Datasets:

simonycl

/

change_my_view_new

like 0

CMV: Not all speech should be free and some opinions should be banned, resulting in considerable fines or jail time if expressed

There is no impediment to banning certain things from being said and in many cases it is not oppressive to do so. My country has a law against Holocaust denial ; never in my life have I been oppressed by not being able to deny a historical fact, yet some people think that it impedes free speech. I think that some of us will live not being able to say stupid shit. After the Charlie Hebdo shootings on January 7th 2015 around 50 people were arrested for simply defending the attacks and even served months in jail. Served them well in my opinion even though it's a clear violation of "freedom of speech", it doesn't contribute to anything to say that a terrorist attack was served. When it comes to religion I believe there is a very simple objective way to look at it. Something that has been done for thousands of years has had a long impact on said community, so not allowing people to practice their religions can cause distress to some and other issues to billions to people. That is objective. What is not objective is bigoted beliefs surrounding gender, race, sexuality, those should not be allowed, no matter personal beliefs. It is a proven fact that homosexuality is observed in many species, that there is no setbacks surrounding it in terms of health and other things. It is wrong and unnecessary to claim that homosexuality, bisexuality etc. are abominations or unnatural. That should definitely be banned, no questions about it. So many countries have laws against Holocaust denial and yet not about saying such things about homosexuality? Homosexual men were killed during the Holocaust too, it is oppressive to them to say they are an abomination just like it is to say that to Jews. Criticism of religion should be allowed freely, as religion is observed in only one species, it has concrete, studied setbacks (higher rates of uneducation, war, general hatred, misogyny). Criticism of religion is oftenly done on objective grounds, meanwhile criticism of irreligion from a religious perspective is never objective, as it is based on outdated religious texts from thousands of years ago, and oftenly has an emotional tie to it. If you are a decent, objective person, a law tomorrow banning hate speech will never impact YOUR free speech. If a ban on saying homophobic and racist things impedes your freedom, you are actively impeding the freedom of those groups of people, who deserve to not have to hear that there is something wrong with them simply existing. Of course, I am not saying you should be sent to jail for simply being an asshole. You can be a wrongly informed abusive asshole without being racist or homophobic. Fines or jail time should not apply to insulting people or trolling on the internet. People should have a right to defend their religions. If a drawing of Muhammad offends you, then you can express it and move on, not publicly agree with the murders of the cartoonists in question. Of course, art should be free 100%, everybody should be able to portray whatever they desire in art.

2025-01-09 02:53:05

m67awep

Ok, so if "homosexuality is an abomination" is a sentence that should not be allowed to be said, are you willing to ban all religious texts that literally say that or at least convey that meaning? If not, why does it become bannable offence when someone says that aloud? How is it different when I read that sentence from a legally printed Bible than when I read it on a Reddit discussion group? Should it be banned to say "I believe that everything in Bible is true", as it implies that the sayer also believes the above sentence is true even if he doesn't say it explicitly?

spiral8888

2025-01-09 05:03:46

m673klj

I used the United-States because it’s the most widely known examples on the platform, and I don’t know you or the events you are familiar with. I am myself not American, for the record. But this entirely misses the point. You can pick apart each example all you want, finding what should or shouldn’t be restricted, but you aren’t the one to control the government. Would you trust your government to decide what you can or cannot say? Would you trust Donald Trump to control the information in arguably the most influential country on the planet?

Un-Humain

2025-01-09 03:43:46

CMV: Congresspeople should get paid more, not less

I know this is not a popular position but I really do believe it. Curious to see if someone can change my mind. I believe that Congresspeople should get paid a lot more than they already are. * As it stands, Congresspeople earn $174,000, a number that has remained the same since 2009. House members are now allowed to claim their D.C. residence against their expense accounts, so that is a big raise, but the reality is that there are *a lot of jobs* that pay significantly more than $174k now. * The reason we decided to pay Congress at all is because an unpaid full-time job can only be held by someone who *doesn't need the money*. There are three types of people who would reasonably fit that bill: 1) people who are independently wealthy, 2) people who are bought by outside interests, creating an obvious conflict of interest, and 3) people who are willing to sacrifice everything for a few years to serve their constituents. #3 is a great ideal but completely unrealistic, so we're left with #1 and #2, neither of which are all that great. * By paying a comparatively low number - $174k is MUCH less than first-year law associates make at white shoe firms - we invite the kind of graft that we wanted to eliminate by issuing salaries in the first place. We see it when career politicians wind up as multi-millionaires who nakedly trade on non-public information. One thing that has consistently had bipartisan support is Congress' continued ability to trade on inside information with impunity. * There is a common refrain, that Congresspeople should earn the same as the average American. I don't believe that at all, though. I want Congress to be composed of the best people in the WORLD at drafting, passing, and debating law; I specifically *don't* want the average American to represent me, so I shouldn't pay those people like average Americans! My alternative is the following: 1. Double Congressional salaries to $348,000, and index it to the CPI using the Social Security formula. 2. Allow all reasonable expenses associated with travel and residence in D.C. during Congressional session, and *don't* take it out of the members' representational allowance (MRA) funds (this is because MRA funds include such things as office staffing, district mailings, etc., meaning that one could reasonably accuse members of taking from their staffs so that they can have a nice place in DC). 3. Implement one of two restrictions on trading for the members and their immediate families: 1. Completely ban the trading of individual stocks for all members (ETFs and mutual funds can still be traded), AND/OR 2. Require a minimum 90-day waiting period between the initiation and the execution of any trade, and require public disclosure of all trades 30 days before the trade is executed. Once a trade is initiated, it cannot be halted unless the stock is no longer available or the portfolio lacks the available funds to execute the trade. 4. No change in restrictions with respect to anything else, such as outside employment or fees / honoraria / royalties from books, speaking engagements, teaching, etc. I think this approach would encourage young, ambitious people (20s and 30s) to choose public service and end the blatant insider trading that has been happening for decades. A $348k salary is plenty to support a young family even in the highest-COL areas, but it still requires sacrifice for upper-echelon members of the private sector - law partners, many doctors, corporate executives, etc. all earn substantially more than this each year, but the "pay cut" still allows a very healthy living.

Holiday_Animal_8471

2025-01-09 10:58:18

m68vk3r

There is no salary figure so high that the kind of person ambitious enough to try to win a congressional election will not try to increase it through some kind of self-dealing. Maybe raising the salary will attract better candidates, but given that you have to be the singular winner of an election with tens (hundreds?) of thousands of voters in order to get the job, a certain amount of egomania is unavoidable. There have to be ironclad rules against corruption in office, and they have to be enforced by some entity other than Congress itself. Edit: And I agree that banning legislators from trading or owning individual stocks is a good place to start.

Anxious_Interview363

2025-01-09 11:28:15

m68yqde

Incidentally, there is not a lot of evidence for the stock thing - index funds based on congressional purchasing do about slightly worse than pure index funds. But you are correct that they are making a lot of money through other translations of their power. Increasing pay would mean more high-quality candidates, and would allow you to push stronger anti-corruption efforts. Remember these are like the top 100-300 most powerful people (politically) in the country. The parallel corporate role is making 10-20 million a year. Honestly we should be paying the president 10 million a year, and representatives a million a year.

MasterCrumb

2025-01-09 11:43:42

CMV: Congresspeople should get paid more, not less

I know this is not a popular position but I really do believe it. Curious to see if someone can change my mind. I believe that Congresspeople should get paid a lot more than they already are. * As it stands, Congresspeople earn $174,000, a number that has remained the same since 2009. House members are now allowed to claim their D.C. residence against their expense accounts, so that is a big raise, but the reality is that there are *a lot of jobs* that pay significantly more than $174k now. * The reason we decided to pay Congress at all is because an unpaid full-time job can only be held by someone who *doesn't need the money*. There are three types of people who would reasonably fit that bill: 1) people who are independently wealthy, 2) people who are bought by outside interests, creating an obvious conflict of interest, and 3) people who are willing to sacrifice everything for a few years to serve their constituents. #3 is a great ideal but completely unrealistic, so we're left with #1 and #2, neither of which are all that great. * By paying a comparatively low number - $174k is MUCH less than first-year law associates make at white shoe firms - we invite the kind of graft that we wanted to eliminate by issuing salaries in the first place. We see it when career politicians wind up as multi-millionaires who nakedly trade on non-public information. One thing that has consistently had bipartisan support is Congress' continued ability to trade on inside information with impunity. * There is a common refrain, that Congresspeople should earn the same as the average American. I don't believe that at all, though. I want Congress to be composed of the best people in the WORLD at drafting, passing, and debating law; I specifically *don't* want the average American to represent me, so I shouldn't pay those people like average Americans! My alternative is the following: 1. Double Congressional salaries to $348,000, and index it to the CPI using the Social Security formula. 2. Allow all reasonable expenses associated with travel and residence in D.C. during Congressional session, and *don't* take it out of the members' representational allowance (MRA) funds (this is because MRA funds include such things as office staffing, district mailings, etc., meaning that one could reasonably accuse members of taking from their staffs so that they can have a nice place in DC). 3. Implement one of two restrictions on trading for the members and their immediate families: 1. Completely ban the trading of individual stocks for all members (ETFs and mutual funds can still be traded), AND/OR 2. Require a minimum 90-day waiting period between the initiation and the execution of any trade, and require public disclosure of all trades 30 days before the trade is executed. Once a trade is initiated, it cannot be halted unless the stock is no longer available or the portfolio lacks the available funds to execute the trade. 4. No change in restrictions with respect to anything else, such as outside employment or fees / honoraria / royalties from books, speaking engagements, teaching, etc. I think this approach would encourage young, ambitious people (20s and 30s) to choose public service and end the blatant insider trading that has been happening for decades. A $348k salary is plenty to support a young family even in the highest-COL areas, but it still requires sacrifice for upper-echelon members of the private sector - law partners, many doctors, corporate executives, etc. all earn substantially more than this each year, but the "pay cut" still allows a very healthy living.

Holiday_Animal_8471

2025-01-09 10:58:18

m6aledn

thanks :) If I've expanded your view in a small way, consider awarding a delta! Even if I haven't changed your entire premise. Though if you'd like to continue the conversation I'm happy to do that too: I think for the multiplier idea to make sense, it needs to be the case that the number should be whatever multiplier we want the two to be separated by if they were approximating their ideal state. I think the median income should be higher. You think congress' pay should be higher. So, perhaps the median income should be 80k and congress should be making 320k. If that's the case, we should give a 4x multiplier, so that if congress wants to make that amount of money, they have to put in the work to raise the median wage first.

TheVioletBarry

2025-01-09 16:27:24

m68twee

I will say that I 100% agree that the current pay shouldn't be lowered for the exact reasons you say. The point is to allow you or me to run for office and not bankrupt ourselves. That is vitally important so we don't just have lawyers, tech ceos and a defacto house of lords. I don't see the need to increase it however. We see congresspeople increase their wealth considerably via stocks, other opportunities the role grants you, books deals and so on forever. Once a congressperson, forever you have far higher earning potential. Your everyday person isn't making 174K, a lot of people are lucky if they make 50k, over 150 is a huge increase. The current wage already allows people in a lower financial class to become representives. The upper middle class can already afford it.

eggs-benedryl

2025-01-09 11:20:06

CMV: massive national boycotts and a general labor strike are the most effective means of enacting meaningful political reform to address the widening economic inequality in the U.S.

We all should be aware by now of the fact that greater and greater wealth (and therefore political power) is being held by fewer and fewer people, threatening democracy and the general welfare of the majority of the US citizens. Many people are even suggesting that violent revolution is the only answer to deal with such a problem, as can be seen by the public reaction to the recent murder of an insurance company CEO. I believe violent revolution is exactly what the powerful elite are prepared for, given corporate government capture and the ever increasing surveillance police state. Therefore, the 99% must speak to the 1% in a language which they understand, and which they are absolutely vulnerable to: money. If the majority of the 99% were to just not buy anything except for absolute life sustaining necessities, withdraw all money from bank accounts, and enact a nation wide general labor strike for 1 month, politicians would be forced to address the demands of its citizens. What those demands would be are open for debate of course, and successfully organizing such a massive action would be incredibly difficult, but I truly believe this is the most effective method of enacting any sort of really meaningful change to occur in the U.S. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I’m having a hard time seeing how any other option could be as effective.

BootHeadToo

2025-01-09 06:53:02

m685qao

If the american people allow their guns to be taken off them what makes you think they’re going to be organised into a general labour strike? You can’t simultaneously wish people would spontaneously take the action you want and also say something else won’t work because people won’t magically take the action you want If it’s a conversation on a theoretical best action for people to take, then the outcome will be directly proportional to the amount of violence used. If its a conversation on what is possible irl, then a few people taking action is more realistic than a ton of people taking action Either way i don’t think peaceful means are nearly as effective as non-peaceful. Do i want this to be true? No. But if they have turned every peaceful method into something meaningless then they have removed all the other options available

LifeofTino

2025-01-09 09:11:40

m67nwnv

While I agree with 95% of your post, I would say that having everyone withdraw their money from banks would only have everyone holding worthless cash when the economy inevitably collapses. I also think an across the board boycott would create that collapse. I think a targeted boycott would be the way to go, with some sort of a “join us or your next” policy for the others. What companies have been especially damaging to our country and how do we cut off their sources of funding? I also think something similar could be done about particularly engrained politicians that have handed this country over to the corporations - stop buying anything produced in their district until they resign. If people want to keep supporting trash blindly, they’ll do it bankrupt. The strikes could be used similarly, but I think at least a single day of solidarity to show strength would be useful too.

