claim
stringlengths 20
257
| positive
stringlengths 139
5.07k
| negative
stringlengths 135
3.54k
| post_id
stringlengths 7
7
| post_title
stringlengths 20
257
| post_text
stringlengths 507
35.9k
| post_timestamp
int64 1.73B
1.74B
| post_author
stringlengths 4
20
| positive_comment_id
stringclasses 1
value | negative_comment_id
stringclasses 1
value | date
stringdate 2024-10-01 00:00:00
2024-12-31 00:00:00
| quarter
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CMV: We already see the signs of societal collapse
|
{'id': 'lpz0oie', 'text': "its hard to predict the future. I wouldn't rule out a collapse on the scale of the Roman empire, but i also wouldn't say that its the mostly likely outcome in the not to distant future.\n\nthe roman empire collapsed slowly. The lost territory to nearby rivals and they stopped generating new technology. Neither of those things are happening right now, we just had a HUGE technological breakthrough a couple years ago with Chat GPT.\n\ni think two of the really bad thing happening right now are the cost of housing and the cost of higher education. somehow despite the invention of the internet, the cost of education managed to increase. Now with AI we will see, but the cost really ought to decrease by a factor of at least 100. My kids are about a decade away from college, and I'll be shocked if they have to pay what kids pay today. I mean chat GTP has got to be outperforming professors by then if its not already, for pennies on the dollar.\n\nbut yea, its very hard to predict the future.", 'author': 'jatjqtjat', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1727875465}
|
{'id': 'lpywv10', 'text': "A common thread in deteriorating societies is the debasement of their currency, and we (the US and other countries whose currency is pegged to it). We also see a declining birthrate, and large influx of foreigners. With all our wonderful technology, and the entirety of history at our fingertips, we should have the most amazing society in history, and furthermore it should be getting better every year. But it's clearly not, at least outside technology, and that gives people an understandable pessimism about the future. Perhaps society has reached a dead end and needs to go through a rough period before we can re-route in a positive direction.", 'author': 'Brennelement', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1727873983}
|
1fuf7sk
|
CMV: We already see the signs of societal collapse
|
From political instability to internal conflict and extreme wealth inequality, we are witnessing the signs that have historically brought down the most powerful and influencial societies, such as the Roman empire, Persian empire and Ottoman empire, to name a few.
We also see some of the minor signs, such as moral deterioration among the general populace. The deterioration of civic virtue was one of the contributing factors of the fall of the Roman civilisation, and we see the same happening right now. With people being more and more focussed on their own gains as opposed to a focus on helping eachother thrive.
What would make it different this time around?
| 1,727,872,854
|
Tydeeeee
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-02
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: If you sincerely believe that the current Israeli government are as bad as the Nazis, you logically ought to be advocating for a similar response from the West (i.e. a war to topple them), and if you aren't, I'd question whether you really believe it
|
{'id': 'lpymvs3', 'text': "> And that by extension if a similar regime were around today, the moral thing to do would be to fight them even if it's not us that they're threatening?\n\nNot if said regime doesn't directly threaten the West. We invaded Germany because Nazi Germany was very much a direct threat to balance of power in the West. Israel is nothing like that.", 'author': 'corbynista2029', 'score': 101, 'timestamp': 1727869662}
|
{'id': 'lpymfln', 'text': 'I obviously don’t speak for anyone else but I feel like it’s more something like, war would absolutely be reasonable at this point to stop the reign of terror, but the governments most in power in the world are clearly not going to do that so we are exercising the amount we are able to do while pushing the governments to a goal they might be able to be pressured into.\xa0', 'author': 'UnfortunateEnnui', 'score': -1, 'timestamp': 1727869452}
|
1fudwov
|
CMV: If you sincerely believe that the current Israeli government are as bad as the Nazis, you logically ought to be advocating for a similar response from the West (i.e. a war to topple them), and if you aren't, I'd question whether you really believe it
|
I've seen a fair few posts and comments on social media within the past year likening the current Israeli government to Nazi Germany on account of the current war in the Middle East and their treatment of Palestinians in the years prior. I generally think comparisons to Nazi Germany tend to be hyperbolic, but I'm not really seeking to discuss here whether the comparison is warranted or not; rather, I want to present my view for criticism on what the implications of considering Israel akin to Nazi Germany would be re. what the Western powers should be doing about the current situation, given what they did when faced with Nazi Germany.
Plenty of people in countries like the US and UK are advocating for their governments to withdraw some or all support for Israel over their actions or to make any further support conditional on them stopping the war and improving their human rights record. There have been policies advocated for like banning sales of arms to Israel, placing economic sanctions on them or companies with ties to the Israeli government. Similar policies have been pursued in the past with regimes such as apartheid-era South Africa or currently with Russia following their invasion of Ukraine. But if you were to sincerely hold the position that Israel's current regime and actions are comparable to Nazi Germany and their actions in the 1930s and 40s such as invading its neighbours and carrying out the Holocaust, policies like these surely do not go *nearly* far enough as a response. Would boycotting Hugo Boss or refusing to trade with Hitler have been a sufficient response in 1939 when Germany invaded Poland, or would a cessation of hostilities at that point have been enough to justify the Allies going back to leaving them alone? The vast majority of people would say no, surely.
Therefore, for anyone espousing the view that the current Israeli government truly is comparable to the Nazi government of Germany in the 1930s/40s, it seems logical to me that they should be advocating for much the same response from nations like the US and UK right now: that those countries should go to war with Israel insofar as is necessary until the current Israeli government has been removed from power, and annex the country and rebuild its political institutions from the ground up until such time as they're deemed capable of self-governance again, like they did with Germany in the 1940s. And if someone who ostensibly believes that the current Israeli government is comparable to the Nazis is *not* advocating for this viewpoint, I can only draw one of the following conclusions:
1. They do not, in fact, sincerely believe that the current Israeli government is as bad as the Nazis.
or
2. They think the West's response to the Nazis in 1939-45 was excessive and that less extreme measures should have been taken instead.
Given the near-universal regard for the Allies' actions in World War II as legitimate and a proportionate response to Nazi Germany, I would assume that the vast majority of people who describe Israel as comparable today to Nazi Germany fall into category 1 rather than category 2, i.e. believing that the current Israeli government and their actions are *wrong* and deserving of *some* punitive measures in response, but not really that they are comparable to the wrongs of the Nazis or deserving of similar punitive measures as levelled against Nazi Germany.
The most obvious criticism of this view I can think of would be to argue that the decision of countries like the US and UK to go to war with Nazi Germany was motivated not merely by opposition to Germany's current actions but also by interests of self-defence with the threat that they too were likely to be attacked by Germany in the near future, whereas Israel seem extremely unlikely to be a credible threat to anyone other than their immediate neighbours. This is a valid line of argument, but in the context of my post I would say that I think it is also very unlikely that *this* is the reason why most people who compare Israel to Nazi Germany are not advocating for a military response to Israel: their support of measures against Israel such as economic sanctions aren't based on fears of Israel being a threat to the West, but rather on the feeling that punitive measures against Israel are the right course of action because of their crimes against their immediate neighbours such as Gaza and Lebanon; ergo, I'd assume that someone in the US or UK advocating for these types of economic measures against Israel, but *not* for a war to topple them, is doing so not because they feel a war would be unnecessary for their own country's safety, but rather because they do not think Israel's crimes are bad *enough* to warrant their own country declaring war in response as they did against Nazi Germany.
Anyway, this is my view. CMV.
| 1,727,868,605
|
forbiddenmemeories
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-02
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Brain development science is nowhere near accurate enough to be useful for anything and its effects have only been detrimental thus far.
|
{'id': 'lq5jpxi', 'text': "Any chance you can provide me the links again? I was reading through one, switched to my computer, and they took the post down :( I did find the source I referenced: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/04/27/faith-in-flux/\n\nMain note on that survey is it was done entirely without neuroscience in mind, so to me that makes it a stronger argument in favor of the 25/brain maturation claim. But I still want to read through the links you posted.\n\nI will say, I followed the exact trajectory as you as far as politics is concerned. Right now I consider myself a left-leaning libertarian. I'm sure this sounds like an oxymoron but I think I'm consistent in my views. As for world view, this is as fundamental as it gets. It's the filter through which we interpret reality. To me, this is where people tend to split between religious thinking (faith) and non-religious thinking (reason). It really comes down to how people deal with certainty.\n\nI was very open to changing my mind about anything in my early 20s. I was raised religious, but there were a lot of contradictions I was exposed to which made me curious. I watched lots of debates, and eventually I felt that atheists had the stronger and more consistent arguments. By the time I was ~25, I was pretty solidified in these views. Recently, a friend of mine has become a proselytizing Christian and I really just am not open to his arguments. I've heard enough of them, he isn't really saying anything I haven't heard before, and I honestly don't want to spend my time revisiting it. I find it more productive to view reality as an atheist because it offers more satisfying, and consistent, explanations for the things I observe.\n\nAnother example of this in society, look how people viewed the Trump assassination attempt. Some people think it was a wacko who was a poor shot, and some people think God himself intervened to ensure his survival. If you follow the reasons for why people believe these things, some people are more comfortable with uncertainty than others. The 'others' cannot stand to not know things, and they're willing to accept a flawed argument as true in order to avoid the discomfort of uncertainty.", 'author': 'Kildragoth', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1727970174}
|
{'id': 'lq3ps3j', 'text': 'I was thinking simply a wealth change\n\nPeople tend to lean more to the right as they gain wealth\n\nWin the lotto and peoples politics change fast', 'author': 'Interesting-Copy-657', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1727939783}
|
1fuzby2
|
CMV: Brain development science is nowhere near accurate enough to be useful for anything and its effects have only been detrimental thus far.
|
[Source 1](https://slate.com/technology/2022/11/brain-development-25-year-old-mature-myth.html)
>“Some 8-year-old brains exhibited a greater ‘maturation index’ than some 25 year old brains,”
-
>The interpretation of neuroimaging is the most difficult and contentious part; in a 2020 study, 70 different research teams analyzed the same data set and came away with wildly different conclusions.
-
>Now that tens of thousands of fMRI studies have been published, researchers are identifying flaws in common neuroscience methods and questioning the reliability of their measures.
-
> If we’re leaving it up to neuroscience to define maturity, the answer is clear as mud.
[Source 2](https://www.sciencefocus.com/comment/brain-myth-25-development) (Written entirely by a neuroscientist)
When I first got into Youth Rights, I asked my then 17yo nephew what he thought the voting age should be and he said 25 because his brain wouldn't be developed until then. He was right on the cusp of his voice actually mattering and thought that it shouldn't for an additional seven years because of this bullshit.
I heard another young man at a tournament for a videogame we both play questioning some decision or another he had made recently because of this bullshit.
I've seen you guys (some of you) being completely dismissive of minors and young adults who post to this forum because of this bullshit.
Young people are already marginalized enough without you guys giving them the impression that they're not even worth having a conversation with.
| 1,727,928,363
|
Livid_Lengthiness_69
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-03
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: pitbulls are the ‘machine guns of dogs’ and people should not be able to own them as pets, just as they can’t own machine guns as guns
|
{'id': 'lpt9usf', 'text': 'You are wrong actually. As long as they get the proper permits and documentation, anyone can own a machine gun in the United States. They can\'t be bought as easily as hunting rifles or pistols, but they aren\'t "illegal."', 'author': 'mufasaface', 'score': 43, 'timestamp': 1727791082}
|
{'id': 'lpt7081', 'text': 'But you can own a machine gun, you just have to go through a bit of paperwork or as a joke, own a drill press. So perhaps there should just be more discretion when picking a dog.', 'author': 'thecountnotthesaint', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1727790055}
|
1fto0tw
|
CMV: pitbulls are the ‘machine guns of dogs’ and people should not be able to own them as pets, just as they can’t own machine guns as guns
|
People can’t own machine guns (fully automatic) for obvious reasons. They are incredibly powerful weapons that can do a ton of damage.
For this same reason, pitbulls should be banned from being owned as pets. Their bite force is incredibly strong. If there’s ever an incident with a pitbill, there’s a good chance it will end in bad injuries or even death.
But in all likelihood, several other breeds should be banned from being owned by humans for the same reasons noted above, including but not limited to: Cane Corsos, Rottweilers, Chow chows, German Shepards, and American Bulldogs.
