad every day growing up, or Bob, who's never seen a football or heard of the game? Experience affects relationships like it affects anything. But again—red flag doesn't mean "DON'T DO IT!", it means, "ask some questions." >I feel like instead of looking at dating experience, it is much better to look at things like how they interact with friends, their family if they keep in touch, and just their personality overall. I don't think dating experience or *especially* the lack thereof needs to be considered. I know plenty of people that are great friends or family that are *terrible* partners. A romantic/sexual/monogamous relationship isn't interchangeable for friendship. >As far as how I think dating experience should be discussed in relationships, I feel like it should be don't ask don't tell from both sides. I don't think there's particular benefit to knowing this.  This sentence is exactly why relationship experience is important. You need to understand that people had lives before you. They might have had sex, got married, had kids, and been swept off their feet or they might have been abused, threatened, and lived through things you can't imagine. Forcing your partner to pretend that their past didn't happen is what we do when we're teenagers with a warped TV-inspired view of love. "Don't ask, don't tell" is insecure and borderline horrible in itself. Delete that thought. >past relationships or the lack thereof can stay in the past. The time before you got into a relationship isn't just something to remove from your brain when you get a girlfriend. That time made you who you are and impacted every element of who you are. Not only are you hurting your partner when you think like this, you're hurting yourself.

WorldsGreatestWorst

2025-01-18 21:26:49

m7wt89w

If never having dated someone is a dealbreaker, it is because of these things below * Starting point and goal - Someone who has never dated is at the initial starting point. They have no personal and detailed goals. Marriage is not a goal. 2 kids is not a goal. Marriage in 2 years with a kid 1 year after with a home income of 150k is a goal. * No baseline - A person who has never dated is a wildcard. You have no idea how they'll handle prioritizing a lover and their parent. How they handle someone in their home for periods at a time. This person is a dice roll. And a dice roll is not worth the risk and stress on its own. * No pull - If this is a notable red flag, then the person who has never dated already has nothing else important going for them. For this to be a red flag, you need to have nothing impressive initially that would show you're a good potential partner. No impressive job that implies maturity or skills. No fame, status, or even personality that would imply you're reliable. You're nothing but another suitor hoping to BUILD a connection that should've already been there. Essentially, you're a free sample. You're that mystery flavored jelly bean amongst common flavored ones. Anyone wanting to enjoy a jellybean has no reason to pick you and hope you're a good flavor when regular ones are next to you. There are tons of people who don't mind dating someone who's never dated before. They are willing to be the first, either because they don't care, or because they found a connection that makes the risk worth trying. And there are even people who specifically don't care as long as other objective traits are confirmed, such as wealth, religious beliefs, financial goals, etc. AND, there are even people that PREFER it, either due to religious upbringings or personal preference. For you to suggest things like >it is much better to look at things like how they interact with friends would be telling people to invest time in someone who hasn't interested them enough and has never managed a relationship before. Why would they? In general, nobody is making a real emotional bond with someone and then refusing to date that person because they never dated anyone prior. They are refusing to date someone who they'll likely forget within the next week if not within the next day.

ILikeToJustReadHere

2025-01-18 21:25:59

CMV: A lack of dating experience should not be seen as a red flag in dating even at ages 25+.

Of course, people *can* decide what their dating dealbreakers are and have absolute power here but that doesn't mean every decision is a good decision. In my opinion, I think there are certain reasons that someone might not get into a relationship til 25+. The base of what it tends to come down to is that many people assume a personality flaw when someone is single for that kind of time, though I think this is misguided. A person may've had a rough upbringing which made dating very difficult but has sorted their life out. To the contrary, I'd probably think it was admirable that someone waited til they were more stable to date. It can show care for themselves and their future partners. Alternatively, someone may just be physically unattractive. It is entirely plausible that someone is just that ugly or short to the point that they weren't able to find someone to be with for their SO. If that luck changes at an older age, I don't think the prospective partner should consider their previous lack of experience a red flag. It's not their fault nobody wanted them romantically for such a long time, especially if it's a more genetic thing like being short. I feel like instead of looking at dating experience, it is much better to look at things like how they interact with friends, their family if they keep in touch, and just their personality overall. I don't think dating experience or *especially* the lack thereof needs to be considered. As far as how I think dating experience should be discussed in relationships, I feel like it should be don't ask don't tell from both sides. I don't think there's particular benefit to knowing this. The one exception would be if one or both have kids, as the kids are likely still an important part of their lives. Else, past relationships or the lack thereof can stay in the past.

Early-Possibility367

2025-01-18 20:10:22

m7wmy6x

You're post ends up making a MUCH different and more extreme claim ("Don't ever discuss your previous relationships with your future partners") than the title ("lack of dating experience isn't a big deal"). I'll tackle the second first. A lack of dating experience can often have plenty of explanation. Hell, I myself moved a fair amount in my early 20s, so long-term dating wasn't really on the table and once I started dating in around 24/25, I never felt judged for lacking relationship experience (yes, I know relationship & dating experience are slightly different, but stick with me). However, there were a few times I ran into people eager to date who were attractive, smart, and funny and I became suspicious about them just never finding anyone who'd commit to them. In EVERY one of those situations, that person ended up turning abusive, mentally unstable, or had some other huge thing that made me immediately lose interest. That's generally what people talk about; a lack of dating experience by itself isn't bad, but a lack of dating experience without a reason can often be a sign for other things. But as other commenters said, I don't think people are as judgy about a lack of experience as you seem to think. Most people will generally accept even simple answers like "I was early 20s and didn't want to settle down" or "I worked two jobs and didn't have time to date" without issue. As for your first, and more ridiculous, claim, you should DEFINITELY discuss previous relationships with your current partners. Like anything else, you should learn from previous attempts to make the next attempt more likely to succeed. Plus, I want to know my partner for who they are, and that's not going to happen if I force them to cut out any part of their lives that involved their previous partners. It's also weirdly jealous and insecure; I don't see you arguing that people should erase their previous friends from their history, so why should we be erasing our previous romantic relationships beside people might feel insecure when their partner talks about people they used to have feelings for?

Anchuinse

2025-01-18 20:51:04

m7wt89w

If never having dated someone is a dealbreaker, it is because of these things below * Starting point and goal - Someone who has never dated is at the initial starting point. They have no personal and detailed goals. Marriage is not a goal. 2 kids is not a goal. Marriage in 2 years with a kid 1 year after with a home income of 150k is a goal. * No baseline - A person who has never dated is a wildcard. You have no idea how they'll handle prioritizing a lover and their parent. How they handle someone in their home for periods at a time. This person is a dice roll. And a dice roll is not worth the risk and stress on its own. * No pull - If this is a notable red flag, then the person who has never dated already has nothing else important going for them. For this to be a red flag, you need to have nothing impressive initially that would show you're a good potential partner. No impressive job that implies maturity or skills. No fame, status, or even personality that would imply you're reliable. You're nothing but another suitor hoping to BUILD a connection that should've already been there. Essentially, you're a free sample. You're that mystery flavored jelly bean amongst common flavored ones. Anyone wanting to enjoy a jellybean has no reason to pick you and hope you're a good flavor when regular ones are next to you. There are tons of people who don't mind dating someone who's never dated before. They are willing to be the first, either because they don't care, or because they found a connection that makes the risk worth trying. And there are even people who specifically don't care as long as other objective traits are confirmed, such as wealth, religious beliefs, financial goals, etc. AND, there are even people that PREFER it, either due to religious upbringings or personal preference. For you to suggest things like >it is much better to look at things like how they interact with friends would be telling people to invest time in someone who hasn't interested them enough and has never managed a relationship before. Why would they? In general, nobody is making a real emotional bond with someone and then refusing to date that person because they never dated anyone prior. They are refusing to date someone who they'll likely forget within the next week if not within the next day.

ILikeToJustReadHere

2025-01-18 21:25:59

CMV: A lack of dating experience should not be seen as a red flag in dating even at ages 25+.