BlueLaceSensor128

2025-01-09 07:09:19

CMV: massive national boycotts and a general labor strike are the most effective means of enacting meaningful political reform to address the widening economic inequality in the U.S.

We all should be aware by now of the fact that greater and greater wealth (and therefore political power) is being held by fewer and fewer people, threatening democracy and the general welfare of the majority of the US citizens. Many people are even suggesting that violent revolution is the only answer to deal with such a problem, as can be seen by the public reaction to the recent murder of an insurance company CEO. I believe violent revolution is exactly what the powerful elite are prepared for, given corporate government capture and the ever increasing surveillance police state. Therefore, the 99% must speak to the 1% in a language which they understand, and which they are absolutely vulnerable to: money. If the majority of the 99% were to just not buy anything except for absolute life sustaining necessities, withdraw all money from bank accounts, and enact a nation wide general labor strike for 1 month, politicians would be forced to address the demands of its citizens. What those demands would be are open for debate of course, and successfully organizing such a massive action would be incredibly difficult, but I truly believe this is the most effective method of enacting any sort of really meaningful change to occur in the U.S. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I’m having a hard time seeing how any other option could be as effective.

BootHeadToo

2025-01-09 06:53:02

m687gy3

To start: Keep republicans out of office wherever possible. But instead, the people who claim to want progress the most, and the people who see themselves as the bleeding edge of change have decided to make liberals and democrats their opponent and target of scorn moreso than conservatives. People who describe themselves as "the left" for all intents and purposes pretend that conservatives and the GOP don't exist and they refuse to stand alongside or collaborate with people and politicians that actually do have the best interests of the american people in mind. If the would be general strikers can't even consolidate to keep trump and oligarchy out of power by simply casting a ballot, theres absolutely way they will take the action necessary to mobilize a strike. It seems like people are getting more and more "radicalized" but functionally all that means is they feel like electoralism and mainstream politics has disenfranchised them... leading them to self-disenfranchise entirely by becoming a radical fence sitter and non-participant in real world civics and politics. Stuff like this and movements/pundits that encourage this line of thinking might as well just be farming up controlled opposition for oligarchy. Outside of calling for a revolution that will never arrive, general strikes that will never happen, bashing liberals and for not being socialists, ignoring republicans and generally being a nuisance online... "radicalized" people get up to absolutely nothing of substance outside of making it easier for republicans to win by siphoning support away from democrats and liberals. People need to put on their big boy/girl/agender pants and assume roles in civics and politics so they can wield the reigns of power as they see fit instead of just openly hating anyone who wields power and has responsibility. Expecting a general strike to go off or some kind of revolution when the people who want these things can't mobilize even the most basic penetration into civics and politics is like saying we need to go to the moon when people who want that goal can barely ride a bike without training wheels People want to pretend like the deck is so stacked against them that they shouldn't even bother trying, but there's a HELL of a lot of people who aren't bothering to try at all. It's downright pathetic that uber progressives and "leftists" are so vocal and disruptive to discourse and yet out of 300,000,000 people in this country we get like half a dozen progressive politicians at a national level... and every year at least a couple of them turn out to just be shitty populists (looking at you fetterman) So yeah maybe before y'all try to general strike... stop trying to hamstring democrats and liberals as the first point of action especially at ridiculously crucial moments such as the election we just had. If progressives and people left of the democrats wanted to keep america out of the hands of oligarchs, yall would have tried to get harris in office like it was a matter of life and death. Musing about a revolution or strike that is completely improbable is an intellectually lazy cop out so people dont have do the actual work of civic responsibility as well as the acquisition and wielding of political power There's already a framework to get power and influence in liberal democracy. It's called politics and getting elected. Can't expect it to just materialize in your hands or that everyone will just wake up one day and decide to take it. Actually obtaining and wielding power seems like that last concern of "radicalized" people. All the want to do is criticize and undermine support for those who manage to obtain power and wield it. Never wielding power isn't a "bug" of radicalized people... it's a feature. If they never do anything or are responsible for anything theres nothing to criticize. Everything they want, or want to do is theoretically perfect since it will never meet reality and have its mettle tested by the real world

ergo_incognito

2025-01-09 09:21:55

m67qk3b

>I believe violent revolution is exactly what the powerful elite are prepared for Not really, as they don't have power to prepare for it (yet). The issue is that they have forgot that "regular people" (which often means middle-class in reality) are the ones who are taking care of their lives. How you prepare for a revolution if possible revolutionaries are responsible for delivering water and power to your villa, produce food that you eat, provide clothes that you wear etc.? There is no way to prepare for that without GAI. The reason why revolution is inadvisable is that you need to give power to small group of leaders to succesfully carry the revolution. And that is the point at which the new world can go sideways as it's hard to drop the power you were given. >If the majority of the 99% were to just not buy anything except for absolute life sustaining necessities, withdraw all money from bank accounts, and enact a nation wide general labor strike for 1 month, politicians would be forced to address the demands of its citizens. That is a rose-colored view that only takes the best outcome into account. If you refuse to buy anything other than necessities and enact a nation-wide general labor strike, you have effectively crashed the economy. Of course the gov't would react - but why they would react by addressing the demands of its citizens? They can as well label this as domestic terrorism and react only to protect those who are going to play nice, wait out until movement crumbles and send in the army to stabilize situation. >but I truly believe this is the most effective method of enacting any sort of really meaningful change to occur in the U.S No, if your method is going to take a month, it is not going to enact any meaningful change. There is no magic way that would take a short while and resolve the issues that were piling for decades. You know what is the effective method? Use democracy. You can absolutely form a movement that forms it's own party - with goal of slowly taking over both the blue and red states and replacing one of main parties in two-party system. But it will take time and effort. And people often wait for miracle option instead of putting the effort themselves.

poprostumort

2025-01-09 07:30:36

CMV: There are absolutely no benefits for the US or Canada if Canada becomes the 51st state

Most of us know that Trumps not serious about this but even so if we think about this I believe it would offer no tangible benefits to either country. Here's why: * **No Strategic Advantage**: Canada as a state wouldn’t boost its global influence or military capabilities because we already have partnership through NATO and NORAD. * **Cultural/Political Differences**: A merger would lead to cultural erosion and significant policy conflicts. Canadian and the US have distinct cultures, governance structures, and political values. The Canadian identity is deeply tied to values like universal healthcare and stronger social safety nets, which contrast with the US's more privatized systems. * **Minimal Economic Gain:** Merger wouldn’t add substantial value to the US economy. Canada’s economy is much smaller and more resource-dependent * **Administrative Challenges**: Incorporating Canada into the US would be an administrative nightmare. They have ten provinces with their own systems and so aligning them with the US federal and state systems would create chaos. * **Higher Costs with Few Returns**: We would be taking on responsibility for Canada’s infrastructure, healthcare systems, and other social programs. This could be costly, especially since many Canadians expect stronger public services than Americans currently receive.

Pick2

2025-01-08 20:25:47

m65qas7

Canada has an immense amount of natural resources. Like huuuge amounts. But canada doesn't have the infrastructure to process it. To the point where we sell oil to the US to process and then buy it back processed. The US has huge amounts of industry, processing power, and people. These are all things that canada lacks. So from an economic standpoint, it would be very mutually beneficial. (But as a Canadian I don't care, I don't want it.)

enigmatic_erudition

2025-01-08 21:15:28

m65q6p6

Canada would benefit from the strong US dollar, jobs in the US and finally be able to hit our NATO commitments of 2% of GDP on defense. Canadians would also benefit from cheaper housing options. US would benefit from Canada's massive fresh water supply (especially California), oil and other natural resources. This is not to say US should invade/take Canada but to say there are no benefits is a massively flawed take.

LingALingLingLing

2025-01-08 21:14:47

CMV: It would be cool to have a NBA for short people

I was thinking the other day about how much lightweight boxing is different than heavyweight. Its quicker, and honestly more interesting. I also noticed that the shorter players (lets say under 5'10) tend to be quick and dynamic in a way that the taller players are not. Now clearly there would be a lot of challenges culturally about getting there, i.e. we don't have all the necessary systems and culture to support this new imaginary league - but I am postulating a snap your fingers thought experiment. If it wouldn't be a good idea, why is weight classes in boxing a good idea then? (In fairness, I should have read this past CMV: [https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/spa3bp/cmv\_a\_height\_limited\_league\_would\_be\_superior\_to/](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/spa3bp/cmv_a_height_limited_league_would_be_superior_to/) ) Update: The logic of the argument: 1. Basketball is highly biased towards height. 2. There are a lot more humans who have average height than freakish height. Therefore a league with a height restrict would have a much higher level of other types of athleticism. Some interesting comment points 1. Really we are talking about eliminating the "big" player. Unclear if this would eliminate the center as a job, but just have that role filled by a smaller player. A weird parallel of this would be Sprint Football. Interestingly this doesn't look super different as a product with just the lineman being small vs small. Would small basketball be just this? 2. There was a league called World Basketball League. It had a pretty high height restriction (6'6). Having watched one game, can't say it looked very different. 3. It potentially is a mistake to think of the sport only as the highest level professional sport and not as a huge system. Basketball isn't just the NBA, but the g-league, college, high school, AAU ... etc. There isn't really the same need for a height restriction at these earlier levels - while you do need them for boxing/wrestling for safety reasons.

MasterCrumb

2025-01-08 09:02:21

m628llb

The current game is the fastest it's ever been, and viewership is down. Making it even faster and relying even more on 3pt shooting would just make casuals less interested. Tbh I am not in favor of the argument that 3pt shooting is killing the game, but that is the popular take amongst casual fans. Only the basketball junkies appreciate the evolution of the 3pt shot, and I don't think basketball junkies are going to watch a league that has some arbitrary limit on height preventing the best of the best from competing. I understand there are amazing athletes who can't make the NBA, but being an amazing athlete is already a prerequisite to making the NBA anyways, so it's not like we're missing out. \\ Another way imo this would negatively affect the product, is it would eliminate variety of playstyles. While height is a huge advantage, there is definitely a massive variety in builds that leads to teams having unique styles. A league with some arbitrary physical limitation would just standardize everything and make it much less interesting to watch imo. It's cool to see a guy like Kyrie use his handles to get around defenders and sneak in a lay up, and then next possession watch a guy like Jokic just use his size and coordination to force his way into the paint and get one of his own. If everyone was the same height, it would just be everyone doing the same things. The variety in sizes makes the game way more dynamic

pegasusairforce

2025-01-08 10:32:19

m6230y0

There aren’t enough coordinated 7 footers on the planet to play basketball or it just might be. The vast majority of people that size aren’t athletes, they are freaks living short lives in constant pain. The very few that are that height as well as being athletic, yeah an absolute ton of them become pro basketball players. There’s some stat out there that I’m going to butcher that if you are over 6’7” you have like 15% odds of being a pro basketball player. And it gets higher the taller you go. What’s more, you are counting Mugsy Bogues like he’s some kind of normal in the NBA, and not a freak outlier. He was able to survive in the NBA by being a world class start stop athlete at his size while also having a killer shot. And he was rightfully considered a once in a generation freak for being able to pull it off. The few of these guys there are in the world are already in the NBA or other pro leagues. Maybe they would come to this made up league if you ban all other leagues, but creating this fake league doesn’t magically invent new super athlete humans out of nowhere. Even today the “short” guys on an NBA court are 6’4”, and rely on their speed to beat tall lumbering centers. You take those centers out of the game and you would end up with a league where wings excel, not guards.

brianundies

2025-01-08 10:02:40

cmv: Skin color as a primary identifier needs to be completely done away with

Now first off let me start by saying, i'm not saying people should be blind and pretend that everyone looks the same, but rather that skin color should no longer be what is used to identify or group people together in the world. It makes no fucking sense at all in most countries. The idea that the world's nations should be divided or united based merely on skin tone is a European concept which is only roughly 500 years old and was created/used initially to create a caste system for colonization of the Americas, the atlantic slave trade, and later conquest of Africa & Asia. Before this time period, Europeans did not attempt to bond themselves together based on "whiteness" and ultimately couldn't, because it was bullshit. They still managed to start two of the most devastating wars in history just based on hating/fighting each other so much (as historically they always have). Africans also had ZERO concept of being bonded based on "blackness" or even africaness until Europeans arrived and told them that's what they were. And if you look today many Africans are even moving away from the "black" label all together because its makes 0 sense for them. Historically they identified with their tribe or region and just like Europeans, would have no problems fighting their neighbors or someone they deemed to be an enemy (despite sharing the same skin tone). But westerners brainwashed with this modern historical revisionism that the whole world has always revolved around skin color will say stupid shit like "Africans sold their own people". No, they quite literally sold their enemies or war captives. But one of the main problems I have with the continued widespread use of skin color as identifiers is the context in which that widespread use originated from. First off, we should point out the elephant in the room that very few people in the world are actually white or black. The people we call white are really pink-tannish and the people we call black are actually light to dark brown. In many European societies, "darkness" or "black" was a symbol of something evil or bad and "white" good. This is why in English we have terms like black magic, dark magic, white lie, etc. However, it wasn't until around the time of american colonization/slave trade that they began to apply these concepts to actual humans and label africans as 'black' to signify they were backwards and that they (the so-called 'white' people) were pure and everything a shade darker than that (including even some darker Europeans like Southern Italians) was not. Now, I understand these terms would be very hard to officially get rid of in the American continent, I'm well aware of the history of why color is is so important here. But even in countries like USA, it makes 0 sense. Africans and African-Americans check the same census box even though the difference culturally between an African and AA is enormous. Arabs & North Africans are forced to check "white" despite many being a more brown-ish color and looking visibly different from Europeans, Mexicans despite mainly being mestizo are also forced to check "white" because there is no mestizo category, etc. I think it would make much more sense to just stop using skin color all together (on an official level) and just make distinctions PRIMARILY based on the country people are from (as we should be doing already) and secondarily the continents they trace their ancestry too (as opposed to their skin color). Maybe something like "afro" to separate afro-diaspora to actual Africans and Euro to do the same with Europeans, etc. Literally anything would make more sense than their skin color. Oh also don't mistake my curse words here for anger, thats kinda just how I talk. \*\*\*EDIT\*\*\* and just to clarify because I see a lot of comments mentioning this. I don't mean so much on a social level (i.e. there's a dark skin guy jogging across the street) Because obviously skin color is one of the first things you see when you see someone, again i'm not saying we should be blind. However, on and official level as far as identifcation documents and even on a political, professional, and cultural level when discussing Africans, Europeans and their descendants, we should not group them based on their skin color or use that to primarily identify them.