*I understand a few U.S. states do allow civilians to own fully automatic guns, but I think these laws are insane and should be reversed.*
| 1,727,789,071
|
Call_It_
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-01
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: If more people admitted they weren't that good at driving, driving would be a much safer activity
|
{'id': 'lqelqhh', 'text': "It has nothing to do with skill though. People choose to drive aggressively because they want to get to their destination faster and they don't care much about people's safety. That's not a _skill_ issue, it's a values issue.", 'author': 'yyzjertl', 'score': 9, 'timestamp': 1728098568}
|
{'id': 'lqedse2', 'text': 'I agree. It\'s less "I\'m a good driver" as much as "I\'m a good drunk driver. Driving high makes me more focused. My peripheral vision is good enough to text and drive, etc."', 'author': 'sleightofhand0', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1728094957}
|
1fwfmpe
|
CMV: If more people admitted they weren't that good at driving, driving would be a much safer activity
|
Road accidents are *one of* the leading cause of death in the US and many other countries (EDIT 6). Most people I know (including myself) vastly overestimate their driving ability, which makes them less risk-averse and more of a danger to themselves and others.
My core assumptions are:
* **"Driving IQ" is normally distributed**, meaning that:
* Most drivers are average, and ~~half of all drivers are below average (shitty drivers)~~. see edit 1
* Most accidents are caused by the below average drivers.
* **When confronted with a new situation, people revert to the mean**; You may be good at driving, but if a new situation or road condition occurs, you are usually just "okay" at handling it. Many things cause even the best drivers to revert to the mean or worse:
* Weather (ex. A patch of black ice makes it impossible to stop)
* Distractions (ex. Your bluetooth won't connect so you keep fiddling with your phone)
* Poor road design (ex. A stop sign is obscured by an overgrown bush, a neighborhood with pedestrians is designed with too-wide roads)
* Mood (ex. I know that I've been so hungry/angry/sad before I drove way over the speed limit)
I have to constantly remind myself when I drive that I am at best a painfully average driver. I think that as people get more driving experience, they tend to become complacent and think that having 20 years of driving experience automatically makes your driving IQ really high. It doesn't, and assuming you're a good driver is actually irresponsible.
Change my view :)
EDIT 1: u/THE_CENTURION/ u/Livid_Lengthiness_69/ pointed out that I botched the interpretation of the normal distribution pretty badly. Better to say that "most drivers are average", i.e. most will fall within 1 standard deviation of mean driving skill. I'd then guess that the few crappy drivers have outsized risk and impact other drivers more. Really, this is more of a fuzzy analogy than a real attempt at a statistical model, but I at least want the analogy to be clear.
EDIT 2: u/Caracalla81 pointed out this argument leans pretty heavily into the "personal responsibility" aspect of driving. I failed to consider that there are probably lots of people that suck at driving, and know they suck at driving, but they need to drive to live. In this case, my POV isn't helpful at all. The overall car centrism of many places forces these self aware bad drivers to drive.
EDIT 3: u/yyzjertl pointed out that "being bad at driving" can stem from people just not caring, or being selfish (ex. speeding bc they want to get somewhere faster). They can be perfectly capable of driving really well, but just not give a shit. So it's not just a "skill issue", it can also be an issue of values. u/automaks added that the *driving* culture can also force people to act more selfishly out of pure pragmatism (ex. if you drive "by the law" in Delhi or Hanoi, you're probably not going to get where you want to go, even if you're being "unsafe" by some holier than thou standard).
EDIT 4: u/FreeFortuna (by agreeing with me) made realize that "Driving IQ" is kind of a dumb metaphor, but it's the only way I could think to smash the idea of "driving skill" and the idea of "normal distribution" together, so that I could arrive at "most people are average, don't get too confident". It's an analogy, so take it with a grain of salt.
EDIT 5: u/UnovaCBP pointed out that being really good at driving (ex. motorsports) is fundamentally the same skill as driving on the street. They drive very strategically and decisively. If someone on the road strategically ignores traffic laws (ex. "*fuck it I'll go 15 over, I'm driving 800 miles on I-70 and everyone else is doing it. This will actually save a lot of time and if I see a cop on google maps I'll slow down*"), it actually doesn't necessarily make them a bad driver and can be done safely (in theory). A bit of a chaotic good answer; There is a fine line between justified confidence and dangerous overconfidence.
EDIT 6: u/cez801 fact checked me on the leading cause of death in the US. I more meant "driving is the most dangerous thing most of us do on a daily basis" and then botched the stat when I retrieved it from long-term memory :) They stated that while driving ability is *one* factor, it cannot adequately explain road death differences between the US and some other countries (ex. Norway), because it isn't reasonable that people in those other countries are somehow just way more self aware or way better at driving. So even if it is part of the equation its effect is **not significant**.
* Also, u/hacksoncode reminded me that the "normal distribution" thing is more an analogy bc there is no way to *really* reduce this down to a single metric. If we wanted to make a better model, maybe I'd try something like a multiple regression model. Then we could look a metric like "innate driving ability" as just one factor among many that influence road safety. `accident_rate = β_0 + β_1*driving_ability + β_2*road_condition + β_3*traffic_density + β_4*road_design + etc.`This significantly complicates my view, but doesn't contradict it *assuming* the coefficient on driving ability is positive. But u/hacksoncode pointed out that even if the coefficient is positive, it doesn't necessarily make it significant! Also, it's probably better to look at how *outcomes* are distributed rather than skill. Outcomes are probably not normally distributed. I'm not a traffic modeler! Forgive me :)
EDIT 7: u/awfulcrowded117 Said that "most accidents are caused by temporary, almost inevitable lapses in concentration", not a lack of ability. This is kind of what I meant when I mentioned mood (maybe that's cheating), but the analogy of IQ obviously isn't clear. Really, it's more "how well you drive at any given moment" if that could be smashed down into a single number, and allow regression to the mean. I maybe naïvely think it is probably still normally distributed via the CLT, but I am just doing this for fun lol
| 1,728,092,985
|
Current_Working_6407
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-05
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: any industry that involves the care of human beings should not be for profit
|
{'id': 'lqlrvbd', 'text': "I'm sorry to hear. I hope you (or your loved ones) can get the care you need soon, get better and have a full recovery.\n\nWith regards to this post and your view to change: the problem is not so much that there should be no private healthcare industry, the problem is that the government should set up a parallel, free, accessible one for all. It is not inconceivable for two systems to exist in parallel, and as long as they both function properly within the areas that they are designed to operate there are no issues with ALSO having a private HCS.", 'author': 'Proud-Site9578', 'score': 4, 'timestamp': 1728216492}
|
{'id': 'lqln7qu', 'text': ">And if you extend healthy lifestyles, you must add nutritional and food industry.\n\nWith the progress of automation, why do the necessities of life need to be for-profit? \n\nI don't mean to be flippant, but I appreciate your post because it brings up a question I've had before. Shouldn't we be building a world in which few, if anyone, has to toil? And those that remain to do so are either the best in the world at it or doing so for fun?", 'author': 'crazytumblweed999', 'score': -6, 'timestamp': 1728213948}
|
1fxe6gx
|
CMV: any industry that involves the care of human beings should not be for profit
|
The goal of a for-profit company or industry is just that: to turn a profit. Whether it’s a publicly traded company or a private business, if your goal is to make money, then providing quality care is always secondary.
The applies to healthcare, childcare, long-term care, and basically any other industry that involves caring for fellow humans.
If you look at these industries, the cost are rising well the pay for those actually giving the care remains low. For example, in 2024, the cost of a semi private room in a nursing home is $95,000 a year.
It’s only going to get worse until we actually agree as a society that the care of human beings should not ever be a for-profit business.
| 1,728,213,324
|
0nlyhalfjewish
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-06
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: The Way Race is Categorized in the United States Makes Almost Zero Sense
|
{'id': 'lq0sxy9', 'text': "It sounds good to me, but that seems to push things one step farther, being that we should just treat everyone on an induvial basis.\n\nAmong more liberal crowd, people would agree with you that race does not exist and is just a social construct. But counterintuitively we have to understand and work within that social construct to one day get rid of it. Unfortunately black people from all different backgrounds will face similar discrimination even if it doesn't make any sense, so it is helpful to recognize that fact and work around it rather than just insisting it should go away", 'author': 'Rude-Conference7440', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1727896340}
|
{'id': 'lq0r7rr', 'text': "> The evidence is that Bangladeshis are from “Asia” as are Chinese.\n\n\nLmao do you think universities are looking for the word Asian and throwing it out or are they looking at entire applications that include country of origin?\n\n\n> And you are currently arguing that it should be ok to discriminate against Chinese in university admissions. So…there you have it.\n\n\nYou clearly didn't read anything I wrote but go off.\xa0\n\n\n> Is that fair to Bangladeshis or not?\n\n\nIve got no idea why we are talking about Bangladeshis at all. If Harvard's class was 100% Bangladeshis that would be probably unfair, but no idea if Bangladeshis agree...because who cares.\xa0", 'author': 'Kazthespooky', 'score': -1, 'timestamp': 1727895784}
|
1fun2bh
|
CMV: The Way Race is Categorized in the United States Makes Almost Zero Sense
|
The way race is categorized in the United States makes little sense to me. The exceptions to this statement are the terms "African-American" and "American Indian", though I personally prefer the term indigenous person or First Nation.
The reason for this is that both the native population of the continent and the descendants of enslaved Africans who were transported across the Atlantic from the 16-19th centuries have suffered appalling injustice and deserve some kind of recompensation for that. Whether that be monetary or in the form of some kind of benefit is open for debate. The point is that both of these populations have a common heritage of systemic and institutional oppression and it seems logical to me to categorize them under that standard.
But I reject outright the terms "white", "black", "Hispanic" or "Latino" and, most of all, "Asian".
All of these so-called categories are essentially meaningless and I think it would make more sense to do away with them completely and to focus more on a household income and educational attainment when looking at demography.
Let us start with so-called "white people" who are said to have privilege.
What exactly is a white person?
If it is the descendent of someone who abused and enslaved the native population of the continent and who benefitted from the labor of enslaved Africans then surely said privilege exists. But if it is simply a person who has fair skin, then the assertion is completely without merit.
To take just one example, we now have hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian refugees in the United States, all of whom appear to be "white" but they have no systemic benefits. They and their ancestors played no part in the institutional discrimination of the past, they come from one of the poorest countries in Europe with a legacy of genocide and deprivation inflicted on them by outsiders and one could even make the case, that they are in fact victims of geopolitical adventurism by the U.S. government.
That is, of course, debatable but what is not is that they have nothing in common with the descendents of English and German settlers who came hundreds of years ago other than skin tone.
There is no such thing as “white people”.
The same goes for the term "black". The descendents of enslaved Africans share nothing with recent immigrants from Ethiopia or Nigeria or Kenya, many of whom are representatives of the most elite classes of their native countries and are travelling to the United States to enter universities and high level jobs. The only thing that they share with African Americans is dark skin. Their language, culture, and historical experience are completely different.
What about Latinos? Here we can at least claim that there is a claim of common Spanish heritage, right? Well, no actually. Not if you factor in Brazil which is the giant of the region but, even then, what does a person from Dominican Republic, where most people are descended from enslaved Africans have in common with a person from Argentina where most people are descended from 19th century European immigrants or someone from Mexico where most people are of mixed European and Spanish heritage. Does this category make sense?
The answer is no.
Finally, most absurd and frankly, Eurocentric is the category, "Asian"
What is Asia? Is it even a thing?
No. It's just the part of the European landmass that is not populated primarily by people with fair skin. But is there any common linguistic, cultural or historical heritage between a person born in China and a person born in India? Is a Russian person from Vladivostok Asian, what about a Turkish person from Ankara? Neither of them fits the description of what Americans traditionally think of when they hear the term "Asian" and both could easily be categorized as "white" but huge swaths of both Russia and Turkey are considered to be part of the “Asian” continent by most American and European atlases. So, I guess they are? Right? Probably not in the understanding of most people.
So just what the hell is Asian and what do Asians have in common with one another? Nothing.
You might think that I'm being pedantic or nitpicking but there are real world consequences for how these terms are applied. Until very recently, it was considered legal to discriminate against Asians in university admissions, for example, based on the fact that they are disproportionately represented in higher education? But who are "they"?