Of course, people *can* decide what their dating dealbreakers are and have absolute power here but that doesn't mean every decision is a good decision. In my opinion, I think there are certain reasons that someone might not get into a relationship til 25+. The base of what it tends to come down to is that many people assume a personality flaw when someone is single for that kind of time, though I think this is misguided. A person may've had a rough upbringing which made dating very difficult but has sorted their life out. To the contrary, I'd probably think it was admirable that someone waited til they were more stable to date. It can show care for themselves and their future partners. Alternatively, someone may just be physically unattractive. It is entirely plausible that someone is just that ugly or short to the point that they weren't able to find someone to be with for their SO. If that luck changes at an older age, I don't think the prospective partner should consider their previous lack of experience a red flag. It's not their fault nobody wanted them romantically for such a long time, especially if it's a more genetic thing like being short. I feel like instead of looking at dating experience, it is much better to look at things like how they interact with friends, their family if they keep in touch, and just their personality overall. I don't think dating experience or *especially* the lack thereof needs to be considered. As far as how I think dating experience should be discussed in relationships, I feel like it should be don't ask don't tell from both sides. I don't think there's particular benefit to knowing this. The one exception would be if one or both have kids, as the kids are likely still an important part of their lives. Else, past relationships or the lack thereof can stay in the past.

Early-Possibility367

2025-01-18 20:10:22

m7wt89w

If never having dated someone is a dealbreaker, it is because of these things below * Starting point and goal - Someone who has never dated is at the initial starting point. They have no personal and detailed goals. Marriage is not a goal. 2 kids is not a goal. Marriage in 2 years with a kid 1 year after with a home income of 150k is a goal. * No baseline - A person who has never dated is a wildcard. You have no idea how they'll handle prioritizing a lover and their parent. How they handle someone in their home for periods at a time. This person is a dice roll. And a dice roll is not worth the risk and stress on its own. * No pull - If this is a notable red flag, then the person who has never dated already has nothing else important going for them. For this to be a red flag, you need to have nothing impressive initially that would show you're a good potential partner. No impressive job that implies maturity or skills. No fame, status, or even personality that would imply you're reliable. You're nothing but another suitor hoping to BUILD a connection that should've already been there. Essentially, you're a free sample. You're that mystery flavored jelly bean amongst common flavored ones. Anyone wanting to enjoy a jellybean has no reason to pick you and hope you're a good flavor when regular ones are next to you. There are tons of people who don't mind dating someone who's never dated before. They are willing to be the first, either because they don't care, or because they found a connection that makes the risk worth trying. And there are even people who specifically don't care as long as other objective traits are confirmed, such as wealth, religious beliefs, financial goals, etc. AND, there are even people that PREFER it, either due to religious upbringings or personal preference. For you to suggest things like >it is much better to look at things like how they interact with friends would be telling people to invest time in someone who hasn't interested them enough and has never managed a relationship before. Why would they? In general, nobody is making a real emotional bond with someone and then refusing to date that person because they never dated anyone prior. They are refusing to date someone who they'll likely forget within the next week if not within the next day.

ILikeToJustReadHere

2025-01-18 21:25:59

m7wstp3

>Alternatively, someone may just be physically unattractive There are unattractive men and women and people who are still fine with being with a less attractive person so not a good argument. >It's not their fault nobody wanted them romantically for such a long time, especially if it's a more genetic thing like being short. You are focusing on some small amount of people that might be applicable for what you are saying. Even then yes you are indeed responsible for how you look. Even if you are less attractive on average you can make yourself look better typically with some effort on how one dresses and carries oneself. Also for height stats show average woman just wants a guy taller than her and vice versa for me so no not nearly a problem as you are insinuating. >I don't think dating experience or especially the lack thereof needs to be considered. Nah and I am saying this as someone with little dating experience. You build the habits for the future you along the way and you aren't supposed to pick someone with the expectation they will change who they are. Someone with a lack of dating experience or sufficently negative dating experience is going to not be as capable of doing the things one is expected to in a relationship. The other party is going to have to be more patient and assume the person will adapt. It shouldn't be a deal breaker probably, but absolutely imo is a red flag and something to look at.

soldiergeneal

2025-01-18 21:23:50

CMV: People who think elon musk is dumb are dumb

Let me preface this bye saying i am from germany, so english is my second language, and also US politics is my second politics. If anyone in the western world can even say that. So First things first. I am no elon fanboy. Maybe i was during the 2010s, because who wasnt. He pioneerd electrical vehicles and promised Mars flights. But then he started to become an open asshole and right wing conspiracist. So of course you can say he is human garbage. Like every billionaire. If you are not a Psychopath you wouldnt become a billionaire. But when i read on reddit hundreds or thousands of comments how elon musk is dumb, and other people made tesla and spaceX great, i dont feel that. He knows exactly what he does. He knows what the masses want. He probably hires a huge PR team that twitters for him (have you seen the times he tweets? Its sometimes 24/7, its not him, he doesnt give a shit). And of course he doesnt really manage Tesla or spaceX, but still its companys that he owns, and spaceX revolutionised space cargo And since Reddit turned its back on him around 2020 he is the fucking richest man in the world by far with electrical cars and rockets, outcompeting even jeff bezos who makes money with literally everything. So in my mind,whenever i read a reddit comment about how elon is dumb, i Imagine someone who peaked in High school and thinks if they just had a rich father they could easily pull of the same. Thanks for listening to my rant. I am a bit drunk.

s1nced00m

2025-01-18 07:07:57

m7sk8x5

The choice is not binary. He is not *either* smart or dumb. He can be both in different aspects of being a human. While I don't necessarily agree, for the sake of argument I'll concede he may be a great engineer, a visionary, good at business, etc. Fine. He is also dumb in many respects, mostly socially but not always. He called a guy a pedo because he didn't want to use Elon's submarine to save some children. That's dumb. He uses the term "woke mind virus". Who does that? Dumb people. He's lost 80% of the value of Twitter in 2 years not because of any changes in market forces or the economy, but just because he's ran it like shit and made people hate him and the platform. Why? Because he's dumb. When people say Elon is dumb, they are not saying he possesses no intellect at all in any regard. They are saying he says and does a lot of dumb shit, and for them those dumb things outweigh whatever skills he may have and tips his overall scale toward dumbness.

ManOverboard___

2025-01-18 07:38:28

m7skj5f

If you take a sample of random people with the same bet worth, some of them will end up with more money, and some with less money. We then ascribe it to 'skill' or 'lack of skill'. However, it doesn't have to have anything to do with skill. Take for example stock trading. Suppose that there were ten thousand investment managers out there-which is not an outlandish number-and that every year half of them, entirely by chance, made money and half of them, entirely by chance, lost money. And suppose that every year the losers were tossed out, and the game replayed with those who remained. At the end of five years, there would be three hundred and thirteen people who had made money in every one of those years, and after ten years there would be nine people who had made money every single year in a row-all out of pure luck. We would hail these 9 people as stock mavens. But that doesn't necessarily make it true. Similarly, Elon Musk would be a footnote in history without luck eg. if Paypal didn't buy out his share or if he didn't get a government contract literally 3 weeks before he went bankrupt. Success is often about skill. Overwhelming success almost always involves a large share of luck.

lwb03dc

2025-01-18 07:40:43

CMV: Luigi Mangione is the canary in the coal mine moment for our society.

There is so much to unpack here. First off, the narratives are insanely neurotic. On one side, you have reports of people outright cheering this guy on. On the other side, they're using every trick in the book to discredit his fans while humanizing his victim. Meanwhile, in the real world, so many people are struggling to make ends meet. Trying to control a narrative isn't going to make the core problem go away of gainful employment beibg linked to medical insurance on top of an incrementally escalating skill gap, in addition to "steamlining" business operations resulting in unrealistic deadlines and expectations, for jobs many can't even land for because of "unicorn" fishing expeditions... And I ramble and can go on forever. The main point is, life has become way too hard. No one can fix this, even if they wanted to. Social darwinism WILL create social unrest. And propaganda and narrative control have their limits, especiallly when people become desperate. I feel that the CEO murder is a breaking point. Things won't get better, they will escalate. No one knows what they're doing, tbe movie "Don't Lpok Up" was absolutely right, and if anytbing understated how insanely dysfunctional we've become.