Flytiano407

2025-01-07 17:18:41

m5yhsp6

I'm not talking about official documents, I'm talking about using skin color as a primary way of identifying a person in a crowd.  And unless the person I'm looking for meets the stereotypical appearance of a region (e.g., blonde Swede), knowing their nationality isn't going to help me find a particular person.  Skin color works fine. No need to completely do away with it. 

KokonutMonkey

2025-01-07 18:18:03

m5ydrvy

Surely that would skew the results? The answers need to be consistent, for the sample to be representative. E.g. if more Mexican people feel like putting down their specific country, then the mexican count would be much higher than other countries who's population prefer to identify just by wider region. I'm not sure I understand the point you're getting at, so ima just see what other answers people comment

JordanMencel

2025-01-07 17:56:30

CMV: It is an unacceptable double standard that people who thought Adrian Dittmann was an Elon Musk sockpuppet don't have that used against them to the same extent as anyone else who gets anything else wrong.

When the Heritage Foundation was wrong about Iraq, the left used that against them in perpetuity. When the World Health Organization was wrong about COVID-19, the right used that against them in perpetuity. Yet somehow, Adrian Dittman being mistaken for an Elon Musk sockpuppet isn't by either side considered discrediting to those who made that mistake. Why the arbitrary exception? Is the idea that it's a "reasonable mistake to make"? If so, who gets to say what mistake is reasonable and by what standard? It sounds immensely subject to whichever arbitrary biases popular opinion has this week. Furthermore, if people aren't to be judged by their tendency to get things wrong or right but by the quality of their reasoning, why invoke the Heritage Foundation or the World Health Organization getting things wrong in the first place? Is there nothing wrong with their reasoning you could get them on? If there is anything wrong with it, why not critique solely the reasoning? Why do you feel the need to invoke the fact that they happened to be wrong?

ShortUsername01

2025-01-08 11:56:51

m62uf8r

Neither. Even some public figures have a large platform, and are supported by private media companies as well as many figures in government despite not being involved in government themselves. They have a responsibility to try not to spread misinformation, because more harm is done when they do. The level of responsibility is proportional to the size of the platform they use.

BitcoinBishop

2025-01-08 12:22:48

m62r5tp

* A recognised organisation tasked with protecting public health, making an incorrect public statement on a huge public health issue and therefore spreading misinformation that could endanger peoples' lives\* * An individual incorrectly guessing a twitter user's identity\*\* Do you see the difference? \*Could you be more specific about what the WHO said? \*\*Didn't Elon admit it was him?

BitcoinBishop

2025-01-08 12:05:52

CMV: It is an unacceptable double standard that people who thought Adrian Dittmann was an Elon Musk sockpuppet don't have that used against them to the same extent as anyone else who gets anything else wrong.

When the Heritage Foundation was wrong about Iraq, the left used that against them in perpetuity. When the World Health Organization was wrong about COVID-19, the right used that against them in perpetuity. Yet somehow, Adrian Dittman being mistaken for an Elon Musk sockpuppet isn't by either side considered discrediting to those who made that mistake. Why the arbitrary exception? Is the idea that it's a "reasonable mistake to make"? If so, who gets to say what mistake is reasonable and by what standard? It sounds immensely subject to whichever arbitrary biases popular opinion has this week. Furthermore, if people aren't to be judged by their tendency to get things wrong or right but by the quality of their reasoning, why invoke the Heritage Foundation or the World Health Organization getting things wrong in the first place? Is there nothing wrong with their reasoning you could get them on? If there is anything wrong with it, why not critique solely the reasoning? Why do you feel the need to invoke the fact that they happened to be wrong?

ShortUsername01

2025-01-08 11:56:51

m62venf

Institutions are more than collections of individuals; they are a set of rules and processes designed to constrain the actions of the individuals that make them up.  Both the New York Times and Buzz Randomman on Twitter can post their takes on the news of the day, but the Times is reasonably held to a higher standard of truthfulness and is thus considered more credible as a source. We know something about the processes the Times uses to ensure what they say is accurate, we know nothing about Buzz. This is the same reason that it is important to quote from peer reviewed literature when commenting on science - there is an error correction process that, while not infallible, greatly increases the credibility of the published information. This process exists above and independent of the individuals that make up the institution. This is why institutions are so important, and why the efforts of demagogues to impose their individual will is so dangerous - it's doing an end run around the institutional protections that exist to constrain the power of an individual.  I get stuff wrong all the time. In my work there are things that can't afford to be gotten wrong, so all my work is checked by others. Obviously an engineer who gets something wrong will be held to a higher standard than Joe Schmo doing the same calculation.

fishsticks40

2025-01-08 12:27:35

m62vbc1

I'm sorry, this still doesn't clear anything up. Is Dittman confirmed to be Musk. Or not? To be honest it still seems to unclear. Is Musk joking? Or is the reporter wrong? Even if it's not Musk, who cares? It's still cringe and dumb. How can we even have this discussion if we don't even know the real truth yet? Also again, yes there is a difference between an internet rumor and an organization. Your title says that "people" should be judged...but it's not clear who these people are or who should judge them. If you want to personally judge anyone who bought into the rumor...that's your prerogative. But there is no connection to the Heritage Foundation or WHO or anything else. That's not what a double standard is. Please see the wiki here for an explanation of why "double standards" are usually not productive topics of discussion. [https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules/#wiki\_views\_about\_double\_standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules/#wiki_views_about_double_standards) Or is your view just that people that were wrong should always be judged? Which I guess isn't a very controversial view in and of itself...but it does ignore the scale and degree and subjects of the topic. An internet rumor about a sock puppet account is not a serious as an invasion of a country. Trying to equate the two is detrimental to discussion and the strength of your argument and credibility.

sawdeanz

2025-01-08 12:27:08

CMV: It is an unacceptable double standard that people who thought Adrian Dittmann was an Elon Musk sockpuppet don't have that used against them to the same extent as anyone else who gets anything else wrong.

When the Heritage Foundation was wrong about Iraq, the left used that against them in perpetuity. When the World Health Organization was wrong about COVID-19, the right used that against them in perpetuity. Yet somehow, Adrian Dittman being mistaken for an Elon Musk sockpuppet isn't by either side considered discrediting to those who made that mistake. Why the arbitrary exception? Is the idea that it's a "reasonable mistake to make"? If so, who gets to say what mistake is reasonable and by what standard? It sounds immensely subject to whichever arbitrary biases popular opinion has this week. Furthermore, if people aren't to be judged by their tendency to get things wrong or right but by the quality of their reasoning, why invoke the Heritage Foundation or the World Health Organization getting things wrong in the first place? Is there nothing wrong with their reasoning you could get them on? If there is anything wrong with it, why not critique solely the reasoning? Why do you feel the need to invoke the fact that they happened to be wrong?

ShortUsername01

2025-01-08 11:56:51

m62ur1p

Firstly, give it time, they will at some point. But to your point, there are essentially triple standards here, but rightly so. The type of entities involved here are very important. Starting with Ditttmann. The people who got this wrong or right, and frankly, most of whom were even discussing the story, are mainly the terminally online. They frequently get things wrong, and when they do, there's no reflection or growth. They're already busy being wrong about the next inconsequential topic. As for the Heritage Foundation, they're a thinktank - by definition, they're expected to get a lot of things wrong. Thinktanks make proposals, suggested policy, predictions, etc, using multiple contributors who quite often even contradict each other. Groups like the Heritage Foundation exist to win funding, and a strategy used to achieve this is to throw 3 darts and hope 1 hits - i.e., multiple policies on the same issue. When one hits, they spread use it to prove their influence/insightfulness and gain further funding. To criticise a thinktank for being wrong is missing the point. When it comes to the World Health Organisation, I don't think I need to elaborate too much on why they need to be held at immeasurably higher standard than your average grifter or troll. When dictating global policy, there is no room for error. Infallible has to be the standard because mistakes cost lives. They should be reminded of their mistakes, loudly and often, to reinforce the fact that inaccuracy is unacceptable. You really can't compare these three examples because they're all completely different levels of importance and legitimacy. If a triple standard exists, that's because it should.

sincsinckp

2025-01-08 12:24:24

m62vbc1

I'm sorry, this still doesn't clear anything up. Is Dittman confirmed to be Musk. Or not? To be honest it still seems to unclear. Is Musk joking? Or is the reporter wrong? Even if it's not Musk, who cares? It's still cringe and dumb. How can we even have this discussion if we don't even know the real truth yet? Also again, yes there is a difference between an internet rumor and an organization. Your title says that "people" should be judged...but it's not clear who these people are or who should judge them. If you want to personally judge anyone who bought into the rumor...that's your prerogative. But there is no connection to the Heritage Foundation or WHO or anything else. That's not what a double standard is. Please see the wiki here for an explanation of why "double standards" are usually not productive topics of discussion. [https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules/#wiki\_views\_about\_double\_standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules/#wiki_views_about_double_standards) Or is your view just that people that were wrong should always be judged? Which I guess isn't a very controversial view in and of itself...but it does ignore the scale and degree and subjects of the topic. An internet rumor about a sock puppet account is not a serious as an invasion of a country. Trying to equate the two is detrimental to discussion and the strength of your argument and credibility.

sawdeanz

2025-01-08 12:27:08

CMV: How you behave toward police officer should have no effect on your punishment

**Unless you a physically interfering with the investigation.** Anecdotal story time. I was talking to a cop in a party and they told me about a traffic stop where person was going 5 km/h over the speed limit on a snowy road. The cop was going to issue a warning but because person was "running their mouth" then instead gave them a ticket. "If they would just been respective or silent, they would have gotten out easier". I find this disgusting. Polices small egos can (and even should) get hurt and they need to grow a backbone. No matter what you say or do (unless physically interfering with investigation) will not change what you have done. Even if they called the officer nazi pig or fascists, it doesn't mean that they drove any faster or slower previously. They can film the cop, insult them or "not cooperate" in any way they want. These won't change the reality if they broke the law or not. Everyone should be treated equally under the law. Police discretion is just corruption for those who kiss their boots. If you break the law you should get the same punishment as everyone else. Either everyone gets off with a warning or everyone gets a ticket. Being an asshole is not a crime and police is the last person who should be judge of that.

Z7-852

2025-01-07 01:30:11

m5uoqgj

Do you feel the same in a courtroom? if the person on trial is remorseful for their crime should they be treated differently than a person who isn't? If I got behind the wheel of a vehicle inebriated and at the trial I said to the judge "Your honor, I made a huge mistake, I understand that I could have gravely hurt myself and other people. I'm truly sorry and will never do it again." Should I receive a lesser punishment, than if I say "F-- this sh---, you f--'n p---y. If I wanna drink a bottle of whiskey and go for a drive, what's the big f---'n deal." ? Both versions of me committed the same the action, but one of me by acting respectful is showing that I've understood that I made a mistake, and I'm going to learn from it. The other version of me by acting disrespectful has shown that I don't understand my mistake, and I haven't learned from it. What you are interpreting as the cop wanting their ego stroked, I think the officer might be viewing as someone showing remorse or at least an understanding of their actions and therefore only gets a warning, versus someone whose behavior is showing that they are not taking the situation seriously and therefore deserves a ticket to get the point across.