Can anybody really claim that such a thing as a "white person" or a "black person" or an "Asian" or a "Latino" really exist? Am I missing some logic or benefit from categorizing people in this way?
| 1,727,892,984
|
BluePillUprising
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-02
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Vilifying and holding social media companies responsible for the negative effects they have on their users isn’t fair
|
{'id': 'lqlpgos', 'text': ">10 year olds shouldn’t be on the app. They’re breaking the law to be on it. If you break the law, how can you expect to then turn around and wield it against companies?\n\nIt's facebook's legal responsibility to ensure that 10 years old's aren't on the app. Instead, based on internal communication, they seem to have been both aware of the fact that people below the cutoff were using it, and looking on ways to increase that.\n\nIf an alcohol store sells alcohol to 10 year olds, the store gets in more trouble than the kid.\n\n>The complaint is a key part of a lawsuit filed against Meta by the attorneys general of 33 states in late October and was originally redacted. It alleges the social media company knew – but never disclosed – it had received millions of complaints about underage users on Instagram but only disabled a fraction of those accounts. The large number of underage users was an “open secret” at the company, the suit alleges, citing internal company documents.\n\nhttps://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/nov/27/meta-instagram-facebook-kids-addicted-lawsuit", 'author': '10ebbor10', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1728215224}
|
{'id': 'lqlpcv8', 'text': 'On the quantum scale there is sheer randomness, which is the opposite of free will—but that\'s beside the point, because there is no such thing as humans on the quantum scale. On the macroscale—the only one where "morality" is a thing—genes and the environment are the only things that determine everything that you do.\n\n>Not recognizing and embracing your ability to choose, through singularly human reason, is what JPS called living in bad-faith.\n\nWould you blame someone for having an epileptic seizure and falling on you? You wouldn\'t be happy, but you would hopefully understand that they did not have a choice.\n\n>if you could, there’d be no point prosecuting people for crimes\n\nIf someone\'s genes and the environment made them a murderer, the person must be treated if possible or isolated even though they had no choice in the matter. For example, trauma to the PFC can—and often does—result in uncontrolled bursts of anger and violence. The person didn\'t choose to have brain damage and deserves basic respect and assistance, but I still wouldn\'t let them babysit my kids.', 'author': 'Cat_Or_Bat', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1728215165}
|
1fxdpjn
|
CMV: Vilifying and holding social media companies responsible for the negative effects they have on their users isn’t fair
|
Just an FYI, I’m 18. My generation has obviously been extremely affected by social media, so I understand firsthand how pervasive and insidious it is. Believe me, I do. I have friends who just systematically, irresistibly whip out their phones every time they’ve got a second of free time, and I sincerely feel bad.
That said: I just feel like it totally subsumes the notion of personal accountability. You make a choice, every time you open the app, to doom scroll. No one is forcing you to do that.
To be clear: I understand that it’s an addiction of sorts, and the social pressure to remain active on the app is very strong. I’m NOT saying we should levy the blame on the victims; just as we don’t (at least, I don’t… and I hope most people don’t) demonize and shame and decry other victims of addiction — drug addicts, alcoholics, etc. — we shouldn’t be doing that to these people, especially given that many of them are super young. (Although there is an argument to be made that these addictions are physical, whereas social media isn’t, which means that discipline is more in play.) They need help. But that doesn’t necessarily imply that the fault lies with the social media companies. We’re not suing Absolut Vodka when someone gets so inebriated that they have a stroke.
Some may invoke the Oxycontin scandal (good documentary on Netflix about that, by the way) to prove how companies sometimes can and should be held responsible; but that was because Purdue Pharma was deliberately and continually marketing their drug as completely safe and harmless even while knowing that it was anything but that. I don’t think Instagram has ever told anyone that their app is without downsides.
CMV. Ironically enough, I hate social media, for the most part, so please don’t construe me as some sort of apologist for it. But that doesn’t mean I think we should be blaming it. The two are not mutually incompatible.
| 1,728,211,373
|
Clear-Sport-726
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-06
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Most people who post offensive ragebait on the Internet want attention and ignoring it will make it disappear
|
{'id': 'lqn8ryf', 'text': 'Not calling hateful public speech out as harmful normalizes it. Ignoring it won\'t make it go away, it\'ll make it stick around. Even if the original posters were "just trolling" there are definitely racist, sexist, and generally awful people out there that will see this speech becoming normalized and join in. We\'re basically seeing this already, some right wing commentators are already saying stuff like the Nazis weren\'t wrong and the wrong people won WW2.\n\n\nThe key imo is not to take the rage bait. They aren\'t trying to engage in discourse, don\'t try to either. Just down vote, report, dislike, leave a short "wow way to be hateful" comment, or whatever and move on. Ignoring it allows other hateful people to amplify their hate.', 'author': 'urthen', 'score': 5, 'timestamp': 1728235544}
|
{'id': 'lqn8os3', 'text': 'Number 1 is obviously true, like we just know it as a fact. Gay marriage didn\'t take so long to get legalized just because of people faking homophobia. The civil rights movement wasn\'t just fighting against trolls "faking it for attention".\n\nThe other problem is that you can\'t "just ignore it" because you\'re just one person. It takes just one person to post ragebait, but it takes a million people in coordination to all decide to ignore it. That\'s not a viable strategy. That\'s like saying "look, you can balance a pencil on its tip if not a single air molecule touches it". I mean yes, *technically*? But it\'s not possible to pull off.', 'author': 'patient-palanquin', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1728235517}
|
1fxldk1
|
CMV: Most people who post offensive ragebait on the Internet want attention and ignoring it will make it disappear
|
Now before I start I would like to define offensive as something that causes anger due to it being homophobic, racist, sexist, ableist, making fun of a tragedy (for example, 9/11) etc.
Overall, every time I see something that’s bigoted I scroll past it. Why? Because people want likes and clicks and engagement. All these people want to do is deliberately anger people and the best solution is to ignore them. If they realize that nobody is paying attention to them, they will stop.
The reason there is so much ragebait is because it’s rewarding these types of people and ignoring it will fix the problem. Most people posting offensive shit don’t actually believe in it, they just post it for views and clicks.
In order to change my view, you have to prove to me either one of these 3 factors.
1. People posting offensive stuff genuinely believe the stuff they say
2. Ignoring it won’t solve the problem
3. Responding to offensive shit will actually bring more benefits than negatives
Why do I want my view change? So I can be offered a new perspective as I realized this view is somewhat flawed due to people’s feelings getting hurt too much from offensive stuff and that bottling it up doesn’t solve anything.
| 1,728,234,493
|
stealthyalfredo
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-06
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Society is moving towards everyone only using English and that is a good change
|
{'id': 'lqdl8th', 'text': '> if they learned say English, they would probably have to learn how to count\n\nMy point is that they are literally incapable of doing that. Growing up speaking a language without counting has resulted in a brain physiology that cannot comprehend numbers. Again, it’s an extreme example, but it’s meant to illustrate that the influence of culture on language isn’t as one-sided as the way you’re presenting it. Language *does* exert influence, and there are portions of culture which cannot exist in the context of a different language.', 'author': 'Khal-Frodo', 'score': 45, 'timestamp': 1728083138}
|
{'id': 'lqdgwz3', 'text': ">What cultures specifically can only be preserved via continuing use of a given language? Why?\n\nancient egypt would be an example (but the aztecs too.)\n\nancient egypt was a forgotten culture that people in more modern times (circa 100bc) didn't know anything about. they could see heiroglyphs all over but they had fallen into disuse so nobody knew what they meant.\n\nwhen they were deciphered using the rosetta stone the entire ancient history of those people was opened up. you could connect the dots and understand what they believed and what their history was.", 'author': 'TheRoadsMustRoll', 'score': 7, 'timestamp': 1728081454}
|
1fwan6l
|
CMV: Society is moving towards everyone only using English and that is a good change
|
I am not saying there are not advantages of having many languages and everyone having their own language. But the advantages of having a global language strongly outweigh the disadvantages.
My main points:
- Language barriers are a major reason for disconnect in understanding people from different cultures and having a global language will help with communication across countries
- English dominates the global scientific community, with approximately 98% of scientific papers published in English. English is the most used language on the internet, accounting for around 60% of all content. English is the official language of aviation as mandated by the International Civil Aviation Organization. And many more industries use English as the primary language.
- A significant amount of resources are spent on understanding someone who speaks another language like translators, translating technology. Costing for translation technology was approximately 67billion USD per year in 2022(https://www.languagewire.com/en/blog/top-translation-companies)
- Studies and data show that immigrants from countries like the U.S. and Canada are more likely to move to countries where the primary language is English, like UK, Australia. This is because integrating into a society where the same language is spoken is much easier. The same is true for travel as well.
- I do think preserving culture is important but I disagree regarding the importance of language in culture. Culture is more about a shared group of beliefs, behavioral patterns. Language is a means to communicate and the majority of beliefs of a culture can remain the same even with something universally understood language like English. I am not saying it is not part of it, it is just a minor part and the cultural ideas can remain mostly the same even with a different language
- Many individuals stick to people of their own culture because they feel more comfortable speaking the language they learned from when they were young, it is what they are used to. I don’t think older people should but all the younger generation should learn it and then they will eventually move to learning just it.
Personal Story
I am an individual from India where there are like 100+ languages. There is a language which is spoken by most Indians which is Hindi but every state has multiple different languages many of which are very different. Think about it like every US state has their own language. There are issues with the government proceedings, general communication between states because of the number of different languages. Most North Indian states speak Hindi and another local language and there is a relative connect with these states but South India, Hindi is not spoken but there are more English speakers. This creates a general divide between North and South India. This is just an example but there are many other situations where things like this are seen for example people from China are often friends with other Chinese people because they want to speak the language they are most used to. I personally would like for English to be the spoken language because it would make me understand them and people from other cultures much better and vice versa. The existence of a global language will help people from one culture understand people from another. There is a lot more understanding in the current world than in the past but realistically the level of understanding which will be achieved by the existence of a global language is much more than without and that level of understanding will help society move forward
Commonly asked questions I expect
Why English? Why not Chinese or something else?
English is the official language in 59 countries and it has almost 2 billion speakers in some capacity. (https://www.dotefl.com/english-language-statistics/). According to some sources the numbers vary and say English has more speakers than Chinese, etc and I don’t want to argue about that. I also do not have any particular personal interest in English. It is just the language I think which is best suited to being a global language because there is a lot of infrastructure(like English based educational systems, global businesses which operate primarily in English), countries which would support it
There are translation apps and translation technology. Why not just try to perfect it?
That is a possible route but translation technology is hard to develop to the level of convenience which would exist with having English as the language. Even Google translate usually makes a number of mistakes with understanding emotions in a language and if someone learns it from when they were young then they will know how to express their thoughts
A translation tool would have to detect audio, understand a persons language, translate it, and say it out loud to the other user. This will not be perfected and even comparable to the level of communication which will be possible with 2 people knowing the same language.
You just want the globalization and americanization of every country and your ideals to be imposed on other and that will never happen
I agree that every culture has their religious practices, their behavior, their beliefs and they should be respected. I don’t want them to become stereotypical Americans but I think they should speak English because it will make communication between people of different cultures much much more.
What I want to know to Change my view:
What are the advantages of a world with multiple languages Vs world with a global language?
Compare these advantages of having English as a global language which I have stated.
| 1,728,078,116
|
Mysterious-Law-60
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-04
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Removing a characters ethnicity/national heritage for fear of "backlash" is significantly worse than just keeping them in.
|
{'id': 'lqlknsq', 'text': 'From what I’ve read all they did is change her from being a mossad agent. She still Israeli, i think you’re missing a big point in your argument. Marvel is owned by Disney which is a super conglomerate that does not want controversies that could lead to Legal or financial impact, pretty much anything Disney does is for financial reasons. This is the same reasons that covers are usually different in the Chinese release. \n\nIn what way is having a superhero (that’s frankly liable to become a villain or be portrayed negatively) that’s a mossad agent good for business when mossad is in the real world now assassinating people and engaging in controversial activities. \n\n“The Wrap followed up by claiming that Sabra (this name will likely be dropped) will speak “with an Israeli accent, and is an Israeli former Black Widow who now serves as a high-ranking U.S. government official in President Ross’ (Harrison Ford) administration.”', 'author': 'Expert-Diver7144', 'score': 9, 'timestamp': 1728212408}
|
{'id': 'lqlhknx', 'text': 'It\'s bad to have things censored like this, but ultimately it has proven better to have them under censorship if any amount can be gotten through, rather than the work just not getting any attention via making a stand on an issue.\n\nThe more eyes on the work, the more that at least the news and stories of censorship can reach, and the more concrete it can be. Rather than vaguely "This work is another one of many cancelled for this reason". It\'s more of "This is what \'compromise\' is, or for the future, was."\n\nRemoving character details, or changing how you want to write something, is really just saying "I feel it\'s better to make the work with censorship or compromise, than to not make it" or "I feel it\'s wiser in this situation to not upset people even if they are wrong."', 'author': 'Gatonom', 'score': -15, 'timestamp': 1728210386}
|
1fxczgm
|
CMV: Removing a characters ethnicity/national heritage for fear of "backlash" is significantly worse than just keeping them in.
|
To be clear exactly what I mean I refer to the recent news that the character of Sabra has had any references to her Israeli and Jewish heritage removed from the new Captain America movie to prevent backlash. So specifically the idea of taking an existing established character, adapting them, and in the process removing any and all references to their actual past and heritage.