TheFrogofThunder

2025-01-18 11:56:08

m7uaz7c

>The US system is built on the idea that government corruption is the worst thing that can happen, and created a framework allowing maxinum liberty. Its not and this perception is part of the problem this isn't capitalism or free market forces or free private business, these companies may as well be state owned enterprises. They basically write thier own legislation through lobbying and as such have no real compeition. The problem is America is too pussy to let these businesses be businesses that experience market forces which will make some fail or produce bad products, but its also not confident enough to just go full force on the social welfare systems. So you get this shitty situation in the middle.

lastoflast67

2025-01-18 13:27:40

m7u3c35

luigi didn't sacrifice his life to make a change, he lashed out in frustration dont get me wrong he picked one of the least worst targets for his murder, but the health insurance industry will not change a lick for it the problem is not that "bad people" are doing "corruption" with their power, the problem is a privately owned insurance company is incentivized to take your money and never give it back with any trick they can invent, and replacing a ceo doesn't replace that system the bad news is the actual solution is even harder: to work with other people struggling to find healthcare, and build a system that will take care of the worst parts of it, all outside the reaches of the government and capitalism as much as feasible. it's not impossible but it's not as glamorous as donning a hoodie and popping caps in the backs of heads

2025-01-18 12:49:44

CMV: Luigi Mangione is the canary in the coal mine moment for our society.

There is so much to unpack here. First off, the narratives are insanely neurotic. On one side, you have reports of people outright cheering this guy on. On the other side, they're using every trick in the book to discredit his fans while humanizing his victim. Meanwhile, in the real world, so many people are struggling to make ends meet. Trying to control a narrative isn't going to make the core problem go away of gainful employment beibg linked to medical insurance on top of an incrementally escalating skill gap, in addition to "steamlining" business operations resulting in unrealistic deadlines and expectations, for jobs many can't even land for because of "unicorn" fishing expeditions... And I ramble and can go on forever. The main point is, life has become way too hard. No one can fix this, even if they wanted to. Social darwinism WILL create social unrest. And propaganda and narrative control have their limits, especiallly when people become desperate. I feel that the CEO murder is a breaking point. Things won't get better, they will escalate. No one knows what they're doing, tbe movie "Don't Lpok Up" was absolutely right, and if anytbing understated how insanely dysfunctional we've become.

TheFrogofThunder

2025-01-18 11:56:08

m7ulamz

You haven't presented articles or stats. When presented with data, you dismiss it out of hand while in your post you speak in vagueries like "they're using every trick in the book", "no one can fix this" and "things won't get better, they will escalate ". You're circle J-ing on a left leaning subreddit which is fine, just don't pretend you're engaging in meaningful discussion when you're called out.

Key-Jacket-6112

2025-01-18 14:19:50

m7u3aei

Agreed. Thought this would have happened a loooong time ago, but I underestimated the American govt's expertise at keeping the public distracted. The whole left vs right thing was manufactured and went off like a hitch. Hell, reddit is essentially based on that dynamic at this point. That along with all the other distractions, people won't wake up until they're finally starving or being overtly murdered by the US govt.

morganational

2025-01-18 12:49:31

CMV: Donald Trump's first term was, if not the worst in American history, then among the very worst

Since his loss in 2020, Trump and his supporters have worked to create an image of America under his tenure as serene and free of the so-called "crippling inflation" of Biden's tenure. However, Trump's dysfunctional tenure really did not achieve much of note: His only major achievement up to the midterms was a tax cut which had the benefit of cutting corporation tax (which I always support) and brought $460 billion back to the US after two quarters. However, the cut to the top marginal income tax rate was pointless. Trump also left it up to Ryan and co to do the actual work on the tax measure. His biggest success up to the midterms was confirming Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. He wasted DOJ resources on suing to block the AT&T-Time Warner merger unsuccessfully, just because he didn't like Jeff Zucker. His border policy was marked by unhinged schemes like using heat lasers on migrants that officials like Kirstjen Nielsen had to talk him out of, and here too by his own hardline views not enough was done. Otherwise, why would his 2024 platform be proposing mass deportations and other extreme positions that he noticeably failed to do in his first term? Despite the bombastic boasts about the great achievements of the Singapore summit with Kim Jong Un, nothing of substance was really achieved either at the Singapore summit or at Hanoi. John Bolton's sanctions plan on Venezuela ravaged Venezuela's economy but has plainly failed to achieve anything as Maduro is still in power. This is not even getting into the stuff officials like Tillerson and Mattis had to scramble to prevent, like a hair trigger and immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan. His trade war with China probably weakened GDP growth and the agreement for China to purchase an additional $200 billion of US goods that Trump agreed has resulted in China buying none of the additional goods they agreed to. And this is without even mentioning the egregious mishandling of the pandemic. Sorry if this is not very original and/or interesting.

PrestigiousChard9442

2025-01-18 16:33:48

m7w5hz7

Here are ten awful presidential terms. It can be tempting to judge a president's term by the _quality of their decisions_ (eg, if something "wasn't the president's fault" then it shouldn't count against them). Instead, I will argue as though _anything which happened during the president's term is their fault_--after all, a president is expected to have the leadership to make the best of a bad situation. * Andrew Jackson (1st term): Supported and signed into law the [Indian Removal Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act), initiating a [genocide against the indigenous peoples of the southeastern United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears). Introduced the corrupt [spoils system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system), where important government jobs were given to supporters, friends and relatives rather than to those who were better qualified. * William Henry Harrison (1st term): [Poor decision-making lead to his death](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Henry_Harrison#Death_and_funeral) just 30 days after he was sworn in, making him definitvely the most useless president so far. * James Buchanan (1st term): Lobbied the Supreme Court to issue a broad ruling in the [Dred Scott case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford). Under his leadership, the [Panic of 1857](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1857) caused huge unemployment and business to fail. Remained passive while the [Union broke apart](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#Seceded_states_form_the_Confederate_States_of_America) around him. * Abraham Lincoln (1st term): [Violence in the American Civil War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War) started only a month after getting sworn in, leading to the eventual deaths of 620,000 Americans. Suspended habeas corpus and civil rights (establishing precedents which would be abused by future presidents). * Andrew Johnson (1st term): Completely botched [Reconstruction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Johnson). [First president to be impeached.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Andrew_Johnson) * Woodrow Wilson (1st term): Slavery apologist and a promoter of southern [Lost Cause](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy) mythology. Screened pro-KKK movie [The Birth of a Nation (1915)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birth_of_a_Nation) at the White House—the first movie ever screened there. USA entered WWI, leading to the eventual deaths of 115,000+ Americans. * Woodrow Wilson (2nd term): Was warned not to send sick troops overseas but ignored the advice, resulting in [one of the deadliest pandemics in history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu). * Herbert Hoover (1st term): Made the [Great Depression](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression) much worse through [trade wars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act) and [bad economic policies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooverville). [Forcibly deported more than a million Mexican Americans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Repatriation) (including people born in the USA). * Franklin Delano Roosevelt (3rd term): Violated the precedent set by George Washington that presidents shouldn’t serve for life. USA entered World War II, leading to the eventual deaths of 400,000+ Americans. Signed [Executive Order 9066](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066), leading to the mass incarceration of ethic Japanese. [Started the US biological weapons program](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_biological_weapons_program#World_War_II_(1941%E2%80%9345)). * Harry Truman (1st term): Issued order to [use nuclear weapons](https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Resources/order_drop.htm) against another nation. Hopefully after reviewing this list, you'll be convinced that as bad as Trump's first term was, America has seen far worse.

GumboSamson

2025-01-18 19:14:32

m7vsymt

Just a few points: The tax cut didn’t just cut the top rate, it cut all of the tax rates, nearly every person who paid ya. Got a tax cut. And tax cuts aren’t pointless. There is a cycle you can get into where higher taxes fund social programs, which place a burden on productive people and businesses, creating more need and then more taxes for more social programs. Every now and again it needs to go the other way, and not just for businesses. And if you are going to talk about Ryan doing the work on the tax cut, can we just dismiss all of the legislation passed under Biden then, since Biden didn’t work on any of it, and wasn’t really mentally there? Either both get credit or neither get credit, because Presidents are not a part of writing legislation, all they do is sign it or veto it, nothing else. You ask why the 2024 platform is about mass deportations? Did you miss the border disaster that Joe Biden created? I mean the Biden administration literally created a mass immigration disaster, and for it we have new illegals here in the millions. That wasn’t the case under Trump. I mean a lot of his ideas weee stupid, but it is stupid to pretend like the overall effort at the border was not a success in Trump’s first term. Trump walked into North Korea, if you like peace more than war, how is that not a good thing? In the end during Trump’s first term, Russia didn’t invade anyone, and Hamas didn’t initiate a large scale terrorist attack on Israel. And you shouldn’t talk about Afghanistan, where Trump left on a year with no combat deaths, where Biden botched the withdraw badly, causing US Marines to die, those deaths are on Joe Biden. When Trump left, that part of the world had calmed down, and that was an achievement. There is plenty to criticize, you should stick to the things you can honestly criticize.