Scott10orman

2025-01-07 05:30:28

m5uck16

1. The ticket given by a cop is not a final verdict, but just a shortcut. If you don't accept this shortcut, you can still go to the court. 2. Gathering of the evidence for the case doesn't stop right when the police detects your speeding. By being rude to the cop you are volunteering the information that you are not feeling remorse for your speeding on a slippery road. 3. The court has a bracket of penalties it can apply. If you are less likely to repeat your violation, you may be able to receive a lesser punishment. In some cases, your case can even be closed without punishment due to insignificance of your violation. The cop can apply it proactively in their "shortcut". So, as an end result, your suggestion is not far from the suggestion that everyone shall always be punished by the maximum extent allowed by law for the violation proven by court, no matter what are the circumstances surrounding it. I am not a lawyer, so take my reasoning with a grain of salt.

kitsnet

2025-01-07 03:16:28

CMV: Communism (the faction that are USSR/Stalin apologists) are worse tha Fascism

At least with Fascism, you know what you're dealing with. Their inhumane views on how some human beings are less than others are happilly and proudly paraded. But Communism (and I will clarify what I mean by that in the next paragraph) present themselves as having some superior ideology that ends in a happy-kumbaya place for every human being on earth (the stateless moneyless and classless society), while defending (and admiring) a criminal regime that killed and tortured millions. To be clear what I mean by communism: there's a lot of confusion and lack of clarification in the left wing on who supports what kind of ideology. I'm not talking about every communist, or every socialist, or everyone else in the left wing that solely hates capitalism. I'm talking **specifically** about those who excuse the crimes against humanity commited by the Sovietic regime and/or are Stalin/Lenin apologists, and/or support the idea that a violent revolution that will impose terror on millions of innocents is a good way of dismanteling capitalism. To be clear: **I will not** change my views on fascism or (the kind of) communism I am talking about. I am, however, willing to change my view on wether (the kind of) Communism I am talking about is better than Fascism or at least just as bad.

TheW1nd94

2025-01-07 16:06:07

m5y5ck9

Hypothetical violence isn't worse than actual violence. Yes, maybe Stalin apologists will one day incite a massive, violent revolution against capitalism that puts the horrors of Fascism to shame. When that happens I'll reevaluate who was worse.  There are plenty of right wing extremists online too (and they seem to lead to far more violence than their left wing counterparts), but until they're actually committing acts of violence, they aren't as bad as the people that are. They're still shitty, just not *as* shitty.

Debs_4_Pres

2025-01-07 17:13:27

m5y12ll

>Look at what happened in Romania under the Iron Guard I am Romanian. What happend in Romania under the Iron Guard and what happend in Romanian under communism are both violent. >The hypocrisy of Stalinist apologists is despicable, but I'd argue it's still marginally better than proudly advocating for genocide from the start. At least their need to maintain ideological pretenses somewhat constrained their actions, while fascists faced no such limitations. > But this is exactly why I think it's worse.

TheW1nd94

2025-01-07 16:52:25

CMV: Communism (the faction that are USSR/Stalin apologists) are worse tha Fascism

At least with Fascism, you know what you're dealing with. Their inhumane views on how some human beings are less than others are happilly and proudly paraded. But Communism (and I will clarify what I mean by that in the next paragraph) present themselves as having some superior ideology that ends in a happy-kumbaya place for every human being on earth (the stateless moneyless and classless society), while defending (and admiring) a criminal regime that killed and tortured millions. To be clear what I mean by communism: there's a lot of confusion and lack of clarification in the left wing on who supports what kind of ideology. I'm not talking about every communist, or every socialist, or everyone else in the left wing that solely hates capitalism. I'm talking **specifically** about those who excuse the crimes against humanity commited by the Sovietic regime and/or are Stalin/Lenin apologists, and/or support the idea that a violent revolution that will impose terror on millions of innocents is a good way of dismanteling capitalism. To be clear: **I will not** change my views on fascism or (the kind of) communism I am talking about. I am, however, willing to change my view on wether (the kind of) Communism I am talking about is better than Fascism or at least just as bad.

TheW1nd94

2025-01-07 16:06:07

m6229om

I think your view that with fascism "at least you know what you're dealing with" is worth reconsidering. Crypto-fascism and hidden admiration for fascist ideals were a problem during the rise of fascism in the previous century and in my opinion they are also a problem now. As a society swings rightward more you see more of these views out in the open which is what you might be seeing now, but fascism has no problem going into hiding or disguising itself to be more palatable until a time where it can act out in the open with impunity. Further, the language and methods of fascism have been historically highly deceitful: from the appropriation of left-wing populist language and imagery (while pursuing completely opposite goals) to the burning of reichstag (a literal false-flag-style act of deception) to the continuing minimization and denial of the holocaust. I would challenge you to consider that with fascism we often \_very\_ much do not know what we're dealing with.

Legumbrero

2025-01-08 09:58:31

m5y2kbw

I see both Communism and Fascism as having the same problem--millenarianism. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millenarianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millenarianism) >the belief by a [religious](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_organization), social, or [political](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party) group or [movement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_movement) in a coming fundamental [transformation of society](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_transformation), after which "all things will be changed" In both Communism and Fascism, this belief justifies killing, violence, and even genocide to bring about the hoped for change. If we look only at what these movements hoped for--the uniting of society in support of industry(Facism) and the creation of an egalitarian society(Communism) both appear benign. Add in militant millenarianism and they're revealed as horrendously evil. So neither Communism nor Facism is inherently evil. The evil results from militant millenarianism. If we consider all genocides, this philosophy comes to the for. It's what all genocidal philosophies have in common--left, right, religious, and secular.

tidalbeing

2025-01-07 16:59:37

CMV: The U.S. (probably) can buy Greenland, and it should do so.

Let's start with the latter proposition -- the basic case for buying Greenland should be facially obvious to most. Greenland is a very large (if not quite as large as on a Mercator projection) area, with vast amounts of natural resources that have largely been untapped. It occupies a strategic position as a gateway to the Artic, being the closest point in North America to Europe and the bulk of hostile navies originating there (e.g., Russian European naval forces). Both of these factors will increase in importance and value substantially over the coming years as global warming progressing. Importantly, with (hopefully) no end-date to the benefits, the investment has quite a long runway to yield a net benefit. Some likely objections (and responses) to the benefits: > Greenland is controlled by an ally already; the U.S. does not need to control it personally for these benefits. While it is true that Denmark is currently an ally of the U.S., the assumption that this is an unending state of affairs is hopelessly naive. Allies come and go more frequently than an integrated area. Yes, the U.S. could likely take Greenland in the scenario that a renegade Denmark threatens to allow it to threaten the U.S., but there are two issues: 1) Many scenarios exist where hostile/ambivalent ownership of Greenland harms U.S. security but would not justify a military intervention, and 2) any such military seizure would inevitably be more violent than a peaceful purchase. > Any such purchase will alienate Denmark and contribute to further breakdown of global norms against territory seizures I believe my (coming) proposal on purchase strategy would make this unlikely to occur - Denmark may still protest, but it would have a difficult time maintaining legitimacy in attempting to prevent the purchase or be overly upset. To the extent Denmark is sufficiently angry by a successful purchase to cause a break in relations, I do not think it would cause a break in relations with other allies. And without Greenland... Denmark wouldn't be a particularly important ally anyways. To the extent global norms would be upset, I do not think my proposal would provide much justification for truly negative behavior. Think about how much good the money could do here at home! You have to weigh the benefits against if it was spent to improve long term outcomes for our citizens. Yeah, but let's be real, will it? Even under a Democratic president? Color me skeptical. --- Okay, so what's the proposal? This is simple. We're going to overpay by the standards of the Louisiana or Alaska purchases, but that's fine. Yeah, yeah, the governments of Denmark and Greenland say it's not for sale. That's fine. They're not in charge. Greenland is, shockingly, a democracy. More specifically, it's a democracy made up of only 56,000 people. Why would we talk to the governments when we can go directly to them? First offer: $1,000,000. Each. They get to keep their autonomy, local governance, everything, if they want (subject to the Constitution, of course). They can also choose to be folded into a state (probably Maine for sheer geographical sense) if they prefer. Or wait for a higher population. If they want to leave Greenland to stay a part of Denmark or move elsewhere in the U.S. or world, we'll pay for a first-class ticket for them and buy their property in Greenland at current market rate (if they want). That would cost us ~$56 billion (let's say $57 billion to be safe, even though the perks are mostly a rounding error). At $10k/acre that is, of course, a substantially worse deal in raw terms than our previous purchases, but... so be it? We're also way richer and way bigger than we were in 1860. And as a result, it is also... ~1% of our national budget... for one year. A rounding error. There will need to be subsidies to Greenland (for a while), but those will be even more of a rounding error - $650 mil/year (based off of Denmark's current amount). And that's only until the oil companies and migrants get there. I won't claim Alaska, as an example, is some great contributor to the Federal government, but it's still paying in more than it receives. If the vote is a no, we raise it to $2 million per person. If a no again, $4 million. I probably wouldn't want to go much further, but I think anything up to a one-time expense of 5% of our budget is fine. --- What would change my view? A few thoughts: * Clear evidence or line of reasoning to show that Greenlanders would not or could not force a vote if offered $4 million each. (I am pretty skeptical for either point. Most likely to change on the first, but I don't think you'll find polling to that effect). * A clear line of reasoning that this would cause a major breakdown of U.S. relations/international order. Pretty skeptical on this again - it feels like this proposal would be difficult to argue against on liberal grounds & it doesn't feel like it presents a major threat of increasing violence. Increasing voluntary purchases of territory seems... fine. Even potentially beneficial by forefronting a release valve other than war. * Clear evidence/line of evidence that the U.S. would never recoup its investment in benefits. This is probably impossible in full form, taking into account near-unpredictable geopolitical benefits. A good, long-term economic analysis taking into account climate change vs the opportunity cost of the money as spent at the margin of U.S. government spending would earn a delta though.

Resident_Option3804

2025-01-06 23:16:51

m5tukss

> I think this is ultimately the largest factor in play. Greenlanders do not want to become a minority in their own country, which would likely happen if the US bought Greenland, but will never happen in the current situation. Greenlands population is very small so there is a very real risk of this. There are many examples of this happening throughout Americas expansion. > You are right that there cannot be restrictions on this in the US. I think the methods used would opposition to development projects (Greenlanders would not need the anyway as they would be rich already) leading to a lack of jobs. Another potential tactic could be restriction of the English language in education. This would likely prevent many families from moving to Greenland. So even though immigration cannot be restricted, I still think a large amount of political energy would be used in Greenland to make immigration undesirable. > I had trouble trying to understand what your main point is here. There is no real risk of Denmark asking the US to leave Thule, Denmark has consistently been one of the US' very closest allies in Europe. Any national security concerns can be achieved with Greenland still being part of Denmark. The only exception to that maybe being weapon silos. > Maybe you are right in this. But I think there is no way that this is not viewed as a hostile move in Denmark. For it not to be viewed as a hostile move, I think Denmark would need substantial financial compensation. I think it sends a message to US allies that helping the US gets you little in return. Denmark was the only European country to lose more soldiers per capita than the US in Afghanistan (a chiefly American war), and one of the only countries to join the US in Iraq. If the US treats its closest allies by strong arming them into selling one of their constituent countries, why be a US ally? > I have seen similar logic used by most people arguing for Greenland to join the US, and is precisely why joining the US is an unpopular idea. Another issue is political representation. Currently alongside more autonomy than any US state, Greenland also has two members in the Danish parliament. If joining as a territory there would be no political representation. US territories are also quite poor compared to the US. Greenland is richer per capita than any US territory, and there is no guarantee that Greenland would not become a backwater in the future. I do not believe that Greenland joining as a state would be possible in the current (or future) US political climate. People would balk at 50000 people getting two senators. I think you still did not really answer why Greenland joining the US would be beneficial in a substantial way. I do not believe there is a strong security argument, and any resource extraction would likely face delays and substantial political battles. Parts of this comment are out of context as it was a response to OP.

1TTTTTT1

2025-01-07 00:28:07

m5u1zmr

I don’t have the statutes handy, but in 2017 the Danish government set up a working group to provide [advisory](https://www.fmn.dk/en/news/english/strengthened-safeguards-against-foreign-influence-on-danish-elections-and-democracy/) and craft legislation in response to foreign interference (read: Russian covert activity). It did produce laws in 2018 for that purpose. Under your hypothetical, the US would likely fall under the same criteria as Russia does, as a nefarious state actor attempting to upset normal Danish electoral process. It’s also worth noting that the current mechanism for a self-rule referendum still requires a green light from Copenhagen to actually go ahead for the vote. So in your hypothetical, in which the actions would be clearly broadcast (it’s hard to run a quiet conspiracy with 50,000 people), the referendum would simply never make it to agenda. As far as international pressure: while the US is a clearly strong world player in trade and military, Denmark is culturally and geographically well connected to the EU. While economic comparisons are never really straightforward, GDP between the US and EU is very similar in total. Danish trade partners are Germany and Sweden, followed by China. Having spent a long time in Denmark (and having lived in the US), I’d also suggest that while patriotism takes a very different form in both places, the Danes would choose to walk away from US trade rather than acquiesce to some sort of aggressive annexation of Greenland. I expect many European nations (who already view Trump foreign policy in a certain light) would also view such an action as a clear trigger to greater independence from the US in NATO, and push for increased decision making with more Eurocentric focus from Brussels and The Hague. In short, I don’t think it could happen legally, but even if that did not stop an effort, I don’t think Denmark would cede the region. They would simply delay a referendum until a different White House administration was on deck.

rollsyrollsy

2025-01-07 01:31:08

CMV: Western countries are the least racist countries in the world

So unlike what much of Reddit may want you to believe Western countries by and large are actually amongst the least racist countries on earth. So when we actually look at studies and polls with regards to racism around the world we actually see that the [least racist countries](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/least-racist-countries) are actually all Western countries, while the [most racist countries](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/most-racist-countries) are largely non-Western countries. In some of the largest non-Western countries like China or India for example racism is way more prevalant than it is in the West. In China for example they openly show ads like[ this one ](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-36394917)on TV and in cinemas, where a Chinese woman puts a black man into a laundry machine and out comes a "clean" fair-skinned Chinese man. And in India colorism still seems to be extremely prevelant and common place, with more dark-skinned Indians often being systemtically discriminated against and looked down upon, while more light-skinned Indians are typically favored in Indian society. And Arab countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar or United Arab Emirates according to polls are among the most racist countries on earth, with many ethnic minorities and migrant workers being systemtically discrimianted against and basically being subjected to what are forms of slave labor. Meanwhile the least racist countries accroding to polls are all Western countries like New Zealand, Canada or the Netherlands. Now, I am not saying that the West has completely eliminated racism and that racism has entirely disappeared from Western society. Surely racism still exists in Western countries to some extent. And sure the West used to be incredibly racist too only like 50 or 60 years ago. But the thing is the West in the last few decades by and large has actually made enormous progress with regards to many social issues, including racism. And today Western countries are actually by and large the least racist countries in the world. Change my view.