This would apply in my eyes to literally every character. If they had done this to a Russian character it would equally be bad, if they had done it with a Middle Eastern, Asian, or African character it would also he bad. Like in all cases.
Having a singular character of a certain background is not some raging political manifesto. It's just acknowledging people exist. To remove such a characters background is essentially saying;
1. Everyone of that background is the exact same and support the exact same idea as the controversy they're worried about. It's impossible for people of this background to he nuanced or be against a majority opinion.
2. It's better to just pretend and erease said group from existence in media than so much as acknowledge the fact they exist when you want to use stuff related to their background/said group.
Both the above messages are absolutely horrendous and should not be tolerated, no matter what group it is. As such taking an existing character and stripping them of their ethnicity and background for the sole purpose of avoiding a "controversy" is always wrong.
| 1,728,208,178
|
The_Naked_Buddhist
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-06
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Unless asked, trying to change the views of other people is inherently disrespectful.
|
{'id': 'lqcp7om', 'text': '> But I\'m not sure you\'ve described a situation where anyone is trying to persuade. You\'ve just described, as you say, a discussion among friends. Maybe even a disagreement!\n\nIn a disagreement, you try to persuade someone. I said "f I felt the position of not having kids didn\'t align with their stated life goals, or they had some misunderstanding if facts I can challenge those." Challenging someone\'s opinion is trying to change their mind. \n\n> But I think setting out with the aim to persuade -- to change their mind -- does involve some degree of disrespect.\n\nWell, to want to change someone\'s mind, you\'d need to establish their position and think it\'s incorrect. So I am not sure what you mean by "set out to persuade". \n\nIf you mean disregarding their position entirely and steamrolling them into agreeing with you, then yes, that is rude. But its rude for the disregarding and steamrolling. Not attempting changing their mind. \n\n> I agree it doesn\'t feel disrespectful, but that\'s only because it seems so low stakes.\n\nUpdate the hypothetical to something sufficiently high stakes, it still feels the same. Where you go to college, buying a house, etc. \n\nIf my cousin from North Carolina said "I want to go to UT Austin because its the closest school to home with a top 10 philosophy program and a Power-5 D-1 athletics program." I would say hey, I hear that\'s what your looking for, but Rutgers is top 10, has Power-5 athletics, and is closer. \n\nTrying to change their mind and not disrespect them.\n\nYou can do the same thing with buying a house. Say they did a ton of research and had some criteria for where they wanted to buy, or what kind of home, or some opinion about prices or rates. If I knew they were wrong, You can show them the error and tell them they should change their mind. \n\nThese are life-changing decisions. They are not low-stakes. They are textbook examples of trying to change someone\'s mind and aren\'t disrespectful.', 'author': 'Priddee', 'score': 4, 'timestamp': 1728071740}
|
{'id': 'lqckirr', 'text': '>One of the foundations of showing other people respect is respecting their autonomy. People have the right to make decisions about their life without outside influence. When you try to persuade someone, you\'re undermining this right--or at least trying to.\n\nThis is completely untrue and has never been true. When you are a child, if you are not influenced by your parents you will be completely unable to socialize with other people. As you get older, if you are not influenced by your education you will be ignorant and unable to apply critical thinking to the problems you face in life. As an adult, your actions can and should be influenced by the people you care about and choose to spend time with.\n\nI fundamentally disagree with the core assertion of your argument that people have the right to live in some sort of bubble where none of their views are challenged. So much of society is based on collectively reaching consensus, and that\'s impossible to do when everyone has the right to be free from outside influence. All of our views are constantly shaped by outside influences, what matters is if those outside influences are positive or negative.\n\n>It\'s also **rude**. There\'s an unspoken assertion behind any kind of persuasion, which is "I know better than you do." This is at least slightly insulting if unsolicited.\n\nThis is also not true. Two people can know the same about a topic and still disagree. Arguing for one viewpoint over another is about the value of the viewpoints, not the value of the people having the discussion. There is nothing inherently rude about someone making a good faith effort to use their knowledge to have a positive influence on other people. The unspoken assertion you claim always exists is something you made up, it\'s not any more true than saying any time anyone offers to pay for someone\'s meal there is an unspoken assertion that they have more money than the other person.', 'author': 'burnmp3s', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1728070202}
|
1fw4wnp
|
CMV: Unless asked, trying to change the views of other people is inherently disrespectful.
|
Online and in person, people seem to love to tell other people what beliefs they "should" hold and what they "should" do.
I think this is bad!
It's **disrespectful**. One of the foundations of showing other people respect is respecting their autonomy. People have the right to make decisions about their life without outside influence. When you try to persuade someone, you're undermining this right--or at least trying to.
It's also **rude**. There's an unspoken assertion behind any kind of persuasion, which is "I know better than you do." This is at least slightly insulting if unsolicited.
And it's often **wrong**. In my experience, it's pretty hard to know what we ought to be doing with our lives and what we ought to believe. We all have different experiences, values, and goals. Our decisions are built on the foundation of all kinds of idiosyncratic things about our lives and minds that other people often don't have access to. What is right for me may not be right, or even relevant, for someone else.
I don't think this means we can't talk about topics where we don't agree, or that we can't share opinions that differ from others. I only think it's better to try not to persuade. The respectful alternative to persuasion is good old-fashioned conversation. Tell people about your beliefs and experiences. Ask them about theirs.
Some details:
* Sometimes we might decide we are willing to disrespect someone! Say my friend is trying to heal their child's cancer with crystals instead of medicine. I think I would try very hard to persuade them to call a doctor instead. It would still be inherently disrespectful -- I don't get a pass on that -- but in this case the kid's health would take precedence over respecting my friend.
* If someone asks you for your opinion or advice (in this subreddit for example!), you're no longer undermining their authority, so we're good to go. You still *could* be insulting and disrespectful, but it's not *inherently* those things anymore.
* The degree to which unsolicited persuasion is disrespectful and insulting depends on how closely-held the belief is. Trying to persuade someone to try a sandwich you think they'll like is very minimally disrespectful. Trying to persuade someone to stop or start eating meat is highly disrespectful.
EDIT: Some of the early commenters sure seem to feel disrespected by my view about how they live their lives! 🙄
| 1,728,063,240
|
ThatSpencerGuy
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-04
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Presidential Debates should have LIVE Fact Checking
|
{'id': 'lqz5bn8', 'text': "It kinda is. There is a major difference between some random website doing the fact checking online and fact checking by the provider of the debate. The latter really must be correct and fair under all circumstances and you can't ensure that while doing it live.", 'author': 'Downtown-Act-590', 'score': 16, 'timestamp': 1728411286}
|
{'id': 'lqz3sg9', 'text': 'Hard disagree. Most people don’t care about fact-checking, especially in real time. \n\nRun the debate, then as a “post-game,” fact check all you want. The nerds will stick around and watch, the normies will go back to their lives.', 'author': 'that_nerdyguy', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1728410772}
|
1fz6425
|
CMV: Presidential Debates should have LIVE Fact Checking
|
I think that truth has played a significant role in the current political climate, especially with the amount of 'fake news' and lies entering the media sphere. Last month, I watched President Trump and Vice President Harris debate and was shocked at the comments made by the former president.
For example, I knew that there were no states allowing for termination of pregnancies after 9 months, and that there were no Haitian Immigrants eating dogs in Springfield Ohio, but the fact that it was it was presented and has since claimed so much attention is scary. The moderators thankfully stepped in and fact checked these claims, but they were out there doing damage.
In the most recent VP Debate between Walz and Vance, no fact checking was a requirement made by the republican party, and Vance even jumped on the moderators for fact checking his claims, which begs the question, would having LIVE fact checking of our presidential debates be such a bad thing? Wouldn't it be better to make sure that wild claims made on the campaign trail not hold the value as facts in these debates?
I am looking for the pros/cons of requiring the moderators to maintain a sense of honesty among our political candidates(As far as that is possible lol), and fact check their claims to provide viewers with an informative understanding of their choices.
I will update the question to try and answer any clarification required.
| 1,728,410,161
|
DK-the-Microwave
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-08
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Having differing political views only becomes divisive and friendship ending if you act like dick about it
|
{'id': 'lr1nrs3', 'text': "> That's a question I think everyone should ask themselves and everyone may come up with different answers.\n\nSo it's a legitimate answer if someone thinks a vote can count as promoting violence?\n\nThen there you have it: friendship-ender.\n\n> You'd never go and have a discussion with somebody whom you believe is going to force their ideology upon you.\n\nAnything that's going to end a friendship is going to be a surprise, otherwise you wouldn't be friends with them.", 'author': 'quantum_dan', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1728447399}
|
{'id': 'lr1mvpb', 'text': 'The comments in here is why reddit is the toxic hellhole it is. To think it’s a duty to be a dick and nasty towards friends and family because of a differing opinion shows how morally bankrupt this platform is.', 'author': 'KRISBONN', 'score': -3, 'timestamp': 1728446915}
|
1fzidv7
|
CMV: Having differing political views only becomes divisive and friendship ending if you act like dick about it
|
So, the news is full of all kinds of talk about how the democrats are evil or the republicans are evil and we all know the rhethoric of abortion, homophobia, transphobia, assassinations, mentally unstable, fascists, like you get it.
Well today, I met a bunch of strangers and decided to play a few games with em and we decided to play a 4v4, Republicans vs Democrats. I don't like either party but have a slight preference for the Republicans, but they decided to put me on team Democrat so I had to pretend I was a Democrat now.
It was fun, the banter and the shit we were giving each other. I am not a Democrat and I definitely don't like them at all but it was really fun roasting and making fun of the Republican team and them throwing shade back. We even made bets, if my team won they had to get sex changes and if they won we had to buy Maga hats.
This whole time, nobody was really taking each other seriously and we were just being goofy gamers and having a good time. I had to ask myself how is it that Democrats and Republicans can actually just vibe, chill and game with each other when the media and news will have us believe the other side is evil?
Well it's simple, we all knew that the other side was human, we didn't take anything too seriously, the shit we were talking was all fun and games and nobody was behaving like a dick. Okay maybe one person on Team Republican got a little too serious but he is special, I don’t think he can read tone super well.
I have to contrast this with speaking to other people with differing political views. This one guy is hardcore left leaning and he tries absolutely everything in his power to try and convince me the Republicans are bad and the Democrats are good but all he really does is make me hate the left even more because I look at him and think all left leaning people are as dumb, malicious and zealous as him. Talking to him isn't even fun, he is always trying to convert me and attack the right I am like, dude actually fuck off, you are so annoying. That guy is being an asshole because he turns every conversation into a crusade for the leftist agenda.
I have an aunt who is the republican who believes Fox News like that shit cannot tell any lies... even in my anti liberal days, I knew how cap Fox is, bht anyways. She is actually really nice unless we are talking about politics, then she is really annoying to talk to because she gets really offensive and aggressive, trying to make me defend the left and I am like can you also fuck off. She's not as annoying as the leftist guy but Holy fucking shit, talking to these crusader type people actually is the most annoying shit in the world, it made me want to vote for Biden (at the time he was the candidate).
So yeah, the difference between this group of people that I hung out with and played games with and my aunt and the other guy I refuse to call a friend is those gamers never pushed for anything and even when they did get political, it was all laughs and whatever. We talked about other stuff and we never made anything personal. With the 2 crusaders, they both tried to force me to defend the side they didn't like, talk about how evil they were and for the left leaning guy, politics was all this motherfucker wanted to talk about. They didn't really listen to you or acknowledge what you say because it's wrong or some kind of propaganda in their minds.