TheMikeyMac13

2025-01-18 18:08:50

CMV: Donald Trump's first term was, if not the worst in American history, then among the very worst

Since his loss in 2020, Trump and his supporters have worked to create an image of America under his tenure as serene and free of the so-called "crippling inflation" of Biden's tenure. However, Trump's dysfunctional tenure really did not achieve much of note: His only major achievement up to the midterms was a tax cut which had the benefit of cutting corporation tax (which I always support) and brought $460 billion back to the US after two quarters. However, the cut to the top marginal income tax rate was pointless. Trump also left it up to Ryan and co to do the actual work on the tax measure. His biggest success up to the midterms was confirming Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. He wasted DOJ resources on suing to block the AT&T-Time Warner merger unsuccessfully, just because he didn't like Jeff Zucker. His border policy was marked by unhinged schemes like using heat lasers on migrants that officials like Kirstjen Nielsen had to talk him out of, and here too by his own hardline views not enough was done. Otherwise, why would his 2024 platform be proposing mass deportations and other extreme positions that he noticeably failed to do in his first term? Despite the bombastic boasts about the great achievements of the Singapore summit with Kim Jong Un, nothing of substance was really achieved either at the Singapore summit or at Hanoi. John Bolton's sanctions plan on Venezuela ravaged Venezuela's economy but has plainly failed to achieve anything as Maduro is still in power. This is not even getting into the stuff officials like Tillerson and Mattis had to scramble to prevent, like a hair trigger and immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan. His trade war with China probably weakened GDP growth and the agreement for China to purchase an additional $200 billion of US goods that Trump agreed has resulted in China buying none of the additional goods they agreed to. And this is without even mentioning the egregious mishandling of the pandemic. Sorry if this is not very original and/or interesting.

PrestigiousChard9442

2025-01-18 16:33:48

m7w5hz7

Here are ten awful presidential terms. It can be tempting to judge a president's term by the _quality of their decisions_ (eg, if something "wasn't the president's fault" then it shouldn't count against them). Instead, I will argue as though _anything which happened during the president's term is their fault_--after all, a president is expected to have the leadership to make the best of a bad situation. * Andrew Jackson (1st term): Supported and signed into law the [Indian Removal Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act), initiating a [genocide against the indigenous peoples of the southeastern United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears). Introduced the corrupt [spoils system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system), where important government jobs were given to supporters, friends and relatives rather than to those who were better qualified. * William Henry Harrison (1st term): [Poor decision-making lead to his death](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Henry_Harrison#Death_and_funeral) just 30 days after he was sworn in, making him definitvely the most useless president so far. * James Buchanan (1st term): Lobbied the Supreme Court to issue a broad ruling in the [Dred Scott case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford). Under his leadership, the [Panic of 1857](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1857) caused huge unemployment and business to fail. Remained passive while the [Union broke apart](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#Seceded_states_form_the_Confederate_States_of_America) around him. * Abraham Lincoln (1st term): [Violence in the American Civil War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War) started only a month after getting sworn in, leading to the eventual deaths of 620,000 Americans. Suspended habeas corpus and civil rights (establishing precedents which would be abused by future presidents). * Andrew Johnson (1st term): Completely botched [Reconstruction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Johnson). [First president to be impeached.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Andrew_Johnson) * Woodrow Wilson (1st term): Slavery apologist and a promoter of southern [Lost Cause](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy) mythology. Screened pro-KKK movie [The Birth of a Nation (1915)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birth_of_a_Nation) at the White House—the first movie ever screened there. USA entered WWI, leading to the eventual deaths of 115,000+ Americans. * Woodrow Wilson (2nd term): Was warned not to send sick troops overseas but ignored the advice, resulting in [one of the deadliest pandemics in history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu). * Herbert Hoover (1st term): Made the [Great Depression](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression) much worse through [trade wars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act) and [bad economic policies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooverville). [Forcibly deported more than a million Mexican Americans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Repatriation) (including people born in the USA). * Franklin Delano Roosevelt (3rd term): Violated the precedent set by George Washington that presidents shouldn’t serve for life. USA entered World War II, leading to the eventual deaths of 400,000+ Americans. Signed [Executive Order 9066](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066), leading to the mass incarceration of ethic Japanese. [Started the US biological weapons program](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_biological_weapons_program#World_War_II_(1941%E2%80%9345)). * Harry Truman (1st term): Issued order to [use nuclear weapons](https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Resources/order_drop.htm) against another nation. Hopefully after reviewing this list, you'll be convinced that as bad as Trump's first term was, America has seen far worse.

GumboSamson

2025-01-18 19:14:32

m7vr8i2

I would say the last 5 have been the 5 worst but thats what happens when an empire declines. You don't get Trump without Obama's failure to do any real change that disenchanted rural working class that forms trump base. You don't get Trump's lawlessness without George W Bush's absolute disregard for the law. A war which killed 4 million people around the world ,didn't accomplish a single objective, and spent 7 trillion dollars that could've been spent on roads, high tech investment, education, social welfare basically anything would've been a more productive use of that money. Complete destruction of the 4th ammendment, illegal torture, illegal detainment, illegal assassinations and leaving us with a financial crisis that put the last nail in the coffin for the american middle class. Going back to Clintonite-Reganite neo liberal reforms going back to the 80's which deindustrialized the American heartland and financialized the economy creating massive inequality and leaving behind huge chunks of the country. Its hard to divorce one from the other, which to me suggests its less about what individual guy is in power and more about how systems react to a changing world, in this case the decline of American hegemony.

Km15u

2025-01-18 17:59:09

CMV: Donald Trump's first term was, if not the worst in American history, then among the very worst

Since his loss in 2020, Trump and his supporters have worked to create an image of America under his tenure as serene and free of the so-called "crippling inflation" of Biden's tenure. However, Trump's dysfunctional tenure really did not achieve much of note: His only major achievement up to the midterms was a tax cut which had the benefit of cutting corporation tax (which I always support) and brought $460 billion back to the US after two quarters. However, the cut to the top marginal income tax rate was pointless. Trump also left it up to Ryan and co to do the actual work on the tax measure. His biggest success up to the midterms was confirming Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. He wasted DOJ resources on suing to block the AT&T-Time Warner merger unsuccessfully, just because he didn't like Jeff Zucker. His border policy was marked by unhinged schemes like using heat lasers on migrants that officials like Kirstjen Nielsen had to talk him out of, and here too by his own hardline views not enough was done. Otherwise, why would his 2024 platform be proposing mass deportations and other extreme positions that he noticeably failed to do in his first term? Despite the bombastic boasts about the great achievements of the Singapore summit with Kim Jong Un, nothing of substance was really achieved either at the Singapore summit or at Hanoi. John Bolton's sanctions plan on Venezuela ravaged Venezuela's economy but has plainly failed to achieve anything as Maduro is still in power. This is not even getting into the stuff officials like Tillerson and Mattis had to scramble to prevent, like a hair trigger and immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan. His trade war with China probably weakened GDP growth and the agreement for China to purchase an additional $200 billion of US goods that Trump agreed has resulted in China buying none of the additional goods they agreed to. And this is without even mentioning the egregious mishandling of the pandemic. Sorry if this is not very original and/or interesting.