RandomGuy92x

2025-01-07 10:42:50

m5wju5w

When you consider entirety of the history, this take would be false. If we're taking only the last 20 years into consideration, then again, this would be false. Racism is racism, it happens on every level of society within every single nation in one way or another. Western countries aren't less racist than others, because being indifferent is also racism. Consider what has transpired for thousands of years, what has been done by those same western countries and their ancestors during all that time. Discarding that part of history, ignoring it doesn't make you less racist; in fact, you become racist because you choose to do so. Forgetting massacres, genocides, human zoos built in Europe, islamophobia and everything else is the racism. Today, those western countries are built upon riches of the old and the new world. Stolen, brought by force, yet conveniently forgotten. Were the first explorers of the new world racist? Why did people celebrate columbus day for years without care? Why are western military powers messing with people around the world and people of the west don't really care about that? They aren't more racist or less racist. Racism is racism.

vanclad

2025-01-07 12:36:38

m5wiua6

The people who inhabit of western countries are the least racist in the world; however, simultaneously these countries are electing far-right leaders to power (Donald Trump, Geert Wilders, Pierre Polivierre, Nigel Farage, etc) and their governments have been backing despotic regimes which uphold said racist practices (the gulf states are a prime example of this relationship in which the west supplies weapons as well symbolic and cultural clout for obscene amounts of money). So on the surface level, yes you’re right. Despite that, when you ask the question why these trends exist, you can more clearly explain the symbiotic relationship between these power structures and western global hegemony, and if you are so disgusted by these practices, acknowledge that the west is entirely complicit. In the case of India, it is a clear example of the effects of British colonialism (partition and responding Hindu and Islamic nationalism). While in the case of China, their nationalism is influenced by a combination of the effects of British and Japanese colonialism. My main gripe with your argument is it lacks context.

RationalActivity

2025-01-07 12:31:48

CMV: Western countries are the least racist countries in the world

So unlike what much of Reddit may want you to believe Western countries by and large are actually amongst the least racist countries on earth. So when we actually look at studies and polls with regards to racism around the world we actually see that the [least racist countries](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/least-racist-countries) are actually all Western countries, while the [most racist countries](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/most-racist-countries) are largely non-Western countries. In some of the largest non-Western countries like China or India for example racism is way more prevalant than it is in the West. In China for example they openly show ads like[ this one ](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-36394917)on TV and in cinemas, where a Chinese woman puts a black man into a laundry machine and out comes a "clean" fair-skinned Chinese man. And in India colorism still seems to be extremely prevelant and common place, with more dark-skinned Indians often being systemtically discriminated against and looked down upon, while more light-skinned Indians are typically favored in Indian society. And Arab countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar or United Arab Emirates according to polls are among the most racist countries on earth, with many ethnic minorities and migrant workers being systemtically discrimianted against and basically being subjected to what are forms of slave labor. Meanwhile the least racist countries accroding to polls are all Western countries like New Zealand, Canada or the Netherlands. Now, I am not saying that the West has completely eliminated racism and that racism has entirely disappeared from Western society. Surely racism still exists in Western countries to some extent. And sure the West used to be incredibly racist too only like 50 or 60 years ago. But the thing is the West in the last few decades by and large has actually made enormous progress with regards to many social issues, including racism. And today Western countries are actually by and large the least racist countries in the world. Change my view.

RandomGuy92x

2025-01-07 10:42:50

m5wjnje

I would argue that yes, India already had colourism as a part of its identity, but the caste system that was already in place before the British occupation of India was then taken and ramped up by the British, and the current colourism in India is still recovering from the aftermath of colonialism.

TheElectroPrince

2025-01-07 12:35:45

m5wdwxo

If a racism falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it...? America may have the highest number of "racist events" per day simply because of its diversity. You're more likely to experience racism when you have interracial interactions. The opposite might be true per capita because of the same exposure.

unordinarilyboring

2025-01-07 12:07:47

Cmv: the assad government would still be in power if it wernt for the war in Ukraine

Okay so first of all it is important to note that Russia and Iran were both big allies for the assad government in Syria. After the war in Ukraine begun and Russias resources began running out it was much easier for groups like HTS and SNA to take over more of the country. It is also important to note that before the rest of Ukraine war begun Russia thought it would be easy but it ended up dragging on many more years than Putin thought. Most likely thought that he could quickly take control of parts of Ukraine and go back to helping Syria. My view could be changed by evidence that Russia had enough capabilities to both fight in Ukraine and Syria.

Strong_Prize8778

2025-01-06 05:08:11

m5oefec

The fall of Assad's government had much deeper roots than just Russia's involvement in Ukraine. Let's look at the actual facts: Assad's grip on power was already extremely weak well before 2022. By 2020, Syria's economy had collapsed with the Syrian pound losing 70% of its value. Ordinary Syrians couldn't even afford bread anymore. > After the war in Ukraine begun and Russias resources began running out it was much easier for groups like HTS and SNA to take over This actually misses a crucial point - these groups were gaining ground because of grassroots support from Syrians who were fed up with decades of oppression and economic mismanagement. The Assad regime's brutal response to peaceful protests in 2011 destroyed its legitimacy among its own people. Russia's military support was just artificially prolonging an inevitable collapse. No amount of foreign backing can sustain a government that's lost the trust of its population and can't provide basic services or human rights protections. Look at the numbers: even at the height of Russian intervention, Assad only controlled about 65% of Syria. The remaining territory was held by various opposition groups who had established their own governance structures. This fragmentation of power happened years before Ukraine. The real catalyst was the Syrian people's demand for democratic reform and basic dignity - something no amount of Russian military hardware could suppress forever.

pipswartznag55

2025-01-06 05:25:03

m5oe05l

That was one major part of it. The other part is the Israeli war against Hezbollah and other Iranian proxies. The Iranians provided most of the manpower that drove the Syrian rebels back after their major advances in Idlib and Aleppo in 2014 and 2016. Hezbollah was one of the major contributors to that Iranian effort, as well as Iran's proxy forces from Iraq. Israel has severely degraded Hezbollah (killed its entire top echelon of commanders, and killed or severely wounded many mid-level officers and soldiers) and struck Iranian elements in Syria and Iraq as well. As Syrians have said for years, without the Iranians/Hezbollah and Russia to support it, the Assad regime was inherently fragile. The regime had recently shown itself totally useless for anything except for brutal repression and extracting money from Syrians through forced bribes and corruption. By the time the rebels launched their offensive, even Syrians who collaborated with the regime were utterly disillusioned, and when the rebel leadership showed it was open to negotiation and peaceful settlements with formerly regime-aligned groups, they were happy to see the regime fall.

MarcusXL

2025-01-06 05:20:35

CMV: I see no downside to immortality

I thought of posting this on r/philosophy, but I wasn't sure. There's no unfixable downside to being immortal: Firstly, the issue of seeing your friends and family die. People are always gonna die. You're not gonna kill yourself just because your family got in an accident. You make bew friends and move on. By a hundred years, you'll have forgotten most of your old friends after their deaths and will have new ones. Assuming humanity becomes interstellar, you might survive the death of Earth and our solar system without floating eternally in the void. The only real issue is memory and boredom. If you can condition yourself to forget stuff every few decades, you can essentially always have space for new things and you can repeat what you already did like its a new experience. And however the universe dies, you are gonna die with it. Whether everything condenses into a singularity or everything, including you, freezes. Even if you argue that you still won't die, nothing is gonna live near absolute zero. At worst, you'll be eternally frozen EDIT: It was good hearing all your takes on this. Best arguments to stand out is that eventually humanity might die or evolve to the point where you are unable to properly converse. The disconnect between the death of life and the death of the universe is a really long time I haven't considered too. I'm not too worried about getting trapped for a while, but it seems a significant worry to you all. Overall, y'all changed my mind on this one. I still think the upside is better than the downside, but I see some significant challenges that would put most people off, and rightly so. And it just doesn't make sense scientifically. Everyone who keeps talking about the heat death, that's the situation where you freeze forever. You're consciousness will be in pause.

KgTheFifth

2025-01-06 16:18:17

m5sj92s

I don't know if anyone pointed this out but because the universe is expanding in all directions, even if we become interstellar, the edge of our \*traversable\* universe is shrinking. Even if you were to move at the speed of light you could not reach any farther and, you cannot go back either, because that will be out of reach, too!

DrewsDraws

2025-01-06 19:39:05

m5s55o2

but doesn't that mean I have to have the ability (or give myself it if I don't) to control my dreams like that to keep the loop flowing as if I didn't I wouldn't exist if that scenario's true (similar to how an ancestor simulation must necessarily go infinite if it wants to be perfectly accurate as it'd have to include its own creation)

StarChild413

2025-01-06 18:21:17

CMV: I see no downside to immortality

I thought of posting this on r/philosophy, but I wasn't sure. There's no unfixable downside to being immortal: Firstly, the issue of seeing your friends and family die. People are always gonna die. You're not gonna kill yourself just because your family got in an accident. You make bew friends and move on. By a hundred years, you'll have forgotten most of your old friends after their deaths and will have new ones. Assuming humanity becomes interstellar, you might survive the death of Earth and our solar system without floating eternally in the void. The only real issue is memory and boredom. If you can condition yourself to forget stuff every few decades, you can essentially always have space for new things and you can repeat what you already did like its a new experience. And however the universe dies, you are gonna die with it. Whether everything condenses into a singularity or everything, including you, freezes. Even if you argue that you still won't die, nothing is gonna live near absolute zero. At worst, you'll be eternally frozen EDIT: It was good hearing all your takes on this. Best arguments to stand out is that eventually humanity might die or evolve to the point where you are unable to properly converse. The disconnect between the death of life and the death of the universe is a really long time I haven't considered too. I'm not too worried about getting trapped for a while, but it seems a significant worry to you all. Overall, y'all changed my mind on this one. I still think the upside is better than the downside, but I see some significant challenges that would put most people off, and rightly so. And it just doesn't make sense scientifically. Everyone who keeps talking about the heat death, that's the situation where you freeze forever. You're consciousness will be in pause.

KgTheFifth

2025-01-06 16:18:17

m5rqvyn

yes. i managed to miss the "one person" part of this, but I think it's worse in the scenario you bring up. Everyone dies on the planet you end up because they don't adapt - you're then actually alone and can't make rocketships on your own. OR...you're the "not evolved" chump that needs the air tanks and suits while all the newborns in a million years are flying around planet whatever.

iamintheforest

2025-01-06 17:06:21

m5sf9w3

With technology, sure. But...it would not work for an individual within their life. Mutations are random and they mostly occur in translation at conception. Further, MOST are negative so you'd be piling up bad shit way more than good shoot. You'd not have the really important "survival" portion in the mix where the bad mutations result in non-continuation of the trait - they'd just keep living on.

iamintheforest

2025-01-06 19:17:10

CMV: I see no downside to immortality

I thought of posting this on r/philosophy, but I wasn't sure. There's no unfixable downside to being immortal: Firstly, the issue of seeing your friends and family die. People are always gonna die. You're not gonna kill yourself just because your family got in an accident. You make bew friends and move on. By a hundred years, you'll have forgotten most of your old friends after their deaths and will have new ones. Assuming humanity becomes interstellar, you might survive the death of Earth and our solar system without floating eternally in the void. The only real issue is memory and boredom. If you can condition yourself to forget stuff every few decades, you can essentially always have space for new things and you can repeat what you already did like its a new experience. And however the universe dies, you are gonna die with it. Whether everything condenses into a singularity or everything, including you, freezes. Even if you argue that you still won't die, nothing is gonna live near absolute zero. At worst, you'll be eternally frozen EDIT: It was good hearing all your takes on this. Best arguments to stand out is that eventually humanity might die or evolve to the point where you are unable to properly converse. The disconnect between the death of life and the death of the universe is a really long time I haven't considered too. I'm not too worried about getting trapped for a while, but it seems a significant worry to you all. Overall, y'all changed my mind on this one. I still think the upside is better than the downside, but I see some significant challenges that would put most people off, and rightly so. And it just doesn't make sense scientifically. Everyone who keeps talking about the heat death, that's the situation where you freeze forever. You're consciousness will be in pause.