I genuinely believe if you don't act like an asshole and stop trying to force your beliefs on people, you can have wildly different political views and still be chill.
I am coming at this from a rather narrow view so maybe I am not counting for extremist views, but idk.
| 1,728,444,570
|
Fearless_Show9209
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-09
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Using AI to formulate arguments is unethical and inevitable.
|
{'id': 'lqw3an5', 'text': '>So then by your admission an AI cannot create a good argument. Otherwise it could convince you. \n\nTo this one specific question that humans haven\'t been able to answer. AI can create good arguments for other topics. And if you think that AI cannot create good arguments, this discussion has no point because nobody will be convinced by them. There can\'t be anything unethical or wrong.\n\n\n>The good reason is that humans are a thing, distinct from other beings. I am one of these beings and i think. If you are one of those beings then this is my reason to think you think.\n\nYou think because "trust me bro". So it\'s just a gut feeling. Then you say that I\'m the same as you. What quality of "humanness" I share with you? We have different brains and exist as separate distinct beings. You can\'t know what I\'m thinking right now, or can you? How can you then say I\'m thinking at all?', 'author': 'Z7-852', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1728360457}
|
{'id': 'lqk2orx', 'text': '>You think therefore you are\n\nAI think therefore AI are. If AI can think on such a level, how are they any different from Humans? And I think using a friend to help formulate argument is not such a bad thing.', 'author': 'DarroonDoven', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1728181373}
|
1fx63f3
|
CMV: Using AI to formulate arguments is unethical and inevitable.
|
As AI begins to understand more nuanced thoughts, like trailing follow-up questions (H: What time is it? AI: 7:02pm H: In Bejing? 10:02am) As AI begins to predict our next thoughts, (suggesting products and locations) As AI begins to understand associations between seemingly ambiguous terms, (Right = Conservative = ProLife, Left = Liberal = ProChoice) and as AI begins to understand thought models, (metaphysics, epistemology, logic, ethics, aesthetics) ...crafting an argument will become a dubious affair, which an AI can dismantle with ease.
This will undoubtedly result in AI^(1) vs. AI^(2) battles. Making darn near inevitable that AI will be the weapon of choice in rhetorical differences.
However, this is blind acceptance to what will come. As arguments express ideas and AI cannot have ideas. They can only repeat what they can understand. And AI only understands what it is programmed to understand. And for those impacted by ethics, human beings, this becomes the unthinking, unethical avenue to employ such tools. Even if you are the type of person that doesn't believe in ethics, to use AI to do your thinking is a violation of your very nature. You think therefore you are.
| 1,728,180,144
|
brothapipp
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-06
|
2024_fall
|
cmv: Mansplaining is a sexist, derogatory word and should be treated as such
|
{'id': 'lqk4jq5', 'text': 'No problem, I wasn’t upset, it’s just that you left out the word that mattered, ie it doesn’t define every man. But it’s something we do do. We can’t pretend we don’t. \n\nI think we’ll someday be able to talk about gendered differences again without controversy. Maybe 50 years from now. But for now, it remains ok to gender male stereotypes perhaps because it’s “punching up” and we’re giving space for women’s voices to enter the chat.\n\n50 years from now I hope we’re all at a level playing field in terms of rights / roles / power, and we can all just take the piss out of each other.', 'author': 'mtomny', 'score': 5, 'timestamp': 1728182147}
|
{'id': 'lqjt33c', 'text': 'I’ll address #2 first. I would guess it’s based on tone. In all circumstances, a condescending tone (which I’ve found men to use against women more often than the reciprocal, simply due to Men and Women’s places in history) can be rude and make an otherwise innocent statement seem rude. \n\n1. I’m assuming it’s the man’s assumption due to the ridiculous amount of sexism in our history. Look at who the oppressed gender was and still is. I’m assuming, because women used to get slapped for talking out, so it makes sense to assume the gender who perpetuated that would find other ways to be condescending or make women feel stupid, thus mansplaining.', 'author': 'ArtisticRiskNew1212', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1728177505}
|
1fx2zi9
|
cmv: Mansplaining is a sexist, derogatory word and should be treated as such
|
To many this might seem totally absurd. But I believe this is a new derogatory word.
The definition of derogatory is “showing a critical or disrespectful attitude” and that is most definitely what the effect of that word.
Mansplaining according to a Google search is “is a colloquial expression used to describe situations in which a man provides a condescending explanation of something to someone who already understands it”
If that was the strict the strict usage case, it wouldn’t be that big of an issue. Yet I, as a man, feel like I cannot explain something without falling into the risk of being accused of mansplaining by someone.
Because mansplaining is now used whenever a man is explaining anything, ever - or at least in my experience. Even if a woman has asked directly for an explanation, surrounding people without that context will still automatically assume mansplaining.
Similarly, I’ve had experiences where I was explaining my own mistake and surrounding people said it’s “mansplaining”. That doesn’t even make sense.
Or, I was trying to ask a complex question and I explained the background of it so that it made sense but people still call it mansplaining.
Perhaps most importantly, the nature of the term is assigning a STEREOTYPICAL characteristic to men and inferring that it can only be applied to men. That’s what makes it derogatory - any word that is applicable to exclusively a particular demographic is derogatory and this is no different.
TLDR the term mansplaining is no longer used to describe a man providing a CONDESCENDING explanation to someone who already understand it. It’s now used to denigrate men that explain in any situation. It’s used as a useful adjective to assign to a man someone doesn’t like, since the situations I mentioned above are far from being exclusively male.
| 1,728,170,109
|
Wasserschweinreich
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-05
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: we should normalize (more) the act of working without seeking some major enlightment or happiness, but just to do what you must do and go home spend your time the way you want
|
{'id': 'lq7m4cj', 'text': 'What I failed to say, is that all things that are fulfilling in life are work. Work doesn\'t bring joy or fulfillment, but all things that are fulfilling are dervied from work. And given that work is causative (not just correlated) to fulfillment, I think "tolerating" it is unhealthy. Even the hobbies you want to do outside of your job are "work". Thinking about the things in society that people want to do outside of their job: sports, video games, socializing, etc. These all require work. All of them. Some are just easier than others. Like TV- easy. Video games - often hard, especially at the top level. Sports - really fucking hard. Right?\n\n>but you can\'t say you love working because of it \nI can say exactly that. I love what brings me fulfillment. And work is the main causative ingredient of that. The opposite of work (laziness) is the main causative ingredient for depression/lacking fulfillment/happiness. Make sense?', 'author': 'scavenger5', 'score': 4, 'timestamp': 1727994486}
|
{'id': 'lq7kos0', 'text': 'There’s a lot of information that I’d like to see to this.\n\nJust based on what I’m reading, it sounds like you feel in your heart of hearts that you’re supposed to be happy to go to work. Where do you get the idea that you’re supposed to be happy to go to work?\n\nI’d wager most people just kind of accept it as a necessary evil, even if they like their jobs. I like my job, I get great satisfaction out of it. But I’d duck out this second if I could just hang out with my kids all day.\n\nIt sounds like you’ve maybe understood that it’s okay to not be happy to work, but you haven’t internalized it yet. A wise man once said “it’s $300 to see a therapist, but it’s free to say ‘it be like that sometimes’”.\n\nAre you able to change career fields? Burn out is a real possibility.', 'author': 'justanotherdude68', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1727993954}
|
1fvg21p
|
CMV: we should normalize (more) the act of working without seeking some major enlightment or happiness, but just to do what you must do and go home spend your time the way you want
|
I'm in the middle of a crisis where I don't think I'm happy doing what I do. I've talked to a few people about it and even my therapist, and the final conclusion was: not everyone is happy working and that's ok. This whole scenario to "work with what you like and you'll never have to work again" is a bs created by corporations. By the end of the day there is nothing wrong with just doing what you are paid to do (of course do it correctly and the best you can) but with the notion that this is not what fulfill you. What truly makes you happy are your hobbies, the people you spend time with, practicing sports and so on. The job is just a way to get money to accomplish those things. That's why it is soooo important to have hobbies and that's why I think people should have more "do it" hobbies like playing some instrument and less "absorb it" hobbies like watching tv shows. But this is another discussion.
I'm much better now, I truly think I'm not like "meant" to be happy working, but I'm 100% certain now I can be happy working if this mean I can get a good work-life balance and I can provide and afford the things I like to do outside my job.
I'm just trying to see if there's another view that I could be missing, maybe someone can change my view but pretty much this is it. I truly think actually that if you turn something you like to do into work, well... you will eventually stop like doing it. Work sucks.
| 1,727,983,818
|
giocow
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-03
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Most psych hospitals don’t work because too many of the people there get off on making the mentally ill suffer
|
{'id': 'lr3dj0b', 'text': 'Your data set is from Yelp? That\'s a very good sample. /s\n\nOnline reviews often reflect extreme opinions, with moderate voices being underrepresented. This creates biased, polarized reviews that can distort consumer decisions\n\n[Online Reviews Are Biased. Here’s How to Fix Them (hbr.org)](https://hbr.org/2018/03/online-reviews-are-biased-heres-how-to-fix-them)\n\n>"That problem generalizes to most online reviews. Research shows many of today’s most popular online review platforms — including Yelp business reviews\\*, and Amazon product reviews — have a distribution of opinion that is highly polarized, with many extreme positive and/or negative reviews, and few moderate opinions. This creates a “bi-modal” or “J-shaped” distribution of online product reviews that has been well-documented in the academic literature. This makes it hard to learn about true quality from online reviews."', 'author': 'HucknRoll', 'score': 4, 'timestamp': 1728483041}
|
{'id': 'lr3d1dc', 'text': "I have been in short term psych care three times, in three different hospitals and experienced none of these things. My step mother worked 30 plus years in mental health and anyone who behaved in the ways you describe was immediately fired.\n\nWhat I can tell you is basing your opinion on psych hospitals is from Yelp reviews from patients is absurd. I have seen patients claim they were being abused because they were restrained for attacking someone else, following others around and threatening others. All were moved to different sections or other hospitals. \n\nTl:Dr you're talking about something you clearly have no first hand experience with", 'author': 'le_fez', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1728482868}
|
1fzrpw0
|
CMV: Most psych hospitals don’t work because too many of the people there get off on making the mentally ill suffer
|
Here is why I say this. I used to be a teacher for students who would hit, bite, smother poop on you, cuss, or try to permanently injure others. Still most teachers of students with severe behavior problems do not take it out on their students. This seems to be the opposite for what happens with inpatient mental health.
These are the complaints of the psych wards available in my community. Mind you, these aren’t cherry picked. These hospitals have ratings less than 2 out of 5.
- the mental health nurse will make you wear bloodied clothes for five days and not give you any pads during your period
- two to four mental patients are placed in each room
- violent patients are housed with nonviolent patients
- a former employee posted pictures of rotten food they were giving to patients on purpose
- the mental health techs steal your belongings and don’t give them back after your stay is over
- the mental health techs will also laugh at you. If you’re particularly unlucky, they’ll use slurs
- most employees are on their phones not helping their patients
- the doctors see you for 15 minutes and don’t listen to anything you say
- if you have diabetes or some other medical concern, they won’t adjust your diet and or meds
- most reviewers indicate feeling worse after they’ve left than how they arrived
- many patients recall being victims of insurance fraud through these hospitals
- one hospital in particular forced patients to sleep on the floor together so that they wouldn’t have to check the rooms
This is baffling to me that any of this is allowed. People might say it’s underfunded and that staff there are hardened from being abused by patients, but that’s wrong. You could say the same thing about education, but stories about abuse like this are not as common. These people get off on the power dynamic this affords them because their patients are mentally ill and will not be believed in court. The staff at these psych wards know that nobody cares enough about the mentally ill to get them in trouble for the atrocities they commit against their patients. These reviews were taken from Florida btw, but I’m not sure that really matters. The problem exists everywhere.
| 1,728,481,384
|
bubbletea-psycho
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-09
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: It's not a crime if you don't get caught
|
{'id': 'lr23nzb', 'text': 'There is a difference between being caught and being ruled to have committed a crime.\n\nBeing caught makes it sound to simple. It makes it sounds like the facts and the law are obvious, and that the determinative issue is how well the police are able to find you.\n\nBeing ruled to have committed a crime is not really being "caught." They have you in custody, you are present at the trial, they know the issues involve you, they might the key facts of the case. It does not quite fellow that a person who is that much under the microscope has not been "caught."', 'author': 'deep_sea2', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1728457905}
|
{'id': 'lr1wnb1', 'text': 'Maybe in the eyes of the government they don’t know. But you know', 'author': 'TimTheTinyTesticle', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1728452985}
|
1fzkbcc
|
CMV: It's not a crime if you don't get caught
|
I was just thinking about this and it makes sense to me but also seems wrong.