PrestigiousChard9442

2025-01-18 16:33:48

m7x97cz

>> There have been 45 different presidents (counting Trump only once), each serving up to 4 terms (William Henry Harrison served for only a month, and FDR served for 12+ years). A POTUS term is considered 4 years. I'd say that Harrison's month followed by Tyler finishing it out counts as a single term consisting of both their actions. I'm kind of surprised Tyler didn't make this list. > Franklin Delano Roosevelt (3rd term): Violated the precedent set by George Washington that presidents shouldn’t serve for life. There was no such violation because there was no law, rule, or official legal opinion. This was done voluntarily by the previous presidents. The term was for 4 years each time, and he was duly elected each time, democratically. That's not a "life appointment". > USA entered World War II, leading to the eventual deaths of 400,000+ Americans. That certainly cannot be considered a fault of the his term. The US was maintaining it's neutrality (which could indeed be considered a fault by today's standards) and was pulled into the war. > Signed Executive Order 9066, leading to the mass incarceration of ethic Japanese. Started the US biological weapons program). Valid. Now remember, we are comparing this to Trump's term: * Suggested bypassing the Constitution, more than once, including "serving" more than 2 terms. And yes, use of that word is indeed ironic. * Passed tax cuts for middle class and rich. Cuts for middle class sunset, while corporate tax was nearly cut in half was permanent. * Promised infrastructure and did not pass any laws helping infrastructure. * Attempted to repeal the ACA, which would cause millions of Americans to lose health insurance. Had no replacement, and doesn't even have a "concept of a plan" and never has. * Oversaw the worst pandemic since WW1, poorly. Congress passed several bipartisan laws funding research, which he signed. He then hamstrung and attacked scientists serving his administration and seeded distrust in the scientists, eventually promoting nonsense and distrust which hindered vaccine adoption. Had no plans for vaccine distribution. Forced states to fend for themselves to obtain life-saving medical gear, and did not invoke the defense production act to get more medical gear and masks into production. When the states were refused federal help, fighting amongst themselves to get devices for their own states, Trump had the feds *confiscate deliveries* to be distributed to his chosen red states. Delayed federal help to "blue" populated states, with strong indications (and inside comments to this effect) that he believed it would cause more people to die in blue states than in more rural "red" states. Trump also sent 7 extremely rare and valuable PCR testing devices to the Kremlin. As a result of his terrible response, the US has had over 1.1M deaths from covid, approximately 40% more deaths per capita than any comparable country, including Italy that was suffering 7% morbidity early on. That means **Trump's response** led *"to the eventual deaths of 400,000+ Americans"* (your quote about FDR), and they died needlessly. We weren't attacked and pulled into a war. Every government in every country in the world had to respond to this, and his response was so poor that more Americans died needlessly due to crappy response, than Americans died fighting for the world's freedom in WW2. So basically, that's what you're comparing to and I haven't even started on things like our standing in the world, the void he left in international affairs, and which countries stepped into the power vacuum. I haven't talked about his two impeachments, either. Or his defanging the EPA which resulted in thousands more American deaths. This is what you're comparing to, and all the terms you showed were bad, but were they worse? Many of the issues you wrote were absolutely not caused by the current POTUS, and it's ridiculous to blame the then-president for them, or claim they didn't make the best of the situation. I say entering WW2 after being pulled into it was the only possible decision. But everything I wrote above was caused directly by Trump.

Vuelhering

2025-01-18 22:54:52

m7vp4m0

I can argue for 3 worse presidents. An easy one to include should be Johnson, he almost ruined reconstruction after Lincoln got shot. During the 1864 election Lincoln was a Republican and Johnson the VP was a Democrat. Johnson had to get vetoed around the time Congress passed the 14th amendment. Edit 1: Another easy one to include is ironically the guy before Lincoln, Buchanan basically got told by the Supreme Justice the decision of Dred Scott before it was official which made the topic of slavery boil to the Civil War. He wanted to keep the decision to the states but that court decision made it obvious there was bias to keep slavery. So it's funny how two of the worst presidents bookend Lincoln, which the vast majority of historians say is the best. Harding had Teapot Dome, his interior secretary got bribes to rent out land to private oil companies for cheap. Edit 2: To help the poster who said 10 worse you can argue almost anyone during the lead up to the civil war because they kept dragging their feet on the slavery issue. Tyler, Taylor, Pierce are all bottom tier. Edit 3: Hoover being somewhat responsible for the Great Depression is also an argument but I don’t think he’s worse. Edit 4: the poster above published the list and I disagree that bad circumstances means a bad term. Lincoln ended slavery and helped the union and therefore the US survive which puts him at 1 for me as well. However a lot of other presidents have arguments like Hoover for example.

videogames_

2025-01-18 17:47:36

CMV: The healthcare in America is not that bad because it makes absolutely no sense

Like I am not an American but a Singaporean and like I hear on how high the prices are for healthcare in the USA are and I’m like, no way this has to be foreign propaganda. Like having your healthcare be to the point where several citizens die from simply being poor or middle class or even BANKRUPTED just because one of them got sick even though they got insurance? I’m sorry but this is too crazy to be true, the USA is a first world country there has to be more to this. Like i’m sorry but if this happened in my country there would be nooody riots or protests or the current government would have been removed I refuse to believe that the most independent and free people on earth would stand for this bullshit if it real. Like thousands of families being bankrupted just because one of them being sick? People dying because they can’t afford it? I’m sorry but this sounds too crazy to be real America is a bloody rich country this has to be foreign propaganda no way this stuff is real because like American safe super independent and free and have guns no way they would stand for this bullshit my country would have rioted over this.

Evoxrus_XV

2025-01-18 11:15:20

m7txt13

Yup, it's real. I'm an American. The last time I was in Singapore, I had a kidney infection upon arrival and spent my first two days in the ER at the hospital at Bugis Junction. They admitted me immediately to a comfortable bed/bay in the ER, hooked me up to fluids, and had a doctor there within minutes. Scanned me, diagnosed me, got me well enough to return daily for antibiotic injections and pain management. About $500 to save me from potentially fatal sepsis, and they would have worked with me on that if necessary. If I'd gone to an American ER, they likely would have triaged me in the waiting room until I passed out from pain or dangerously high fever, unless I was lucky enough to get to a good one (EMT techs have told me they know which ones are shit with others' lives). If/when I got through triage, at least several thousand dollars, potentially tens of thousands, depending on their add-ons. Even with insurance, they are likely to reject several costs that I wouldn't have approved any more than I approved their ridiculous premiums and copays. I'd have fought it if I survived it. Would probably have lost. Kidney issues became my major medical threat (likely genetic) but I had no idea until I got very sick at an inconvenient time. Saved twice by medical professionals abroad, either in or in close partnership with their nationalized systems. US insurance doesn't care that I traveled for my job (I was a college counselor for 180 students, some of whom I met abroad), and would have just let me die tbh. Or debilitated me to the point of suicide via neglect. I love the US, I think there is promise and I'm willing to work for it. But our healthcare system is one of our worst features. We can do better. I'd happily pay more in taxes if it could cover everyone's basic care.

ceasarJst

2025-01-18 12:22:17

m7tp2q9

"It's not bad because I don't believe it" isn't a good stance to take here. I don't know what the state of media is where you are but I'm willing to bet this information is easily verifiable. And beyond actually proving it, just think about how "rich" a country over 36 TRILLION dollars in debt really is. When you privatize healthcare, meaning companies capitalize upon premium payments and fees from their customers, they are incentivized to reduce service coverage they have to pay out of pocket which results in denial of partial or complete coverage. It used to be worse actually, before the ACA ("Obamacare") made it illegal to deny coverage for conditions a person has prior to getting coverage (pre-existing conditions). It's actually similar to how banks are run. If everyone took out their money from a bank (a "runoff" which also has happened very recently), the bank will usually collapse as they don't actually have that money liquidated. In the case of healthcare, they don't actually have the money to pay for every single one of their customers' healthcare. That money goes into their own assets, expenses, and shareholders. So when healthcare is as privatized as it is here, it's entirely plausible that it is *that* bad. Not to mention the CEO of the largest health insurance company got capped in public very recently. There is 100% civil unrest but it is very difficult to organize like you suggest when the US has such a large population compared to many smaller countries where it may be more common for the public to fight back. Rest assured people really are fed up; the cards are seriously just stacked against the 99% here and the workings behind that are far too complex for a single reddit comment tbh.

Comfortable_Term_928

2025-01-18 11:39:07

CMV: The healthcare in America is not that bad because it makes absolutely no sense

Like I am not an American but a Singaporean and like I hear on how high the prices are for healthcare in the USA are and I’m like, no way this has to be foreign propaganda. Like having your healthcare be to the point where several citizens die from simply being poor or middle class or even BANKRUPTED just because one of them got sick even though they got insurance? I’m sorry but this is too crazy to be true, the USA is a first world country there has to be more to this. Like i’m sorry but if this happened in my country there would be nooody riots or protests or the current government would have been removed I refuse to believe that the most independent and free people on earth would stand for this bullshit if it real. Like thousands of families being bankrupted just because one of them being sick? People dying because they can’t afford it? I’m sorry but this sounds too crazy to be real America is a bloody rich country this has to be foreign propaganda no way this stuff is real because like American safe super independent and free and have guns no way they would stand for this bullshit my country would have rioted over this.