KgTheFifth

2025-01-06 16:18:17

m5rjosx

>If you can condition yourself to forget stuff every few decades, you can essentially always have space for new things and you can repeat what you already did like its a new experience Seems like a pretty big if. Humans aren’t really known to possess the ability to directly control what they can and cannot remember. Would we unlock that ability after hundreds or thousands of years of life? Maybe, maybe not. We aren’t known to possess immortality either so I guess that begs the question of what the parameters and assumptions are of this hypothetical scenario. >Whether everything condenses into a singularity or everything, including you, freezes. Even if you argue that you still won't die, nothing is gonna live near absolute zero. At worst, you'll be eternally frozen. There is potentially a very big time gap between the last intelligent living thing dying except you and the total heat death of the universe. We’re talking like 99.99999999999%+ of your total existence could be being alone floating in a cold nothingness. There are many definitions of hell that are much less horrifying than that. Again depending on how this immortality works, being conscious through that even if it inevitably ends somehow seems like a pretty big downside to me.

inconspicuous_bear

2025-01-06 16:31:08

m5rw4kg

I'll remember my childhood in 100,000 years but I will conveniently forget everything else else every few decades? How does that work? Nevermind the fact that I still vividly remember my first time watching Silence of the Lambs in theaters. That was over three decades ago and I can't just purge that memory to experience that thrill again. But you are right, I am a new guy if I don't have a through line of me from the start to the finish. And you are advocating for forgetting the things between childhood and whatever the present time is. That woman I married and had 3 children with when I was 250? Fuck em. That was 999,650 years ago (I stuck with that family of wife, kids, grandkids and great grandkids for 100 before deciding to just move on due to boredom). The second family I had at 400? Same thing. Fuck em. The family at 750? Who cares about them? They are ancient history. The hundreds of families I temporarily loved while still taking centuries in between to stay single and get my dick wet with strange would just be disposable memories that I purged to avoid boredom or the sadness of loss. Fuck em and move on. How do I throw them away and maintain a thorough line of me? Doesn't that activity make a new guy different from me?

2r1t

2025-01-06 17:33:16

CMV: The Democrats didn't fail America or the left. America, and especially the left failed them

CMV: The Democrats didn't fail the left. The left failed the Democrats. It's time for the Democrats to certify the election and move forward. Kamala Harris and the Democratic delegations do not owe anyone a futile J6 certification protest. Joe Biden booted Trump from office and ran the most left wing administration since FDR. He restarted the economy after Republicans crashed it. Unemployment is at historic low, and the stock market at historic highs. Biden implemented infrastructure funding, lowered the cost of drugs, and is objectively the most pro labor President in living memory. When Biden unexpectedly stepped down, the Democratic delegates nominated a qualified, experienced candidate who ran an aggressive and positive campaign with few mistakes against a rapist and convicted criminal. Those on the left who stayed home because Kamala wasn't anti-trans, or Nancy Pelosi is old, or you wanted Bernie, or Kamalaaccepted an endorsement from Liz Cheney, or resented support from the few centrist billionaires, or just couldn't be bothered - you just can't see the forest for the trees. You had a choice between poison and food, and you ate poison.

Lauffener

2025-01-06 11:03:56

m5qaezs

The simplest explanation is she didn't have a lot of time to run a campaign. As far as US presidential candidates go anyway. In other words, Biden failed Harris and Democrats. He should have backed out of the race years ago. Its understandable why he stuck around, he was doing a good job, but he was too old.

Fit-Order-9468

2025-01-06 12:49:54

m5ptyco

A lot of people on the Left and Right look at politics like a team sport rather than what it actually is. They think they are punishing Democrats, but in reality voters are only punishing themselves. The voters are the ones who have to live with the results. Democrats will just try again next time. If there even is a next time.

Mysterious-Wasabi103

2025-01-06 11:29:07

CMV: The Democrats didn't fail America or the left. America, and especially the left failed them

CMV: The Democrats didn't fail the left. The left failed the Democrats. It's time for the Democrats to certify the election and move forward. Kamala Harris and the Democratic delegations do not owe anyone a futile J6 certification protest. Joe Biden booted Trump from office and ran the most left wing administration since FDR. He restarted the economy after Republicans crashed it. Unemployment is at historic low, and the stock market at historic highs. Biden implemented infrastructure funding, lowered the cost of drugs, and is objectively the most pro labor President in living memory. When Biden unexpectedly stepped down, the Democratic delegates nominated a qualified, experienced candidate who ran an aggressive and positive campaign with few mistakes against a rapist and convicted criminal. Those on the left who stayed home because Kamala wasn't anti-trans, or Nancy Pelosi is old, or you wanted Bernie, or Kamalaaccepted an endorsement from Liz Cheney, or resented support from the few centrist billionaires, or just couldn't be bothered - you just can't see the forest for the trees. You had a choice between poison and food, and you ate poison.

Lauffener

2025-01-06 11:03:56

m5psddc

I agree with you in most respects, but I think what the political Left pretty much always fail to realize is it's not enough to just be the better answer. Unemployment rates and the economy only go so far to convince people. Democrats generally win the Minds argument, but they almost never win the heart. The modern democratic party can't even understand what is meant by the idea of "Make America Great Again". To them, America is great. They got lots of money from lots of big businesses, and they have control in arguably the most powerful country in the world. The problem is there's millions of Americans who don't give a damn about unemployment rates or economic performance. There's millions of Americans who just want to feel more powerful. The people who vote for Trump wanted to stick it to the government. They simply don't care about the things we think they're supposed to care about. Democrats will continue to fail to inspire people as long as they fail to reach the hearts of people. As much as I hate to say it, Americans don't really want America to be the good guy. Health care? Take it or leave it. Policing the world? Ugh, what a drag. Technology and industry? What, like Japan? At every turn the Democratic party turns away from the firebrands of our time. They continually seek out the moderate - the middle-ground - the compromise. They reject the spirited protestor, they drown narratives in beaurocracy and they don't give anyone anything to believe in. People are, ultimately, idealists. Trump was basically "I'm going to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it!" Can you imagine what it would be like if America had a leader that said something like "I'm going to tear down the Health Insurance Industry! I'm going to make them all pay for the Universal Healthcare! It's not going to cost you a cent! No more Insurance Costs full stop!" It doesn't matter if it's true, or even possible. Trump proved that. Americans don't want an accountant at the helm. They want an idealist. When Trump said he was going to grab them by the pussy the Democrats blushed. I wonder what a world we'd be in if they'd instead said they'd grab all the rapists in the country, tear off their cocks and hang them by their own flaccid foreskin. It would have got a few clicks, I reckon.

Birb-Brain-Syn

2025-01-06 11:21:12

m5pxok6

>It's time for the Democrats to certify the election and move forward. Kamala Harris and the Democratic delegations do not owe anyone a futile J6 certification protest. Who even is asking for this? >When Biden unexpectedly stepped down, the Democratic delegates nominated a qualified, experienced candidate who ran an aggressive and positive campaign with few mistakes against a rapist and convicted criminal. Harris' campaign was not aggressive by the end. It was so milquetoast they were walking back calls to get rid of the electoral college and campaigning with Liz Cheney. Aside from that, if the best thing you can say is that she ran a positive campaign with no mistakes, that's not a good campaign. When your opponent is a rapist, fascist felon and people feel like the economy is shit, nobody wants Kamala Harris singing "happy happy joy joy." My central complain from the CMV is that we don't have a duty to the Democratic Party. I think that you have a social obligation to vote and to vote for the best candidate, but that's not a duty to the Democrats. That's a duty to your fellow man as a member of society. If anything, the Democrats failed the people by failing to convince them that they are the better option than voting Republicans or staying home. Biden actually led a great administration, like you said. But none of that matters if you don't defend it. It's not enough to be good, especially when your enemy is willing to openly lie repeatedly and often. You have to convince the people that it's good and worth protecting. You have to fight for it. That's why Trump holding the stimulus checks to put his personal signature on them was a masterclass move. It's also why his accidental strategy of the endless campaign works. He is always out there pushing himself and his message. He is always jerking himself off on his accomplishments. And the Democrats don't do this. That's why we lost.

CartographerKey4618

2025-01-06 11:47:39

CMV: With the same reasoning as the US TikTok ban, European countries ought to ban American social media

As far as I understand, the US Congress is trying to ban TikTok because they believe that a big Chinese-owned social media site/app is dangerous because the Chinese government might use it to spy on Americans and push propaganda to them. I am not trying to be pro-China nor anti-China, but it is undeniable that the political relations between the USA and China are not great, and they are likely to get worse under the new Trump regime. Hence it is within the realm of reason for Americans to be be wary of Chinese agendas. (Again, I do not mean to be anti-Chinese.) However, in my opinion, all the arguments I have heard about Chinese social media also apply to American social media. From my perspective as a European, the USA is a foreign power led by a dangerously unpredictable right-wing extremist. Elon Musk (who controls Twitter) is a close Trump-supporter, and as far as I can tell Mark Zuckerberg (who controls Facebook) also supports Trump. I don't know about the owners of other major social media such as YouTube or Reddit, but I do not trust any of these people. Any of these might ally with Trump and use their platforms to spread propaganda to support a Trumpist ideology. That could cause a lot of damage to my country and others. If Chinese-owned social media are dangerous, then American-owned social media are just as dangerous. Especially under Trump, but also without Trump. Hence, if it is reasonable for the US Congress to regulate or ban TikTok, then it is just as reasonable for European countries to regulate or ban American-owned social media such as Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and also Reddit. (One problem, of course, would be that there is not much left. But I am not worried about that. In a hypothetical scenario where the EU bans all non-EU-controlled social media, a few EU-based ones would soon rise to replace them.) What I have said about European countries may also apply elsewhere; I am hesitant to generalize.

SpectrumDT

2025-01-07 06:43:47

m5v586l

I will once again point out that there is no “ban” of Tik Tok. Tik Tok wasn’t banned by the US. The law creates a requirement that the company not be majority owned by a literal hostile foreign government. Any normal company would simply sell off enough stock to get below 50% ownership in their US division and reallocate the money they made doing that to other operations. That Tik Tok won’t do that proves that they’re not a normal company - they’re a propaganda and data harvesting project of the Chinese government.

Mr_Kittlesworth

2025-01-07 07:58:09

m5v2fbv

The US has a law on the books prohibiting foreign companies from owning media broadcast licenses. This law is The Communications Act of 1934 section 310 B it prevents a foreign company from owning more than 20% of a broadcast license. Technically TikTok doesn't have a broadcast license, so it isn't violating the letter of this law. However, that's only because they didn't have wifi in '34. I don't think there's an EU equivalent to this, which does inherently put the US and EU on different footing for this.

YetAnotherZombie

2025-01-07 07:37:06

CMV: With the same reasoning as the US TikTok ban, European countries ought to ban American social media

As far as I understand, the US Congress is trying to ban TikTok because they believe that a big Chinese-owned social media site/app is dangerous because the Chinese government might use it to spy on Americans and push propaganda to them. I am not trying to be pro-China nor anti-China, but it is undeniable that the political relations between the USA and China are not great, and they are likely to get worse under the new Trump regime. Hence it is within the realm of reason for Americans to be be wary of Chinese agendas. (Again, I do not mean to be anti-Chinese.) However, in my opinion, all the arguments I have heard about Chinese social media also apply to American social media. From my perspective as a European, the USA is a foreign power led by a dangerously unpredictable right-wing extremist. Elon Musk (who controls Twitter) is a close Trump-supporter, and as far as I can tell Mark Zuckerberg (who controls Facebook) also supports Trump. I don't know about the owners of other major social media such as YouTube or Reddit, but I do not trust any of these people. Any of these might ally with Trump and use their platforms to spread propaganda to support a Trumpist ideology. That could cause a lot of damage to my country and others. If Chinese-owned social media are dangerous, then American-owned social media are just as dangerous. Especially under Trump, but also without Trump. Hence, if it is reasonable for the US Congress to regulate or ban TikTok, then it is just as reasonable for European countries to regulate or ban American-owned social media such as Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and also Reddit. (One problem, of course, would be that there is not much left. But I am not worried about that. In a hypothetical scenario where the EU bans all non-EU-controlled social media, a few EU-based ones would soon rise to replace them.) What I have said about European countries may also apply elsewhere; I am hesitant to generalize.

SpectrumDT

2025-01-07 06:43:47

m5v2fbv

The US has a law on the books prohibiting foreign companies from owning media broadcast licenses. This law is The Communications Act of 1934 section 310 B it prevents a foreign company from owning more than 20% of a broadcast license. Technically TikTok doesn't have a broadcast license, so it isn't violating the letter of this law. However, that's only because they didn't have wifi in '34. I don't think there's an EU equivalent to this, which does inherently put the US and EU on different footing for this.

YetAnotherZombie

2025-01-07 07:37:06

m5uxudk

While I get what you're saying most prominent social media platforms were created or are primarily managed by America, including the app you are posting on right now... So if a ban for tick-tock (silly video app) was applied to most American social media (basically all mainstream/popular platforms) most of Europe would be instantly disconnected from the rest of the world. While I don't disagree that Europe should be under America's influence as constantly as it is it's a much bigger issue in this case than social media.