Crime is defined as an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government. While this definition seems straight forward I'd say it's somewhat misleading because crime is determined by the court. Even when being arrested you're not arrested for a crime but rather the reasonable suspicious of committing a crime. Until it goes to the court and is determined it's an action.
It's kind of like Schrödinger's cat. Picture a scenario where I shoot someone, I'm arrested and I go to court. In one outcome the judge determines it's murder, a crime, and I'm sent to prison. In a different outcome, the judge determines it's self-defense, not a crime, and I go free. If we then say I was never arrested for it to be determined one way or the other, and that there's the presumption of innocence, it's not a crime.
So the conclusion is, so long as you're not caught for an action which may be potentially illegal, it's can't be a crime
| 1,728,451,850
|
Shak3Zul4
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-09
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Joker 2 was actually a success because it achieved Warner Bros goals
|
{'id': 'lr8q65l', 'text': '> So they could not get top down order from executives to make bad on purpose then? \n\nNo studio executive would ever give that order. Not one. \n\n>It was all on the studio?\n\nNo, it was all on the creative team, Todd and Joaquin basically. They were given full control, and they just shit the bed.', 'author': 'destro23', 'score': 5, 'timestamp': 1728563398}
|
{'id': 'lr8n2jz', 'text': "Twisters made more than double it's budget just in BO. IF made almost double in BO. Furiosa just made back its money, again just in BO. The real money is the perpetual income these films will receive being part of the studios stable going forward. \n\nI am intrigued what your definition of flopped is. Like, critically?", 'author': 'OhSanders', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1728562007}
|
1g0gj5y
|
CMV: Joker 2 was actually a success because it achieved Warner Bros goals
|
So we all know that Joker 2 bombed really had at the theatres, reviews, sales and more. It’s selling really bad that it won’t break even and the audience the first movie garnered has been completely driven away, heck this movie even ruined the first Joker movie for many.
By all means this should be a failure, but it is not. It is in fact a resounding success.
So it turns out when the first Joker movie did really well by breaking R rated movie records and becoming a cult classic, it also gained a lot of fans who really adored the way this version of Joker was portrayed can could really sympathise or emphasise with him. That was dangerous because Joker isn’t someone to sympathise because normally Joker is on the level of a baby eating monster who nukes cities and now a version of Joker that portrays him as a misunderstood and abandoned mentally ill man has become super popular in the movies, and that means people may want to see more of that.
And Warner Bros cannot have that because the core character that Joker is portrayed like is like the one played by Heath Ledger which is far more deranged and dangerous rather than the one portrayed by Joaquin Phoenix. They cannot stray away from Joker’s core personality so they made a movie to absolutely destroy Phoenyx’s Joker and drive the audience away from it, assassinating that character and the franchise as a whole. And they succeeded.
Don’t see this movie as a failure that cost Warner Bros 200 million USD that did not make them profit, but reframe it as Warner Bros SPENDING 200 million USD to wipe the slate clean for Joker so they can move back to Heath Ledger’s Joker. Plus they made a billion plus USD with the first movie so they didn’t really lose that much.
| 1,728,559,447
|
Evoxrus_XV
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-10
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Florida Real Estate Will Collapse Within The Next Few Years
|
{'id': 'lr41vke', 'text': 'Look at home prices in legitimate "destroyed by hurricane semi-regularly" areas like coastal Carolinas. The other option is that the US updates the building codes to require what Japan does to protect from (most) tsunamis and earthquakes.\n\nThe home prices and insurance premiums are based on cost to rebuild along with the protections the homes offer. Coastal areas often have houses on stilts close to the ocean where the first floor is 15+ feet off the ground. Many buildings are built with their lower levels as lobbies made of stone, while expensive to repair, are nowhere near what it would cost to repair a fully carpeted lobby with a lot of storefronts. My mom\'s brothers all worked in drywall in the Carolinas. After a hurricane, they\'d make bank. So they lived there because 350+ days a year, it was fine. They learned how to deal with hurricanes and built homes designed to withstand the storms.\n\nWe know how to protect against events like this. With climate change, the predictability and protections against these "once in a lifetime events" that become "once a year events" will become more important.\n\nFlorida has zero income tax. People are going to live there and deal with the nonsense until it becomes unbearable. What people can bear depends on them, but it\'s a lot more than a few times a year.', 'author': 'MettaWorldWarTwo', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1728491056}
|
{'id': 'lr3v6lt', 'text': ">\xa0We're reaching a tipping point where either homes become completely uninsurable or the insurance becomes so expensive that homes start losing value.\n\n\nIs there a data-based reason to believe this? Do you have some particular expertise that allows for such a proclamation?", 'author': 'Delicious-Cress-1228', 'score': -2, 'timestamp': 1728488905}
|
1fzuimf
|
CMV: Florida Real Estate Will Collapse Within The Next Few Years
|
The insurance crisis in Florida already quite bad, and with Milton, it's [poised to get even worse.](https://www.fox9.com/news/hurricane-milton-florida-homeowners-insurance)
We're reaching a tipping point where either homes become completely uninsurable or the insurance becomes so expensive that homes start losing value.
This will precipitate a death spiral, where homeowners start to realize that buying or owning a home in Florida is not a good investment and they'll leave the state. Supply will increase as demand falls.
I will add one caveat here and it's that the federal government could step in and rescue Florida through a subsidized insurance scheme, but the politics of this are really iffy. Republicans would be most incentivized to save the state, but such intervention is also against Republican orthodoxy.
So, CMV, barring some federal intervention, the Florida housing market is cooked.
| 1,728,488,702
|
tomtomglove
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-09
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Loving yourself is logically impossible
|
{'id': 'lqo7lse', 'text': 'Don’t think about a bad day, don’t think about a good day. Think about a boring day. Just any other day, nothing remarkable, nothing momentous.\n\nOn that day, were you overall a dick to people? Or were you highly positive and joyful with people? Probably not either. Odds are good you gave a slight nod to someone at the gas station, maybe you held a door for someone, you asked the clerk at the grocery store how their day was, you wiped down a countertop in your kitchen, you were just okay. Not negative, not enthusiastically positive, but maybe just a teeny bit on the good side.\n\nAnd if that’s how the vast majority of your days go (since most of them aren’t going to be amazing or horrifying), then you’re probably just okay. And okay is perfectly enough to love.', 'author': 'baltinerdist', 'score': 8, 'timestamp': 1728246471}
|
{'id': 'lqo4yyp', 'text': "Overwhelmingly the majority of things I do are justified. \n\nAnd I know people who have done messed up things and I have forgiven them. \n\nConsidering the fact that most things I do are justified and the things I do that are not justified I can forgive, there's no reason I can't love myself.\n\nWhat you're talking about is a person who does incredible heinous things and hates themselves for it but doesn't stop doing them can't forgive themselves for it and none of it was at all justified. \n\nI classify that person is mentally ill and the majority of people are not mentally ill.", 'author': 'Mono_Clear', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1728245649}
|
1fxpgo1
|
CMV: Loving yourself is logically impossible
|
How is it possible to love yourself? Who is the one person who knows every single mistake, every single L, or every single time that you were the villain? Every single time, you were the undisputed asshole in the room and you know with one hundred percent certainty that everyone else's life would've been better without you in it. On the other hand, the amount of negative information you have on other people will be much more limited so why doesn't everyone conclude that everybody else is a better person than they are?
| 1,728,245,028
|
KgPathos
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-06
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: The "self-defense" argument for abortion; including first and second trimester abortion; is arguably just as responsible for widespread beliefs in "post birth abortion" and "late term elective abortion" as people who believe in these things.
|
{'id': 'lqz925m', 'text': 'I get it, but in the context, nonessential or unnecessary would be the single terms. \n \nThat said, given that every pregnancy carries a potential life risk even in the healthiest of mothers, I don\'t think the terms would really apply. Could see maybe the use of prophylactic since you could do the abortion before a foreseeable life threat has materialized, but I could see opposition to that verbiage since abortion is usually seen as a tertiary intervention rather than a primary one. \n\nCould also try "Abortions for uncomplicated pregnancies", but that is more than a single term.', 'author': 'Atticus104', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1728412552}
|
{'id': 'lqyzt2m', 'text': ">What are you defining as a late-term abortion?\n\nThird Trimester abortion.\n\n>The post-birth abortion nonsense has been made up out of whole-cloth by people who are misleading people who don’t know how abortions work.\n\nNo, it came specifically up when the [former governor of Virginia during a radio show said if a child survives they'll discuss what to do with it after.](https://youtu.be/Vx5QKTY-3MY?si=HBPwznAkvpw3uprT)\n\nThat coupled with political opposition to [Born-alive bills](https://abcnews.go.com/US/born-alive-bill-passed-house-republicans-require-care/story?id=96389440) makes people wonder why we can't get agreement on these issues.", 'author': 'DenyScience', 'score': -2, 'timestamp': 1728409460}
|
1fz49v2
|
CMV: The "self-defense" argument for abortion; including first and second trimester abortion; is arguably just as responsible for widespread beliefs in "post birth abortion" and "late term elective abortion" as people who believe in these things.
|
If *one* student fails calculus, it's considered the fault of the student.
If *half the class* fails calculus, it's considered the fault of the professor.
I consider this analogous to the situation here. We have millions of voters who believe "post birth abortion" is a thing, and many more who think third trimester abortions are typically aborted for non-medical reasons.
For the record, I am deeply skeptical of the former and not sure who to believe about the latter.
The former because it's no longer in her body and I doubt people would've said "it's part of her body until it leaves her body" if they meant it to apply after birth.
The latter... well, a case could be made either way.
But one reason for believing the latter that I think is underappreciated is that the popularity of the "self-defense" framing of even the most elective of first-trimester abortions so shocks the conscience that it can cause people who used to unequivocally support abortion access to occasionally wonder if they were on the wrong side of history. It stands to reason someone who was previously otherwise on the fence can be radicalized into opposing whatever such people support.
Why does it shock the conscience? When you think of self-defense, you think of two factors.
A: Your own life is in danger. Already, this is something voters in the districts otherwise opposed to abortion access believe in exceptions for, it's just that the exceptions are poorly enforced... probably because voters underestimate how dangerous pregnancies are, probably because people invoking "self defense" extend that framing to the first 2 trimesters, where the danger is likely to be significant yet*.* Now, onto part B...
*B: The assailant was a knowing and intentional aggressor whose life because of their actions becomes less morally worthy of being protected than your own.*
By comparison, "B without A" could be either thought of in terms of prisoners being left to die of heat exhaustion or Israel shooting Palestinians for throwing rocks. Both of which the self-identified "left" claim to condemn, but at the end of the day "the majority" have allowed, at least in their capacity as voters. If one wishes to invoke the plurality of voters abortion access has on its side, one cannot ignore the negative baggage having popular opinion on your side entails.
Also by comparison, "A without B." We know how people feel about the hypothetical "baby is putting other people in danger without intending to *or* realizing it; what level of force against them is justified?" scenario because we know how Disney, in order to optimize the number of people who would pay to see it, depicted it:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XENqz3Kycbw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XENqz3Kycbw)
With an abundance of sympathy for the baby, and little to none for the attackers, despite the baby being a greater threat to life safety than most pregnancies, and the attackers using non-lethal methods.
Also by comparison in A without B, people oppose "warning shots" because the risk of hitting an innocent bystander is considered worse than the certainty of hitting the intended target.
Then people turn around and frame even first to second term abortions as "self defense" against an unknowing and unintentional assailant who may or may not ever present a significant threat to your life safety?
The reason I used to be more certain of my support for abortion access than I am now was because I believed first and second term fetuses are insentient, and therefore it wasn't wrong to kill them for any reason or even no reason at all. Now I'm not sure whether they're insentient or neuroscientists are only pretending to believe that out of cowardly appeasement to popular opinion. If the case for them being insentient were so strong, why are people trying to frame this as a "self-defense" issue even in the first two trimesters? No one who has reason on their side resorts to lying. All this is achieving is making people who support abortion access look like monsters who are tying to establish a precedent for "I don't care if it's sentient, if I feel the slightest bit like killing it for any reason or no reason at all it should be considered self defense." Under such circumstances, can you blame people for thinking such a person would kill the baby after it's born, much less abort a third trimester fetus for non-medical reasons?