Evoxrus_XV

2025-01-18 11:15:20

m7tuwuj

>In 2018, 8.5 percent of Americans, or 27.5 million, did not have health insurance at any point during the year. The uninsured rate and number of uninsured increased from 2017 (7.9 percent or 25.6 million). [Source](https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2019/demo/p60-267.html) >as many as 66.5% of Americans who file for bankruptcy blame medical bills as the primary cause. As many as 550,000 people file for bankruptcy each year for this reason. This data has been known for many years and has continued even with the passage of the Affordable Care Act. [Source](https://www.ilr.cornell.edu/scheinman-institute/blog/john-august-healthcare/healthcare-insights-how-medical-debt-crushing-100-million-americans) >Infant mortality: 5.4 deaths per 1,000 live births in the U.S. vs. 1.9 in Singapore. [Source](https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/infant-mortality-rate/) Are these enough?

Kaitlyn_The_Magnif

2025-01-18 12:07:52

m7tq4jv

The healthcare system in the United States actually makes perfect sense, *if you follow the money.* A lot of people will blame insurance companies, but they honestly feel more like a symptom than a root cause. These pharmaceutical and medical equipment companies make *bank* off of jacking up their prices, offering kickbacks to doctors and hospitals, and lobby Congress hard for favorable legislation. If we went to a universal healthcare system like the rest of the developed world, we'll just be paying exorbitant taxes instead of exorbitant insurance premiums (I know, it's a distinction without a difference). The root cause is just that our healthcare system here isn't necessarily designed to make us or keep us healthy, it's just designed to keep people alive and coming back for more. Yes, there are many good doctors and such, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong with how our healthcare is structured due to your usual standard corruption.

LegitLolaPrej

2025-01-18 11:44:21

CMV: The migration from TikTok to RedNote in response to the ban in the United States is not logical, unless you legitimately support the CCP. There are other courses of action which would make far more sense.

To be clear, I'm not American, so I do not want to focus on arguments about the United States versus China or other comparative political issues, particularly with respect to American users of RedNote claiming that they were 'lied to about China', in spite of my disagreement with that idea. What I do disagree with is *censorship.* I apply this standard globally. I believe that banning TikTok in the United States constitutes censorship and therefore I do not agree with it, regardless of my personal feelings on the app or its userbase. However, I also realize that RedNote and other Chinese applications face a considerable degree of internal censorship, enforced through their respective terms of services. I believe that these forms of internal censorship on the Chinese applications via the terms of service go much further than the degree of content restrictions and moderation, particularly regarding political subjects, than their Western counterparts. Whether the terms of service of an application constitutes censorship alone is a separate question. However, I believe that the terms of services of the Chinese applications (Douyin, RedNote, BiliBili, etc) are reflections of the Chinese political apparatus, in the same way that their national internet firewall is. I have gathered various instances of censorship on RedNote, known in China as Xiaohongshu, from well before this TikTok migration: [Xiaohongshu social media account blocked after Tiananmen post](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-57374879) >**A social media account for popular Chinese e-commerce app Xiaohongshu has been blocked after it issued a post on the anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown.** >It had posted "Tell me loudly: what's the date today?" on microblogging platform Weibo. >The post to its 14 million followers was swiftly deleted. >Its Weibo page has been replaced by a message saying it is being investigated for violations of laws and regulations. >Xiaohongshu has yet to comment publicly on the matter. As of Monday morning, its account on Weibo remained locked, but the app - which has an estimated 300 million users - was still working. >It is unclear whether the post was intended to reference the crackdown. One person familiar with the matter [told the Wall Street Journal](https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinese-internet-regulators-investigate-startup-after-tiananmen-square-anniversary-post-11622970523) that the post had not been linked to the anniversary. >Xiaohongshu, backed by Chinese internet giants Alibaba and Tencent, has been described as China's Instagram with e-commerce and is mostly used by young, urban Chinese women. >It shares the same name in Chinese - Little Red Book - as the famous book of quotations by Mao Zedong, the father of Communist China. [List of Derogatory Nicknames for Xi Leaked Amid Crackdown on “Typos](https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2022/07/list-of-derogatory-nicknames-for-xi-leaked-amid-crackdown-on-typos/)” >A crackdown on “typos” used to spread “illegal and harmful information,” and the censorship of an unpublished draft novel, have illustrated the further narrowing of online speech in China ahead of [the upcoming 20th Party Congress expected this fall](https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3185727/china-asks-european-leaders-meet-xi-november-will-they-accept).  >Chinese netizens have long employed a rich range of homophones, variant characters, and “typos” to evade the grasp of the censors and automatic filtering for designated sensitive words. In mid-July, Weibo and Bilibili [announced](https://weibo.com/1642088277/LC4pMypIY) a [crackdown](https://www.sohu.com/a/569096870_361784?scm=9010.8000.0.0.1021) on “typos” used to spread “illegal and harmful information.” CDT has archived and translated a plethora of such “typos” in our [Grass-Mud Horse Lexicon](https://chinadigitaltimes.net/space/Category:Lexicon). (“Grass-Mud Horse” is itself homophonous internet slang for “F\*ck Your Mother.”) Despite attempts to quash it, the language used to evade censorship  is still developing, as a leaked trove of censorship documents from social media platform Xiaohongshu reveals. [**The site’s content moderators discovered 546 nicknames, or “typos,” for Xi Jinping over a two-month period**](https://chinadigitaltimes.net/space/%E5%B0%8F%E7%BA%A2%E4%B9%A6%E5%AE%A1%E6%9F%A5%E7%99%BE%E7%A7%91%EF%BC%9A%E4%B9%A0%E8%BF%91%E5%B9%B3%E6%95%8F%E6%84%9F%E8%AF%8D%E5%BA%93). Xi’s name generally triggers automatic censorship of social media posts. Some machine translation apps have also recently begun [refusing to render his name](https://twitter.com/wafarris/status/1545012608058925057). Even innocent misprints of Xi’s name are no small matter—[one in the West Strait Morning Post in 2013](https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2013/11/censorship-vault-miswriting-xi-jinpings-name/) resulted in an order from the Xiamen Municipal Propaganda Department demanding all papers containing the error be removed from shelves and those responsible “severely punished.” Deeply obscure nicknames for Xi are also censored: a recent example saw a group of students convinced they’d discovered [a WeChat “bug” that was, in fact, automatic censorship triggered by an insult for Xi Jinping unknown to them](https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2022/03/wechat-bug-turns-out-to-be-obscure-insult-for-xi-jinping/). CDT has translated a portion of the Xiaohongshu list of nicknames for Xi, many of which play on long-established jokes that Xi resembles [Winnie the Pooh](https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2019/11/translation-wechat-suspends-account-after-winnie-the-pooh-comment/), is [a new-era emperor](https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2018/02/sensitive-words-emperor-xi-jinping-ascend-throne/), or is [accelerating China’s demise](https://chinadigitaltimes.net/space/Accelerator-in-Chief):  [How Xiaohongshu Censors “Sudden Incidents”](https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2022/07/how-xiaohongshu-censors-sudden-incidents/) >A leaked internal document from Xiaohongshu reveals how the Instagram-like social media and e-commerce company deals with censoring discourse about  “sudden incidents” on its platform. The document is [part of a hundred-plus-page trove](https://chinadigitaltimes.net/space/%E5%B0%8F%E7%BA%A2%E4%B9%A6%E5%AE%A1%E6%9F%A5%E7%99%BE%E7%A7%91) that details how the company censors its users in compliance with Beijing’s commands. Last week, we published a partial translation of [546 derogatory nicknames for Xi Jinping](https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2022/07/list-of-derogatory-nicknames-for-xi-leaked-amid-crackdown-on-typos/), compiled over the course of two months, that was included in the leak. >The document on “sudden incidents”—an [official designation for accidents, natural disasters, and political disturbances](https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2017/08/interview-jeremy-brown-learning-lessons-maintaining-stability-accidents-disasters/)—is titled “Public Opinion Monitoring System & Management Procedures,” and reveals both what Xiaohongshu considers sensitive and the process by which it censors it with “no omissions.” It begins with a detailed and expansive list of incident types likely to require special treatment. The list include carjackings, landslides, the “Two Sessions,” illegal cult activity, outbreaks of disease among livestock, labor strikes, geographic discrimination, public criticism of the Chinese Communist Party, student suicides, and even the introduction of products that might compete with Xiaohongshu for its user base’s eyes—seemingly blurring the line between censorship and anti-competitive practices. Sudden incidents that occur in Shanghai and Beijing are treated with extra scrutiny. A note underneath the list reads: “If a sudden incident is confirmed to have occurred in Beijing or Shanghai, report it to the Government Relations Team \[1\] immediately.” >The document goes on to detail the precise mechanisms by which Xiaohongshu quashes discussion of the potential incidents listed above, a process that differs depending on where the censorship order comes from. Censorship directives issued by the Cyberspace Administration of China are to be implemented in “real-time,” whereas internal censorship directives require a response within a comparatively lax five-minutes. In both cases, Xiaohongshu builds new lexicons of “sensitive” words that it keeps on an internal server and “banned” words that it reports to a higher authority, either its Shanghai Operation Security Group or a separate Shanghai-based organization. The lexicon includes derivative variants of both “sensitive” and “banned” words. There have also been further instances of post-migration censorship, particularly with respect to American users joining the platform. Based on this, the extent to which RedNote as a Chinese platform internally censors content is indisputable - what separates it from something like Reddit's terms of service is the fact that its terms of service and its moderation policies are a reflection of the Chinese political apparatus on the internet, which they are forced to comply with. The US government censoring TikTok was wrong in my view. The Chinese government's internal censorship of its social media platforms is also wrong. The outright bans of Western social media in China, including Reddit and others is far worse than anything currently in place in the United States, purely as a quantitative matter. The Chinese firewall in place is far more expansive than the individual TikTok ban. People moved to RedNote with no consideration of anything I have mentioned. This leaves essentially three possibilities: 1. They support the Chinese government's censorship but do not support the American government's censorship. 2. They did it to spite the American government and do not care about the ethical implications of directly supporting the censorship of another country. 3. They did not think about it at all. All of these possibilities are disappointing. * The first possibility is the most logical if that is genuinely their belief; that the Chinese government censoring things is good. I don't need to specify why I think that is wrong. * The second possibility is illogical and immoral. * The third possibility is sad. There were, however, far more logical alternatives to joining RedNote which makes very little sense for the reasons I have specified, particularly in response to a form of censorship. * They *could* have popularised the Tor network. This would be a very legitimate way of opposing any form of censorship performed by any government. The Tor network, funnily enough, is officially banned in China, though actually making it unusable is quite difficult. * They *could* have joined a decentralised, free and open-source alternative like PixelFed. * They *could* have moved to apps like Session, Signal, or something more suitable for mass-communication, Telegram. There are likely other alternatives that I did not mention. If those moving from TikTok to RedNote did not think of ANY of these, or anything similar, then they are either severely uninformed, have no principles that they are willing to stand behind unconditionally, or actually support the CCP.