Domadea

2025-01-07 06:59:16

CMV: With the same reasoning as the US TikTok ban, European countries ought to ban American social media

As far as I understand, the US Congress is trying to ban TikTok because they believe that a big Chinese-owned social media site/app is dangerous because the Chinese government might use it to spy on Americans and push propaganda to them. I am not trying to be pro-China nor anti-China, but it is undeniable that the political relations between the USA and China are not great, and they are likely to get worse under the new Trump regime. Hence it is within the realm of reason for Americans to be be wary of Chinese agendas. (Again, I do not mean to be anti-Chinese.) However, in my opinion, all the arguments I have heard about Chinese social media also apply to American social media. From my perspective as a European, the USA is a foreign power led by a dangerously unpredictable right-wing extremist. Elon Musk (who controls Twitter) is a close Trump-supporter, and as far as I can tell Mark Zuckerberg (who controls Facebook) also supports Trump. I don't know about the owners of other major social media such as YouTube or Reddit, but I do not trust any of these people. Any of these might ally with Trump and use their platforms to spread propaganda to support a Trumpist ideology. That could cause a lot of damage to my country and others. If Chinese-owned social media are dangerous, then American-owned social media are just as dangerous. Especially under Trump, but also without Trump. Hence, if it is reasonable for the US Congress to regulate or ban TikTok, then it is just as reasonable for European countries to regulate or ban American-owned social media such as Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and also Reddit. (One problem, of course, would be that there is not much left. But I am not worried about that. In a hypothetical scenario where the EU bans all non-EU-controlled social media, a few EU-based ones would soon rise to replace them.) What I have said about European countries may also apply elsewhere; I am hesitant to generalize.

SpectrumDT

2025-01-07 06:43:47

m5vpr3f

One key difference is that these are mostly allied nations with whom we already share a significant amount of intelligence. But at the core level, the difference is that the CCP can just outright demand TikTok fork over everything and it’s not even trying to hide that fact. The US, no matter what you might think, cannot and does not. It’s popular on Reddit to say, “but the US government doesn’t care about laws,” and that’s silly. It does. I worked in the IC - the Feds don’t spy on regular people because, for one, it’s illegal. And secondly, it stands to gain nothing from doing so, but the implications of being caught are enormous. There’s no good reward for such a massive risk. I still think social media is horribly exploitative, but it isn’t the US government users should be wary of - it’s the corporate world. But even then, the worst a US-based company will do is sell your data for targeted advertising. Still invasive and uncanny but a far cry from a true national security threat.

SickCallRanger007

2025-01-07 10:05:53

m5v3wvq

I will offer a cynical argument. The US doesn't actually believe the reasons they're citing to justify a TikTok ban. They've never been truthful when justifying hostile actions and even wars against adversaries. For the most part, I think other countries have long since understood this facade as well, though maybe private citizens are still occasionally fooled by their whole 'democracy and freedom' nonsense. The real reason is because the US believes they're engaged in a zero sum competition with China. They don't like having a platform operating in their country that they can't control, especially not by said adversary. Additionally, TikTok is a strong competitor to domestic US companies. Maybe there is also a degree of reciprocity involved as China bans US social media as well. But regardless, those are the real reasons for the ban. Which goes to addressing your point. European countries *could* cite the same reasons that America cites to justify banning US social media, and those reasons would stand. However, Europe *ought* not do so because none of the unspoken real reasons for the US banning TikTok apply to Europe in regards to American platforms.

MeetYourCows

2025-01-07 07:48:30

CMV: With the same reasoning as the US TikTok ban, European countries ought to ban American social media

As far as I understand, the US Congress is trying to ban TikTok because they believe that a big Chinese-owned social media site/app is dangerous because the Chinese government might use it to spy on Americans and push propaganda to them. I am not trying to be pro-China nor anti-China, but it is undeniable that the political relations between the USA and China are not great, and they are likely to get worse under the new Trump regime. Hence it is within the realm of reason for Americans to be be wary of Chinese agendas. (Again, I do not mean to be anti-Chinese.) However, in my opinion, all the arguments I have heard about Chinese social media also apply to American social media. From my perspective as a European, the USA is a foreign power led by a dangerously unpredictable right-wing extremist. Elon Musk (who controls Twitter) is a close Trump-supporter, and as far as I can tell Mark Zuckerberg (who controls Facebook) also supports Trump. I don't know about the owners of other major social media such as YouTube or Reddit, but I do not trust any of these people. Any of these might ally with Trump and use their platforms to spread propaganda to support a Trumpist ideology. That could cause a lot of damage to my country and others. If Chinese-owned social media are dangerous, then American-owned social media are just as dangerous. Especially under Trump, but also without Trump. Hence, if it is reasonable for the US Congress to regulate or ban TikTok, then it is just as reasonable for European countries to regulate or ban American-owned social media such as Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and also Reddit. (One problem, of course, would be that there is not much left. But I am not worried about that. In a hypothetical scenario where the EU bans all non-EU-controlled social media, a few EU-based ones would soon rise to replace them.) What I have said about European countries may also apply elsewhere; I am hesitant to generalize.

SpectrumDT

2025-01-07 06:43:47

m60xvnk

GDPR and DSA are relatively recent laws that create very high barriers of reporting and disclosure. These are costly and cause friction, which large companies can amortize over a large number of users, while small ones cannot. Add to that variable content laws (I reference example of Germany not allowing swastikas), and Europe is *not* going to be the market where you want to grow your small social media company. So USA and China are the places to grow big, then you lawyer up and go to Europe. There is of course an exception, and that is OnlyFans. China has very restrictive laws on pornography and in the USA it turned out OnlyFans was to start with prevented to accept online payments. Europe has fewer restrictions on pornography and prostitution (with noteworthy exceptions). Make of that what you like. My point is not to say that we should create a lawless society in order to get some nice big social media. But any regulation that mandates a lot of compliance implies costs, which falls disproportionately on small and domestic firms. Is it worth it? Yes, sometimes; no, other times. In the last 15 years I think the European Commission has engaged in too much regulation to the detriment of European entrepreneurs and society more broadly. Bigger topic for another CMV…

SmorgasConfigurator

2025-01-08 04:46:57

m5uyrjn

1. Pretty famously, the EU is currently regulating US social media companies, like Twitter and Facebook. 2. European countries do not operate on the same legal framework as the U.S. There‘s the ECHR which gives everyone the right to operate a business, as well as the GRC which does the same. Just pointing to the actions of the U.S. alone is not justification for the actions of a member state of the ECHR or the EU, and the actions of the state would also need to be proportional when infringing on fundamental rights. 3. The influence the state can exert over corporations in China is much greater and much more direct than in the U.S. So, companies and their products are much more easily turned into agents of the state itself. China is not an ally of the U.S., but an increasingly hostile foreign power. The U.S. is an ally to many European nations - various instances of breaking international law and treaties, as well as spying on the whole citizenry and heads of government of their supposed allied counties notwithstanding - and does at least have treaties of friendship and support with the rest. So the situation is quite different, as the argument of a hostile nation gaining influence cannot be applied here. Conclusion: The legal framework is different, the overall situation is different and you‘re arguing from a wrong position.

TheFoxer1

2025-01-07 07:07:15

CMV: Feminism, for all it's progress, unfortunately fails to reach it's ultimate goal(s) by adopting a 'hands off' system towards disenfranchised men.

Generally, i think feminism has done many great things for womens rights. There is still work to do obviously, but hey, Rome wasn't built in a day. One of the results of feminism is that women increasingly decide to refrain from marrying or getting into relationships with certain men in the first place, if they feel like they don't meet the new standards they've set for relationships. This leads to alot of disenfranchised men, or 'incels'. Ofcourse, this problem is mainly up to these men to fix for themselves, but is this practical? I don't think so. I see alot of feminists saying stuff like 'It's not a womens problem so they can fix this problem themselves'. It's not often that a person has the willpower to drag themselves out of such a deep hole as these incels find themselves in, and if feminists want to create a lasting and positive impact along with the new standards they set, they need to be able to be the bigger person and try to educate the ill-informed men, along with eradicating old and harmful standards. Inspiration for this post was derived from a post i saw on a feminist subreddit i scrolled past, so this isn't a thoroughly fleshed out view, just thought it would be a somewhat fun discussion to have :)

Tydeeeee

2025-01-06 08:34:14

m5p652a

>One of the results of feminism is that women increasingly decide to refrain from marrying or getting into relationships with certain men in the first place, if they feel like they don't meet the new standards they've set for relationships. This leads to alot of disenfranchised men, or 'incels'. Let's not attribute this solely to feminism. That assumes most women are feminist or in dating pick up a feminist outlook on dating. Without any data, let's not assume this is the case. People in general are having a bit of failure to launch as well as the normal career stuff. You don't need to be a feminist to decide to wait to marry. Many people grew up well aware of the impact of divorce. Men across the world are suffering because of various economic barriers that harm them. This leads to men less likely to be financially independent, which hurts dating prospects. There's also a lot of social barriers for men that are due to costs, COVID aftermath, cellphones/social media, and declining rates of teen drinking (allowing teens to get a foundation of socializing earlier). >It's not often that a person has the willpower to drag themselves out of such a deep hole as these incels find themselves in, and if feminists want to create a lasting and positive impact along with the new standards they set, they need to be able to be the bigger person and try to educate the ill-informed men, along with eradicating old and harmful standards. Will incels be open to a woman coming into their space and "educating" them? Let's be honest here, the internet is filled with randos. Idk if you're 45 or 15. You have no idea who I am. Notice how incels online aren't the same ones from 2010 or 2015? Maybe that is because they do get themselves out of that hole once they grow up a bit. >Inspiration for this post was derived from a post i saw on a feminist subreddit i scrolled past, so this isn't a thoroughly fleshed out view, Subreddits are horrible places to base your opinion on a broad social movement or how people actually feel. If you went onto various subreddits through the years you'd see a bunch of braindead takes and flat out wrong takes. With that said, Incels are not going to be open to women, especially openly feminist women, telling them what they should do. Dating is hyper individualistic too. Many incels may just need a shift in attitude and outlook. Some need more than that. Some just need to log off and stop looking at negative stuff. Some just need to be patient since they're so young. At the end of the day these men need to do something to fix their own dating woes. Nobody can do that for them. I would not encourage random people online to come into other online spaces and lecture people on how to live or what they need to do.

pessipesto

2025-01-06 09:15:15

m5p5wx4

>i have to be honest this is such an insane take i don’t really even know how to respond Ouch? bit of a harsh judgment for a take that's simply calling for empathy when someone else lashes out instead of anger. This is something the world could have more of in general, not just within feminism. >everyone is responsible and accountable for their own actions. if these men don’t want to help themselves then their lives won’t get any better and that is not the fault of any woman but of themselves (just like that is true for anyone) I fully agree and i'm not blaming feminists for anything. I'm just saying, that if we want to consolidate the efforts made by feminism, changes in the approach to the affected men have to happen. You can say that it isn't the feminists responsibility and you're completely right, but sometimes, in order to gain positive results, you got to do stuff that falls beyond your responsibility and just do it because it's beneficial. >you’re basically suggesting that these men are babies who can’t take care of themselves and it’s a woman’s job to forgo her own happiness to cater to these types of men to *hope* for a change in their behavior Honestly? Some certainly are, at least when it comes to this modern movement that completely upended the status quo that's been ingrained for decades. In that sense, they are babies within this new world. It's like learning to ski or snowboard when you're 30+, it's going to take a *LOT*.

Tydeeeee

2025-01-06 09:13:51

CMV: Feminism, for all it's progress, unfortunately fails to reach it's ultimate goal(s) by adopting a 'hands off' system towards disenfranchised men.

Generally, i think feminism has done many great things for womens rights. There is still work to do obviously, but hey, Rome wasn't built in a day. One of the results of feminism is that women increasingly decide to refrain from marrying or getting into relationships with certain men in the first place, if they feel like they don't meet the new standards they've set for relationships. This leads to alot of disenfranchised men, or 'incels'. Ofcourse, this problem is mainly up to these men to fix for themselves, but is this practical? I don't think so. I see alot of feminists saying stuff like 'It's not a womens problem so they can fix this problem themselves'. It's not often that a person has the willpower to drag themselves out of such a deep hole as these incels find themselves in, and if feminists want to create a lasting and positive impact along with the new standards they set, they need to be able to be the bigger person and try to educate the ill-informed men, along with eradicating old and harmful standards. Inspiration for this post was derived from a post i saw on a feminist subreddit i scrolled past, so this isn't a thoroughly fleshed out view, just thought it would be a somewhat fun discussion to have :)

Tydeeeee

2025-01-06 08:34:14

m5pbbg7

>Yeah, but why are they? I think it's curious that men get more lonely since fiminism \[sic\] rose. Everyone is getting more isolated and alone thank to capitalism getting worse. The rise of the suburb, the elimination of third places, our car-centric society, the lack of economic mobility, etc. Even for adults there's no place where you can exist and socialize for free. Everything costs money. All the local places that used to exist are dying and being replaced by chains and franchises. This is even worse if you're a teenager. Where do you even go when you don't have a car and you live in the suburbs? I think the internet contributes to this as well. The curated infinite scroll social media feeds isolate people from reality and create filter bubbles where people can just hang out and reinforce their own ideas. They get rejected by a girl and instead of making themselves better or finding better girls, they simply join a community of other guys who were rejected by girls and they all put their heads together and decide that women are bitches while jerking off to interracial cuck porn. And instead of looking to the real men in their lives, fascist fail-sons funded by conservative billionaires and the Russian government infiltrate these spaces and convince them that the problem is "the woke" (read: women, gays, and blacks). I don't think it's impossible on an individual level to reach these people. If you're willing to talk to these guys and engage with them, I'm sure you'll be able to pull some of them away. But systemically, I think that incels are a capitalist problem, not a feminist one.