For the record, I'm not claiming most supporters of abortion access actively invoke the self-defense angle directly. But their failure to push back against it is alarming all the same.
| 1,728,405,607
|
ShortUsername01
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-08
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: The youth both need and deserve more liberty to explore their sexuality.
|
{'id': 'lrp6a0l', 'text': ">What do you mean 'let' them? Since we were talking about sex 15 min ago, prohibition didn't start working.\n\nI was mentioning how we prohibit minors from doing many things that are harmful to them that they would otherwise to in greater quantities. \n\n>Prohibition still didn't start working.\n\n[It actually did](https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w3675/w3675.pdf)... to a slight degree. A far better example of where prohibition is successful is in the nations of Singapore or Malaysia, where alcohol consumption is extremely low. Or Saudi Arabia, where consumption is virtually non-existent. \n\n>Minors are more than free to have full on PIV sex in the overwhelming majority of the planet.\n\nSo I decided to fact check your claims... and the 2 most populous nations all have prohibitive laws on sex between two minors (minors being defined here as those under there own age of consent). In India, the age of consent is 18, and there are \\*zero\\* exceptions for close age groups. \n \nIn China, even though that age of consent is 14, the average age of first sexual intercourse was [22.5 years for men and 23.1 years for women](https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/ipsrh/2012/12/timing-sexual-debut-among-chinese-youth). Less than 5% of males between 15-16 years old reported having sex. It was less than 3% for females of the same age group.\n\n>Other than the two articles I linked, everyone I mentioned is someone I know personally other than the 40yo man whose gf was prosecuted as a teenager who I spoke to personally.\n\nThat is the definition of anecdotal evidence.\n\n>Legislation should reflect actual reality\n\nThat is why we look at averages, not anecdotes.", 'author': 'disillusioned875', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1728814065}
|
{'id': 'lrosq47', 'text': 'I feel like alot of Redditors are mad at teenagers doing teenager things because they never got to experience them. Their classmates made love while they wrote stories about being the nice guy/girl who never got a date.', 'author': 'Easy_Dig_88', 'score': -3, 'timestamp': 1728804625}
|
1g2k7e2
|
CMV: The youth both need and deserve more liberty to explore their sexuality.
|
**Why they need it:** [Here](https://reason.com/2023/10/18/an-18-year-old-had-consensual-sex-with-a-16-year-old-he-went-to-jail-for-6-years/) and [here](https://abcnews.go.com/US/19-year-spend-25-years-registered-sex-offender/story?id=32783206).
The first link describes an 18yo who had sex with a 16yo he met on a dating site (and therefore thought was 18) and ended up going to prison for six years when her parents found out about it. The second link describes a 19yo who had sex with a 14yo he met online who said she was 17 (he's from Michigan where the age of consent is 16). Both the girl and her mother testified on behalf of the young man and he still ended up on the sex offender registry for 25 years.
I myself have run into minors on dating sites way back in 2009 when OK Cupid was still pretty new. The girls I was talking to told me they were minors before we met up and I chose not to. But what do you suppose happens when a girl is honest about being a minor a few times and the people she's honest with don't meet? Do you think it's more likely that she deletes her account or that she just stops telling people she's a minor? A woman I dated recently told me she was having sex with grown men left and right off of dating sites when she was 17 without telling them she was a minor. So it doesn't strike as something that's particularly uncommon.
Where my perspective likely breaks from yours is that I do not look at this data and think we need to clamp down harder on minors accessing Tinder. I look at it and think that they deserve their liberation.
**Why they deserve it:** Simply put, by and large, adolescent people know who they'd like to have sex with and who they don't.
In my own peer group in my adolescence and young adulthood we had two 18/16 relationships, two 18/15s, a 19/16, a 20/17, a 20/16, a 20/15, and a 16/*40*.
20 years on and one of those 18/15s is now married with three kids. The 20/15 is still current. The 16/40 is still current. A girl at my previous high school also ended up marrying our sophomore year English teacher. Their relationship didn't become public until after she graduated so I don't know when or if it started before that, but for those outside the US that means they would have met when she was 15. That exhausts my personal data set. In a recent comment I made [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1fsg21n/cmv_using_the_term_maps_should_be_used_instead_of/lpl05wq/) I go into a bit more detail about a couple of these and relate further examples from people I've spoken to over the last couple of years on Reddit.
From what I can tell from my own data, women and girls tend to like them at least a little bit older. Every single one of those relationships was younger female/older male. Every single one of my own relationships was younger female/older male all the way up until I was 30. The woman I dated most recently had a hardline rule that she would not date younger than herself and she's not the only woman I've met who had one.
So then the question becomes, how much liberty does an adolescent girl need to engage in the type of encounters that she would like to have? We want to be able to prosecute the R. Kellys and the Epsteins of the world; you'll never catch me disagreeing with that. But when we've moved into the territory of prosecuting the chosen romantic partners of the youth, to my mind we've moved well past the territory of protecting young people and into the territory of marginalizing young people.
I've read a lot of age of consent legislation in tying to answer that question and the one I end up advocating for the most is Canada's:
12-13yos may engage those up to two years older
14-15yos may engage those up to five years older
16+ is fully liberated
When reviewing the relationships I was surrounded by in my young adulthood, it's easy to see why I landed on it - every single one of the relationships I was aware of or in myself fits within its parameters. In addition to this, it's also markedly similar to several of our own states, 31 of which also set the overall age of consent at 16, 2 of which have the same close-in-age exemption for 14 and 15yos, and a few of which likewise have close-in-age exemptions that go so low as 12.
Also of note is Germany's law. Germany sets the overall age of consent at 14, however they have an additional protection for minors up to 16 who engage anyone 21+ that either minors themselves or their parents can invoke in cases in which the minor's 'lack of capacity for sexual self determination has been abused'. That seems pretty open to interpretation and keep in mind it's a translation from German but my current understanding is that it's a catch-all for cases in which the minor was taken advantage of. If anyone German can expand or correct my understanding, that's an easy delta for you.
Let's pull in one of the experiences I mentioned in the comment I linked because the age gap is perfect - the 40yo man who was dating his 21yo coworker when he was 14. She went to prison for over a decade when his parents found out and the impression that I got from speaking with him is that he's still a decent bit fucked up about it.
Had this happened in Germany, his parents would have made made a complaint, they get pulled into court, and then a *judge* decides whether or not the boy had been taken advantage of. This is compared against what happens here in the US and what happened to him which is that if you're 14 your perspective of your own experience is completely worthless and invalid.
And that is ultimately the line that we draw when we draw the age of consent. The question we should be asking is 'How old does a person need to be before their perspective of their own experience is at least worth hearing?'
| 1,728,803,982
|
Livid_Lengthiness_69
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-13
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Misogynistic men are often equally misandrist as they are misogynistic
|
{'id': 'lrl6exz', 'text': 'I’m not entirely sure that is relevant.\xa0\n\nI think many if not most misogynists also don’t believe themselves to be misogynistic, and they just believe it’s natural and will make women more fulfilled to behave in the ways that they want them to.\xa0\n\nWhether they believe they are misandristic or misogynistic isn’t super relevant imo.\xa0\n\nI think real difference is: 1) their misogyny is often more harmful than misandry, and 2) they think of women as generally inferior to men.\xa0\n\nFor those reasons I’d say the misogyny and misandry aren’t equal, not because they don’t think of themselves as misandristic.\xa0', 'author': 'batman12399', 'score': 5, 'timestamp': 1728751367}
|
{'id': 'lrl4vuz', 'text': ">\xa0The man believes that most men hold the same views as themselves, which is a misandrist assumption because it implies most men hold misogynistic viewpoints.\n\nMisandry means hatred against men. For these men that you speak of, to think that most men hold the same views as them, is not misandry. Because they view their views to be correct and some level of ''natural.'' Calling those views misogynistic is your portrayal, but it's not one that they agree with, so it can't be misandry, because in their mind, these views are not negative or unethical in any context.", 'author': 'Domestiicated-Batman', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1728750853}
|
1g23ppd
|
CMV: Misogynistic men are often equally misandrist as they are misogynistic
|
Most of the men I‘ve observed exhibiting hostile or benevolent sexism towards women hold equally sexist views about men.
i see a good amount of misandry from red pilled men- that women are lying, cheating, and manipulative, whereas men are naturally prone to wanting sex at a far higher rate, and that men are “inferior“ or “soy” for showing their emotions.
I see this in a few forms:
A. The man believes that most men hold the same views as themselves, which is a misandrist assumption because it implies most men hold misogynistic viewpoints.
Example: A misogynistic man prefers that his girlfriend be a young virgin who is barely legal and is subservient assumes all men prefer the same.
B. The misogynist holds viewpoints that are harmful to actual social progress for men.
Example: This individual might hold the belief that any man who engages in a behavior he deems “feminine“ is forgoing his manhood, such as painting his nails. In addition, he believes the family institution is crumbling in modern times and that the ideal family unit has to have a male head-of-household, as if it’s in a man’s nature to be distant, stoic, and the provider no matter what. They also tend to believe men are weak for showing their emotions.
There are also benevolently sexist (yes, the term is meant to be contradictory. It doesn’t imply the sexism itself is benevolent but merely that the prejudice is perceived as such) individuals who hold equally misandrist viewpoints about men.. trains of thought that say “all women should be protected, and by extension, all men must be protectors”
| 1,728,749,985
|
PachinkoMars
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-12
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: The man vs the bear question indirectly fuelled hatred between groups
|
{'id': 'lrdq935', 'text': 'If you interpret the truth as misandry, then that is on you and not the metaphor. Time for some inner work.', 'author': 'ilovetandt', 'score': -4, 'timestamp': 1728633009}
|
{'id': 'lrdohbt', 'text': 'No, she’s really not. The ones who are genuinely good are not alienated. \n\nThe ones who are pushed away are perhaps less “good” than they believe themselves to be.', 'author': 'Destroyer_2_2', 'score': -9, 'timestamp': 1728631752}
|
1g13usf
|
CMV: The man vs the bear question indirectly fuelled hatred between groups
|
So I has been hearing about "The man vs the bear question" Which I feared that the question question could either misinterpreted to fuel the gender to the point of severe hatred...
So as you may know, In the internet there's two groups that fight in the "gender war" so to speak: The "Manosphere" a.k.a. Incel, Pickup artists, etc. and some groups of women who love to blame and judge all man in a pretty stereotypical way like r/femaledatingadvice
I know what the question want to represent but this could be easily twisted to other narratives and used to continue the gender war...
| 1,728,629,725
|
Porschii_
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-11
|
2024_fall
|
Cmv: Commercial advertising should be banned
|
{'id': 'lrv82ch', 'text': "Okay, but I think movie trailers at least show the need for advertising.\n\nBecause how would you know when a movie was coming out if the movie studio wasn't allowed to make a trailer with a release date on it? For movies that aren't part of major franchises how are you supposed to know what the primise of the movie is if there's no trailers or posters? Are movie studios just supposed to hope that there are people willing to see a random movie a shot with no outside knowledge? \n\nAnd also you know when they do that thing where an older movie will be back in theaters for one day only? How's that supposed to work? Last year I saw spirited away in theaters because I saw a poster saying it would be there for just one day and it was a great time, how could something like that work if the poster is illegal? You can't use word of mouth because by the time the first wave of people saw it it's going to be gone.", 'author': 'PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1728909508}
|
{'id': 'lrv6zfn', 'text': "The vast majority of advertising is for product categories that everyone knows exist. If someone needs something, they go look for it. How is that by any stretch of the imagination 'completely blind'?", 'author': 'Cubusphere', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1728909026}
|
1g3e25e
|
Cmv: Commercial advertising should be banned
|
Advertising is most beneficial for those most established e.g Nike shoes. This allows for branding to carry poor quality on established quality. We find ourselves in a situation where the most popular brand is often the worst quality at a middle of the road price or even the highest price. Advertising is paid for by customers not companies, meaning every commercial you see is increasing the price for said product.