Heavy-Mongoose1561

2025-01-18 12:13:25

m7u0qir

You are thinking about this way more and likely see yourself as more technical adept than most people. People aren’t going to flock to the onion network because easy of use is part of the draw for something like tiktok or rednote or whatever. Piece of advise: if the solution to a problem involves something as complicated as Tor, it isn’t a solution for most people.

WhydIJoinRedditAgain

2025-01-18 12:36:57

m7u0ksq

It is clear that the government’s intent with the ban is to hurt China. If it is successful, you can expect similar bans in the future. However, if people continue to use a Chinese app after the ban, that ban has essentially failed, which makes it less likely that other foreign products will be banned for doing the exact same thing American apps are already doing

DoeCommaJohn

2025-01-18 12:36:10

CMV: if you want to erase an identity in a population, the worst thing you can do is oppress it.

I’ve noticed that the only consistent factor worldwide in what makes someone identify so strongly about something is generally how much resistance or direct oppression this person receives from society for this particular identity. For example, black catholics in the united states are more likely to identify with their race because they’ve been oppressed for being black but not for being catholic. People in the old world in countries that are either super homogeneous or super heterogeneous where systemic racism didn’t really exist generally don’t have racial identities. People in the middle east for example are more likely to strongly identify with their religion or language because that’s an identity they are way more likely to be oppressed upon growing up. Skin color there is almost irrelevant there even though it’s unbelievably racially diverse being the cross point of Asia, Europe and Africa. People in Mostly racially homogeneous countries like Vietnam are also not going to strongly identify as “Ethnically South - East Asian” or “ethnically Vietnamese”. Basically if you want to erase blackness and whiteness you just to genuinely stop giving a fuck about it instead of positively or negatively discriminate about it.

FuzzyWuzzy9909

2025-01-18 03:09:05

m7rv2lo

There appears to be some correlation between oppression and identity forming. But in academic terms, the logical connection isn’t causal but a mediating variable. The real cause of identity forming, I would argue, is (a) perceived enemy(ies). In other words, perceived oppression leads to the creation of enemies, which in terms leads to an identity forming around “we are not our enemies”. But the oppression itself does not need to be real. Let me explain. Japanese people in Japan are not oppressed. Does according to your logic, Japanese people should have a weak identity right? And yet, consistently across Eastern Asia you see strong nationalistic tendencies when it comes to identity politics. I would argue that the key to forming an identity isn’t oppression, but a common enemy. You can see this in the above example. Chinese, Korean, and Japanese identities are strong because they largely define themselves by seeing the other two as historical enemies. This is in the national creation myth of all 3 countries. They all see themselves as the rebel who fought back against brutal colonialism at different points in history. And that identity wall still stands today because they still have deep animosity towards one another. Contrast this to the Danes, Swedish, and Norwegian. They were historical enemies but have fully reconciled in present day. Their national identity is not as strong, and even share a common identity (the Nordics). The rise of male identity in recent years is similar. Men are not “oppressed” in modern society in any statistically significant manner. But there is perceived erosion of our identity, caused by feminism, LGBTQIA+ rights, etc.. And boy do we fight back hard at our imagined enemies. Clifford Geertz’s book about the politics of national building and “imagined communities” basically affirms my theory. We define who we are, largely by defining who are we are not. There is an inherent exclusionary aspect to identities.

Pee_A_Poo

2025-01-18 03:30:19

m7rus5h

>Basically if you want to erase blackness and whiteness you just to genuinely stop giving a fuck about it instead of positively or negatively discriminate about it. I think you are reversing causality here. It's not like there used to be a great oppression of "Southeast Asians" as such, and then someone in charge decided to "stop giving a fuck" about seeing the world in those terms as a means to deflating tensions. Southeast asianness was always a western concept mostly used for immigrants from the region, it was never a strong local identity to begin with. Also, who is this advice *for*? People who want to erase an identity in a population, usually actively care about violently destroying it, so even if discrimination strengthens them at fist, they are still going to try and oppress them hard enough to make them go away. But if you are some sort of post-identitarian everyone-should-get-along type, then obviously it is a truism that it would be nice if we could all overlook that stuff, the problem is the other guys who are hell-bent on making it a big deal. There isn't really a target demographic for your insight who passionately want to *erase black identity*, but in a way that they would consider accomplished just by everyone no longer caring about skin color. There is also a survivorship bias to your point, sure you can tell inspiring stories about minorities that persevered under oppression, but there are also a lot that didn't. Languages and religions did die out under foreign rule by the hundreds, after all.

Genoscythe_

2025-01-18 03:27:12

CMV: if you want to erase an identity in a population, the worst thing you can do is oppress it.

I’ve noticed that the only consistent factor worldwide in what makes someone identify so strongly about something is generally how much resistance or direct oppression this person receives from society for this particular identity. For example, black catholics in the united states are more likely to identify with their race because they’ve been oppressed for being black but not for being catholic. People in the old world in countries that are either super homogeneous or super heterogeneous where systemic racism didn’t really exist generally don’t have racial identities. People in the middle east for example are more likely to strongly identify with their religion or language because that’s an identity they are way more likely to be oppressed upon growing up. Skin color there is almost irrelevant there even though it’s unbelievably racially diverse being the cross point of Asia, Europe and Africa. People in Mostly racially homogeneous countries like Vietnam are also not going to strongly identify as “Ethnically South - East Asian” or “ethnically Vietnamese”. Basically if you want to erase blackness and whiteness you just to genuinely stop giving a fuck about it instead of positively or negatively discriminate about it.