CartographerKey4618

2025-01-06 09:49:37

m5p4dk3

A big part of it is that in the good old days a woman couldn’t really make it on her own. As such, being married (and married young, when she could still have lots of children) was heavily important. This meant that the standards for men were really basic, the bar was basically “can this man provide me with an income?”. Nowadays women can work and be independent. This means that if a man wants to be in a relationship, he needs to actually bring something to the table asides from disposable income, be it the ability to have fun, being funny, good in bed, etc. and most men who are categorized as incels don’t really bring any of that to the table. Like, just think about all the stereotypes there are about how sex sucks for women and realize that those are based off actual experiences they’ve had. The incel becomes an incel because they feel they are owed a girlfriend, but that’s simply not true. If we believe in individual responsibility, it means that it’s the incel who needs to better themselves to the point where they become a desirable partner. The measure of intelligence and the greatest feat human tenacity is the ability to adapt, this is no longer our grandpa’s world where it was expected you’d get married unhappily, have a side piece and be an absent father to your children (yes I’m exaggerating to make a point). Making it other people’s responsibility would be just another example of male privilege, while we expect and have always expected people be responsible for their own actions, white males need to be catered to and other people need to be the bigger people.

Queasy-Group-2558

2025-01-06 09:04:04

CMV: Feminism, for all it's progress, unfortunately fails to reach it's ultimate goal(s) by adopting a 'hands off' system towards disenfranchised men.

Generally, i think feminism has done many great things for womens rights. There is still work to do obviously, but hey, Rome wasn't built in a day. One of the results of feminism is that women increasingly decide to refrain from marrying or getting into relationships with certain men in the first place, if they feel like they don't meet the new standards they've set for relationships. This leads to alot of disenfranchised men, or 'incels'. Ofcourse, this problem is mainly up to these men to fix for themselves, but is this practical? I don't think so. I see alot of feminists saying stuff like 'It's not a womens problem so they can fix this problem themselves'. It's not often that a person has the willpower to drag themselves out of such a deep hole as these incels find themselves in, and if feminists want to create a lasting and positive impact along with the new standards they set, they need to be able to be the bigger person and try to educate the ill-informed men, along with eradicating old and harmful standards. Inspiration for this post was derived from a post i saw on a feminist subreddit i scrolled past, so this isn't a thoroughly fleshed out view, just thought it would be a somewhat fun discussion to have :)

Tydeeeee

2025-01-06 08:34:14

m5phqg9

> I think you've highlighted a flaw in my original thesis, namely the idea that feminists are a monolith With this, could you please award a delta? > But i do also firmly believe that there are alot of feminists out there that truly want a better world with more equal opportunities. I dont see them wanting to surrender any pathway through which they are unequal. See what happened when Trump moved the standard of proof under Title 9 for college sexual assault claims to just a preponderance of evidence from probable cause - feminists were nearly unanimously in favor of the standard of evidence being a believable 1 sided story, rather than a story that was more likely than not true with both sides getting to say what happened. Also see the Duluth model for domestic violence - no matter what happens, always arrest the man for domestic violence. With my father's 2nd wife, she threw pots and pans. My father knew if he called the cops he would get arrested, and he would get kicked out of the military... at 18 years, prior to the full 20. So he just was always at work because he didnt want to go home. All before I was born, I was a child of the 3rd wife, though my half brothers do corroborate my father's versions of events and get along with him well. My brother was in a case where his wife accused him of raping his kids and it ruined his life even though the accusations were proven to be entirely fabricated. Just an all around nasty story. Most of the stories of the suicides are a nasty divorce, the man loses everything and just kills himself because he has no reason to live.

JacketExpensive9817

2025-01-06 10:25:41

m5p5wx4

>i have to be honest this is such an insane take i don’t really even know how to respond Ouch? bit of a harsh judgment for a take that's simply calling for empathy when someone else lashes out instead of anger. This is something the world could have more of in general, not just within feminism. >everyone is responsible and accountable for their own actions. if these men don’t want to help themselves then their lives won’t get any better and that is not the fault of any woman but of themselves (just like that is true for anyone) I fully agree and i'm not blaming feminists for anything. I'm just saying, that if we want to consolidate the efforts made by feminism, changes in the approach to the affected men have to happen. You can say that it isn't the feminists responsibility and you're completely right, but sometimes, in order to gain positive results, you got to do stuff that falls beyond your responsibility and just do it because it's beneficial. >you’re basically suggesting that these men are babies who can’t take care of themselves and it’s a woman’s job to forgo her own happiness to cater to these types of men to *hope* for a change in their behavior Honestly? Some certainly are, at least when it comes to this modern movement that completely upended the status quo that's been ingrained for decades. In that sense, they are babies within this new world. It's like learning to ski or snowboard when you're 30+, it's going to take a *LOT*.

Tydeeeee

2025-01-06 09:13:51

CMV: The United States will not move to a reduced (i.e. 4-day workweek or better labor protections against overworking) in our lifetime

UPDATE: my view has been changed to acknowledge that it’s a possibility. ————————— I’ve been hoping and praying for a 4-day workweek or stronger labor protections against burnout and overwork (ie capping hours and forcing overtime for salaried employee, protection against work requests past a certain time, more time off like in European countries), but in reality I don’t think the US has the political willpower or imagination to make it happen. People literally had to die for us to gain weekends and more standard shift hours. Unless something extremely drastic happens (i.e. a wave of Luigis come through - please note i am not advocating for this), I don’t see how widespread change is possible. The US has one of the most work-centric cultures to date notoriously known for bad labor laws. When we’re not exploiting each other, we’re exploiting people in the global south for cheap labor. The move to expand AI and replace roles, offshoring exploitation, and H1-B expansion proves that no matter how productive we become, capitalists will always just want more profit rather than just maintaining their profits to provide people more time to be a human outside of work. Is there any hope? I honestly don’t think there is but very open to changing my view. I realize I may not be thinking rationally about this. ———————— DEFINITION: by “our lifetime” I mean Gen X or younger. I’m considering the boomer generation to be reaching retirement age, so not likely going to happen by the time some of them exit the workforce. EDIT: Thanks everyone for responding. Keep it coming! Trying to respond as much as I can but apologies if I don’t get to your comment. I’m disabled and need to take breaks but love the convo so far!

lil_lychee

2025-01-05 23:47:03

m5ngdze

I can't make the argument myself but google AGI (machines with human level intelligence and ability) and timelines. AGI will be here before you die. At that point either you will not have an income anyway or you will be on something like UBI. So in a sense I think you're probably right, you won't get a 4 day work week. However you will get a 0 day work week. Whether that's because we've all been forced into homelessness or UBI saves us.

ShardsOfSalt

2025-01-05 23:53:31

m5nht8s

So you agree with me then that conditions won’t get better? Unfortunately this doesn’t attempt to CMV. Let me know if I’m misunderstanding. No, trump didn’t just win because of boomers. I’m mainly saying that there’s not a lot of lead time before boomers are in the retirement window for those who can afford it, so I’m not co considering boomers when I ask if changes will happen in their lifetime.

lil_lychee

2025-01-06 00:03:57

CMV: The United States will not move to a reduced (i.e. 4-day workweek or better labor protections against overworking) in our lifetime

UPDATE: my view has been changed to acknowledge that it’s a possibility. ————————— I’ve been hoping and praying for a 4-day workweek or stronger labor protections against burnout and overwork (ie capping hours and forcing overtime for salaried employee, protection against work requests past a certain time, more time off like in European countries), but in reality I don’t think the US has the political willpower or imagination to make it happen. People literally had to die for us to gain weekends and more standard shift hours. Unless something extremely drastic happens (i.e. a wave of Luigis come through - please note i am not advocating for this), I don’t see how widespread change is possible. The US has one of the most work-centric cultures to date notoriously known for bad labor laws. When we’re not exploiting each other, we’re exploiting people in the global south for cheap labor. The move to expand AI and replace roles, offshoring exploitation, and H1-B expansion proves that no matter how productive we become, capitalists will always just want more profit rather than just maintaining their profits to provide people more time to be a human outside of work. Is there any hope? I honestly don’t think there is but very open to changing my view. I realize I may not be thinking rationally about this. ———————— DEFINITION: by “our lifetime” I mean Gen X or younger. I’m considering the boomer generation to be reaching retirement age, so not likely going to happen by the time some of them exit the workforce. EDIT: Thanks everyone for responding. Keep it coming! Trying to respond as much as I can but apologies if I don’t get to your comment. I’m disabled and need to take breaks but love the convo so far!

lil_lychee

2025-01-05 23:47:03

m5nnouh

The power of worker movements is actually stronger now than you might think. Look at what's happening with unions - Amazon, Starbucks, tech companies are all seeing unprecedented organizing. Even Apple retail workers are unionizing, which would've been unthinkable just 5 years ago. We're already seeing 4-day workweek pilots succeed massively in other countries. The UK's trial showed 92% of companies continuing it after the pilot. Companies literally made MORE money while working less. That's exactly the kind of data that makes even profit-focused executives pay attention. California (our state) just passed some of the strongest workplace protection laws in the country. The new law requiring pay transparency is huge. The fast food workers' council bill was groundbreaking. These changes are happening RIGHT HERE. The pandemic completely transformed how we think about work. Remote work was "impossible" until suddenly it wasn't. Now major companies are stuck offering it or losing talent. The same will happen with reduced hours - it's already starting in tech companies offering "Summer Fridays" and unlimited PTO. The labor shortage gives workers more leverage than we've had in decades. Companies are desperate for talent and having to actually compete on quality of life, not just salary. When Microsoft Japan tried 4-day weeks, productivity jumped 40%. Silicon Valley follows trends like this fast when there's proof it works. Progressive states like California have massive influence on national policy. When we pass labor laws, other states follow. The domino effect is real - just look at how quickly cannabis legalization spread once a few states proved it worked. The change is already happening. It's just a matter of time before it hits critical mass.

prathiska

2025-01-06 00:51:02

m5njgtg

Historically around 60% of the US workforce was in agriculture, today it's around 10% (and that 10% figure includes all agriculture-related employment, actual on-sight farming is around 1%). Sources: [https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/teacher-resources/statistics-trends-american-farming](https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/teacher-resources/statistics-trends-american-farming) [https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/ag-and-food-sectors-and-the-economy](https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/ag-and-food-sectors-and-the-economy) So why as the advent labor savings technologies that decrease the need for human capital in this sector not led to mass unemployment? Because people find new jobs. This is always what has happened historically, it's special pleading to suggest that the evolution of AI and its integration into the workplace will be any different

2025-01-06 00:16:35

CMV: The United States will not move to a reduced (i.e. 4-day workweek or better labor protections against overworking) in our lifetime

UPDATE: my view has been changed to acknowledge that it’s a possibility. ————————— I’ve been hoping and praying for a 4-day workweek or stronger labor protections against burnout and overwork (ie capping hours and forcing overtime for salaried employee, protection against work requests past a certain time, more time off like in European countries), but in reality I don’t think the US has the political willpower or imagination to make it happen. People literally had to die for us to gain weekends and more standard shift hours. Unless something extremely drastic happens (i.e. a wave of Luigis come through - please note i am not advocating for this), I don’t see how widespread change is possible. The US has one of the most work-centric cultures to date notoriously known for bad labor laws. When we’re not exploiting each other, we’re exploiting people in the global south for cheap labor. The move to expand AI and replace roles, offshoring exploitation, and H1-B expansion proves that no matter how productive we become, capitalists will always just want more profit rather than just maintaining their profits to provide people more time to be a human outside of work. Is there any hope? I honestly don’t think there is but very open to changing my view. I realize I may not be thinking rationally about this. ———————— DEFINITION: by “our lifetime” I mean Gen X or younger. I’m considering the boomer generation to be reaching retirement age, so not likely going to happen by the time some of them exit the workforce. EDIT: Thanks everyone for responding. Keep it coming! Trying to respond as much as I can but apologies if I don’t get to your comment. I’m disabled and need to take breaks but love the convo so far!

lil_lychee

2025-01-05 23:47:03

m5nmt4h

It’s probably gonna happen, but not for the reasons you like. Lots of jobs work variable hours/non standard 40 hour workweeks. Nurses in hospitals often work 3 days a week with 12-13 hour shifts each of those days. Plenty of delivery drivers have 3-4 day schedules per week. And with the growth of independent contractors/gig workers, more people are setting their own schedule than ever. As more workers move from full benefit associates to independent contractors- there will be more and more non- standard work days. Also, as there’s more demand for service/ work to be done over the weekends, the regular Monday- Friday 5 day a week schedule will be less common.

etown361

2025-01-06 00:43:34

m5nl5d9

One thing I’ll mention is that the article you linked to is biased in the fact that it doesn’t mention at all any of the labor movements that was the reason for hours reducing. I’m going to ignore the mentions of workweeks under other economic systems aside from capitalism. We live in a capitalist society now, so I don’t think what happened under feudalism is a predictor here. We’ve entered late-stage capitalism. Anecdotally, I know several people who are being phased out of their roles because of AI. I’d be curious to see if your prediction is right that hours will decrease, but why would it if they can just make more product for more profit while using AI and overworking the labor they have?

lil_lychee

2025-01-06 00:30:00