FuzzyWuzzy9909

2025-01-18 03:09:05

m7rumeg

A) This argument suffers from a lot of survivorship bias. All your examples are from cultures that have survived their oppression.  B) the goal of racial oppression isn’t always to eliminate a race, it’s most often a way to highlight race differences so people don’t organize and rally around class differences. The Southern Strategy, for example, was an explicit political strategy to pit poor white farmers against poor black farmers as a response to a multi-racial coalition of poor farmers raising up against industrial farming moguls. C) oppression doesn’t have to be shouted out or politicized. Rolling in your military and killing every one of a tribe is also oppression. And that is basically the majority way cultures have been eliminated outside of famine and disease. 

johnsonjohnson

2025-01-18 03:25:28

m7rufr2

> Basically if you want to erase blackness and whiteness you just to genuinely stop giving a fuck about it instead of **positively** or negatively discriminate about it. There's the real CMV. So, the problem is that you're considering oppression as a deliberate systemic act, either an act of the state or a grand conspiracy that the outgroup perpetuates against the oppressed ingroup. But that's not what it is, it's individual but shared prejudice that's the issue here, and since the prejudice is independently shared by such a large amount of actors, "stop giving a fuck" is not going to happen anytime soon, the negative bias is bound to remain, and the only thing that you realistically can do is try to counter its effects with positive bias.

Sayakai

2025-01-18 03:23:29

CMV: prescribing diet and exercise is like prescribing happiness to depressed patients

By now we are all aware there is a huge obesity epidemic in the US and the world. Over 40% of Americans are obese, that is 113 million people dealing with a deadly chronic disease. There are many hypothesized causes of this, and I have my own opinions (the food industry) but that's not what my post is about. I have noticed there is an overwhelming rhetoric of "diet and exercise" to lose weight and I see why: because it works in the short term. But the same cannot be said about the long-term. [This meta-analysis](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11684524/) of 29 diet and exercise interventions shows a maintained average weight loss of 3kg (6.6 pounds) after 5 years. If diet and exercise was a working solution then obesity wouldn't be the second leading preventable cause of death after smoking. I find this diet and exercise approach from doctors similar in efficacy to telling depressed patients to simply try feeling happier or telling patients with ADHD to try focusing more, it's simply not. Very few might succeed but very clearly it's not an effective solution, and not even a statistically significant solution over the long term; as good as saying nothing. On the the other hand, this misguided focus on diet and exercise could be causing eating disorders and self-esteem issues. We have seen that [eating disorders have been on the rise](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000291652203177X?via%3Dihub) in recent history, and it's important we don't exacerbate this as a society.

No-Hornet7691

2025-01-16 20:05:21

m7kfkbz

A few issues with this: While, yes, the food industry may be to blame for the obesity epidemic (I largely agree with you here) this is not something an individual struggling with obesity can do anything about. It's a systemic issue which we definitely should fix. But to the individual this is not helpful. So when an individual wants to deal with their health what exactly are they supposed to do? Diet and exercise are low risk and are proven to be beneficial to your health. And just because it doesn't work in the long term for most, does not mean we stop trying. Even if it only works on some people it is still worth it for them! (I say this as someone who has lost weight and went from overweight to healthy weight via diet and exercise - mostly diet, the exercise was beneficial in other ways though). And there may even be health benefits to those that do not achieve long term weight loss. And again: what else are they supposed to do?? Do you have a suggestion? Now, more speculatively: I think the main reason diet and exercise rarely works in the long term is that people lose the weight and then think they are done and go back to their old ways. Or, slowly but surely the old habits creep back in. There is not enough emphasis on what happens after weight loss. We focus too much on achieving the loss and almost not at all on the maintenance afterwards. Diet and exercise are meant to be done forever. It doesn't stop after losing the weight and the reality of this is something we should focus on more, ideally way before we reach our weight loss goals. What I mean by that: many lose weight by means of suffering. They deprive themselves of all the unhealthy foods they love. But you can't do that long term. Your will power eventually cracks. Instead, while you explore and try to find healthy alternatives that you actually LIKE, you also should find a way that you can still enjoy unhealthy foods occasionally. But how that balance can be maintained differs for everyone so it can be a lot of trial and error! So it's beneficial to start this trial and error during your weight loss phase. It makes the start of weight loss even harder but at the same time, that's also when your motivation is highest! And finally: I know many people who lost weight, then gained it back several times before they finally do find something that works for them and keep the weight off. So just because something doesn't work in a 5 year time frame, doesn't mean it doesn't work at all. Again, if we had something more effective I'd be all ears! Please enlighten me what else one is supposed to do if overweight? ETA: forgot to address the eating disorder side: Eating disorder does not just mean obsession with thinness and dieting! Plenty of binge eating and overeating types that CAUSE obesity! In any case, even if that were the case, not everyone who diets has an eating disorder. Only some people are affected and you are right, dieting COULD trigger this. But mental health support can absolutely be effective in dealing with eating disorders long term (and from my understanding often permanently!).

foopaints

2025-01-16 21:57:49

m7k4kvu

I’ll take this from a different approach, we DO prescribe happiness to depressed patients (coming from a depressed patient). What I mean is drugs aren’t a magical solution, you don’t just take some pills to be happy. Sometimes drugs are needed to give you a push but that’s just to lower some of the barriers preventing you from being able to do anything. If you just take antidepressants and sit around all day not interacting with people and living a sedentary lifestyle, they’re not gonna do much more than keep you from the worst. If you go outside, exercise, try new things, reconnect with friends, cook nice meals, clean your space, clean yourself, etc. You start to actually just be happy, a lot of times drugs aren’t even needed, just lifestyle changes.  The problem is doing those things with any amount of constancy is HARD. A lot of depressed people will say nothing is working but if you asked them to take a hard look at their behaviors and what they can control they really aren’t doing all they could be. They might say “my therapist is basically telling me to “just be happy””.  Similarly actually regularly exercising and keeping yourself on a strict diet is HARD, and we really aren’t the best at being honest with ourselves. The percentage of people that have an actual disorder that makes weight loss impossible is far too low for it to match up with the amount of people who claim they’ve “done everything and it’s not working”. I really don’t want that to come across as dismissive because I am aware how truly difficult it is to make constant self improvements, and how much harder it is to hold ourselves accountable and see things realistically. But at the end of the day it’s just a math problem of calories in - calories out, if it wasn’t we’d see a lot more chonky animals out in the wild. The fact that this is almost never seen should be good evidence that humans are really great acquiring calories and really bad at personal accountability. (Myself included) 

robbie5643

2025-01-16 20:52:25

CMV: prescribing diet and exercise is like prescribing happiness to depressed patients

By now we are all aware there is a huge obesity epidemic in the US and the world. Over 40% of Americans are obese, that is 113 million people dealing with a deadly chronic disease. There are many hypothesized causes of this, and I have my own opinions (the food industry) but that's not what my post is about. I have noticed there is an overwhelming rhetoric of "diet and exercise" to lose weight and I see why: because it works in the short term. But the same cannot be said about the long-term. [This meta-analysis](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11684524/) of 29 diet and exercise interventions shows a maintained average weight loss of 3kg (6.6 pounds) after 5 years. If diet and exercise was a working solution then obesity wouldn't be the second leading preventable cause of death after smoking. I find this diet and exercise approach from doctors similar in efficacy to telling depressed patients to simply try feeling happier or telling patients with ADHD to try focusing more, it's simply not. Very few might succeed but very clearly it's not an effective solution, and not even a statistically significant solution over the long term; as good as saying nothing. On the the other hand, this misguided focus on diet and exercise could be causing eating disorders and self-esteem issues. We have seen that [eating disorders have been on the rise](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000291652203177X?via%3Dihub) in recent history, and it's important we don't exacerbate this as a society.

No-Hornet7691

2025-01-16 20:05:21

m7k05zv

I agree with you, to a point. When I talk to patients about diet and exercise, I'm quite frank that the odds are against them for permanent weight-loss with doing this. This doesn't mean monitoring your diet and regular exercise are completely useless, they're still very important independently on their implications on weight for keeping you healthy, happy, and well in yourself. The set of scales in my office has a sign on it: "This device measures mass, not self-worth". The diet and exercise are a means to feeling well and living long and healthy, with a small but not insignificant chance of weight loss.

MissTortoise

2025-01-16 20:26:57

m7k6ecv

As others have already pointed out, your analogy fails on the pure basis that caloric intake unlike mental health, is a precise science. There might be more in-depth knowledge through a nutritician but the simple fact of the matter is that if one takes in less calories then they expend, the individual loses weight. If they take in more calories, they gain weight. The amount will be different from person to person, someone might need an hour with their metabolism to burn off the same amount of calories someone else can in 30 minutes, thus requiring more extreme amounts of exercise but the solution is the same.

Fntsyking655

2025-01-16 21:03:00