You might ask why not allow customers to vote with their wallet? First we cannot stop products we are comfortable with from advertising, if I like a food product switching away when it goes up a little bit and tv commercials start running is an overreacting if I like the product. Very few people live their lives as revolutionaries and will chose the easy and familiar over putting in work for an ideal. Second, commercials sell more than just products, they sell the image of fame, poverty, normality and anything else commonly depicted in advertising. Like beer ads always featuring beautiful women dancing. This allows advertising a power above just product selling, they sell for lack of a better world ideology in the sense of idealized images of the world. Something that has been proven to be damaging to many. https://carlkho-cvk.medium.com/you-are-what-you-watch-a33ef749d2a6 an article on introduction of tv in the Philippines leading to a beauty standard in the Philippines set by non Filipinos.
What's the alternative? Word of mouth. It wouldn't be perfect but it would be better. You need a pair of shoes you walk around for a pair that look stylish and ask them what they are, how much, and how well they're made. Or if you really need to, you try something random off the shelf and see what you get, tell your friends if they're good.
The response I'm anticipating is it's not realistic to expect advertising to actually be banned. Of course we live in a world run by money. But delta for any positive effects of commercial advertising or alternative to a complete ban that is more effective.
| 1,728,907,417
|
snowleave
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-14
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Ninja and shinobi were not real
|
{'id': 'lqv0n5g', 'text': 'I still think you might be placing too much emphasis on the novelty of the label. If people use the term to describe soldiers who actually existed, then all that\'s needed is clarification on what is real and what is legend. \n\nI think we can reasonably say something like:\n\nMercenaries who engaged in covert operations definitely existed in Japanese history. Indeed, mercenaries from certain regions, such as Koga and Iga, were somewhat infamous for their skill in espionage and guerilla tactics during the Sengoku period. These people may or may not have described themselves as "Shinobi," but many people today have given them this label. \n\nThe modern image of a Shinobi or "ninja" is largely built around media tropes and legends concerning these soldiers. The actual soldiers did not necessarily dress in black outfits, use specially made "ninja" tools, or dabble in magic.', 'author': 'Justicar-terrae', 'score': 11, 'timestamp': 1728345190}
|
{'id': 'lqv0iz2', 'text': "I think you're focusing too much on etymology rather than the historical reality. Ninja or shinobi (Japanese: 忍び, lit.\u2009'one who sneaks') were covert operatives in feudal Japan who specialized in infiltration, espionage, guerrilla warfare, and even acted as mercenaries or bodyguards.\n\nThere is ample historical evidence to support their existence and their roles, and getting caught up on whether the specific term 'ninja' or 'shinobi' was consistently used in ancient records misses the point. This is like arguing that trench warfare didn't exist before World War I just because the term 'trench warfare' wasn't coined yet, or that piracy didn’t exist before the word 'pirate' became common. The reality of the activity is what matters, not the label. Dismissing the historical concept because of the terminology is a pedantic reduction that doesn't change the facts.", 'author': 'scarab456', 'score': 5, 'timestamp': 1728345146}
|
1fyk1h2
|
CMV: Ninja and shinobi were not real
|
My argument is this: there is not enough historical evidence to claim that ninja/shinobi are real historical figures. When you try and prove that they exist, all you get are examples of anyone who did something stealthy, or someone who assassinated someone. But we already have terms for that- spies, and assassins. There is no record of a group called ninja or a group called shinobi.
So my argument is this: when we talk about ninja or shinobi, we should be purely discussing them in the realm of fiction, as those terms don’t help tell us anything about history (before the 1960’s)
| 1,728,338,658
|
danhyman
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-07
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Americans should believe in America first.
|
{'id': 'lrzm8as', 'text': "It's 1% of the budget. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-is-us-foreign-assistance/\n\n\n5% of discretionary spending. https://www.pgpf.org/finding-solutions/understanding-the-budget/spending#discretionary", 'author': 'uncle-iroh-11', 'score': 31, 'timestamp': 1728964589}
|
{'id': 'lrzlreq', 'text': 'Why does American Govt love Israel so much?', 'author': 'indianemployee', 'score': -3, 'timestamp': 1728964365}
|
1g3yw9p
|
CMV: Americans should believe in America first.
|
Today, I want to make the point that, regardless of our opinions on the conflicts in Israel and Palestine or Russia and Ukraine, we should focus more on solving our problems here at home instead of sending aid overseas. My argument isn't about the complicated details of international issues, but about our responsibility to take care of our own people first.
**Focusing on America's Problems:**
1. Right now, America has some big issues that need to be fixed right away: healthcare is too expensive, our infrastructure is falling apart, schools aren’t equal, and the gap between rich and poor is growing. These problems affect us every day, and we need to spend more money on solving them. Every dollar we send overseas is one less dollar we can use to improve things like creating jobs, fixing our roads, or making healthcare affordable. By focusing our spending at home, we can make life better for everyone in America.
**The Influence of Career Politicians and Lobbyists:**
1. We also have to face the fact that many of our politicians have been in office for a long time and are influenced by special interest groups. These groups push politicians to focus on international problems instead of the issues we face at home. Lobbyists, who work for their own interests, take money away from the important programs we need. By ending the era of career politicians and limiting the power of lobbyists, we can make sure our leaders focus on the needs of Americans instead of other countries.
**National Security Depends on a Strong Country:**
1. Our security as a nation starts with having a strong and healthy population. If we invest in things like education, healthcare, and infrastructure, we make our country safer. A country that takes care of its people is less likely to face threats from outside. When we solve our own problems, we also set an example for other nations, showing them that stability and democracy can be achieved without expensive military involvement.
**The Voice of the People:**
1. Polls show that a lot of Americans believe we should focus on fixing our own problems first. This isn’t just a political idea; it’s something that everyday people want. Our leaders should listen to what the people are asking for. If we spend more money on addressing the issues we face in our own country, we can make sure that everyone’s voice matters and that our democracy stays strong.
**Conclusion:**
In the end, while international relations are important, our main responsibility is to the American people. We should push for a change in priorities—away from foreign aid and towards solving the problems we face here at home. By cutting down on the influence of career politicians and lobbyists, we can make sure our government is truly serving the people. Let’s come together to build a stronger, more successful country by focusing our resources where they’re needed most: right here in America.
| 1,728,963,834
|
AdSpirited9373
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-15
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Iran is not the greatest adversary of the United States, and saying so is a pretty brazen absurdity that demonstrates Israel's outsized influence on the country.
|
{'id': 'lrbghd1', 'text': '>Ahmadinejad did some things that were not what the Ayatollah wanted\n\nI\'m gonna have to see a source on this. He was able to talk and walk around by himself, but all actions of the government had at least implicit authorization from the supreme leader.\n\nAgain, going back to my previous post. Your "greatest adversary" doesn\'t have to be the one that can do the most damage, it could just be the one you have no way to control without starting a war.', 'author': 'justwakemein2020', 'score': 59, 'timestamp': 1728596437}
|
{'id': 'lrb74cj', 'text': 'How do you categorize "adversary"?\n\nI would argue that a minimum qualification is a lack of diplomatic relations, and/or commercial relations. We trade billions of dollars worth of good and services with Russia and China-and have formal relations with both. They are trading partners; relations may be strained, and we may be in economic competition, but that doesn\'t qualify them as "adversaries".\n\nOf the nations that fulfill this qualification, Iran is by far the greatest in military and economic power.', 'author': 'glurth', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1728593301}
|
1g0rxgr
|
CMV: Iran is not the greatest adversary of the United States, and saying so is a pretty brazen absurdity that demonstrates Israel's outsized influence on the country.
|
Iran being the "greatest" enemy of the United States was a statement Kamala Harris made to the press when asked about who the United States greatest adversary was, for some context, but its a statement that could just as easily of come from a Republican's mouth.
Russia and China both have stronger militaries and stronger espionage capabilities that are currently in use in the United States. Russia in particular has strong influence over US elections in a way that Iran just doesn't. Russia's attack of Ukraine is also more of an existential threat to the West and the United States alliances and strategic interests, but China's threat to Taiwan is also important, and even a conventional war with China would be disastrous for all parties involved.
Iran doesn't have these kinds of capabilities, and is in part propped up by Russia, so even if we pretended that the US' most vital interests were in the Middle East (Which they aren't, and both Biden and Obama has wanted to get out of the region and refocus towards Asia), Iran is still largely a Russia proxy, indicating that the real threat is Russia. Iran has less than a fourth of the GDP of Russia and around half the population. Iranian proxies limited to the region, whereas Russia has proxies all around the globe and their influence extends into South America, putting them far more into the US' sphere of influence. What Iran is, is the greatest adversary of Israel, as it and its proxies operates primarily within Israel's sphere of influence while having a solely negative relationship with Israel (Whereas Russia, Iran's backer, has a more complicated relationship with Israel where they are not adversaries).
Naming Iran as the US greatest adversary is a conflation of the US interests with the interests of Israel. These are two different countries with two different interests, and it is disastrous to the US sovereignty that the interests of Israel should be promoted as the main interest of the US by our own politicians.
| 1,728,590,990
|
CoyoteTheGreat
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-10
|
2024_fall
|
cmv: Only individuals should be legal and taxable entities
|
{'id': 'lrzsdrw', 'text': '*"Yes the lowliest person will get the blame the first few times. Soon these people will see that "just doing what the boss says even if its illegal" is not ok and will stop doing it, and then the system works fine."*\n\nI didn\'t say anything about any employee choosing to do things knowing that they are illegal - and you completely missed the point about shit rolling downhill.\n\n*"The financies are tied to the owner - use their bank account and everything else from them. You can still have a ledger and other company stuff on paper and manage it as its managed now, just when it comes to taxes and other finances, it works on the owner(s) accounts."*\n\nIf all of the money is owned by an individual and there are no companies (which is part of what your view includes), then there is no company ledger or "company stuff," so it cannot be managed as it is now. There are multiple questions I asked you that you did not answer (and no, this response of yours does not cover them all). Also, many businesses are required to have business licenses, which makes them a legal entity. There are countless legal obligations that businesses are required to meet that do not apply to individuals, so you are also arguing for those to all disappear.\n\n*"You know that by corporation I mean businesses with large market share, lots of employees, and pretty much all sense of non-profit goals gone."*\n\nYou are only confirming that you don\'t know what a corporation is. If your view has changed on what a corporation actually is as a result of my comment, then a delta is in order.', 'author': 'horshack_test', 'score': 5, 'timestamp': 1728967769}
|
{'id': 'lrza8yu', 'text': "I believe corporations should have lower tax rates as the tax itself is passed onto consumers and employee wages.\xa0\n\n\nHowever, corporations enjoy several legal protections that other entities do not enjoy.\xa0\n\n\nCorporations' owners are 100% exempt (unless they are involved in the management of the company) in any legal proceedings against the corporation. Corporations are registered in a state and can enjoy all the business laws that state has to offer and can take advantage of that particular state's court system.\xa0\n\n\nFor this, I think they should pay a premium to the government\xa0", 'author': 'Sweet-Illustrator-27', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1728959675}
|
1g3x83o
|
cmv: Only individuals should be legal and taxable entities
|
I think that there should be no entities for legal or tax purposes other than individuals - so no trusts or even companies.
They can still exist, just not have any standing when it comes to legal matters or money matters. If a someone died due to a "companies" negligence, then it's at least one individual at the company that cause that - whether it was the manager taking shortcuts, or the owner declaring they have no budget to maintain the equipment.
I believe that there are only a few reasons why these exist in the first place, and all the reasons are bad. I think they are either:
1. To dodge responsibility
Or
2. To gain an unfair advantage
For the unfair advantage, take how companies or trusts pay tax only on profit, while individuals pay based on income (since almost nothing is deductible), or how trusts avoid taxes.
I'm sure there are some advantages, though I don't think any of them are even close to the disadvantages and corruption they create.
Also for Corporations - they shouldn't even exist so explaining about how to manage shares or other impossibly large groups isn't something I'm willing to entertain. Small to medium sized businesses can easily do what these corporations do if given the chance.
| 1,728,958,486
|
Prim56
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-15
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: non-humanitarian countries will continue to block any attempt we make at improving the situation for the natural world and non-human animals.
|
{'id': 'lrvetb2', 'text': 'And honestly, most poor countries contribute very little to destroying the environment, that’s caused far more by overconsumption in rich countries.', 'author': 'Routine_Log8315', 'score': 4, 'timestamp': 1728912288}
|
{'id': 'lrvbhrz', 'text': "There's no such thing as a capitalist completely unconstrained by morals and values because every human out there has them.", 'author': 'xfvh', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1728910953}
|
1g3eoct
|
CMV: non-humanitarian countries will continue to block any attempt we make at improving the situation for the natural world and non-human animals.
|
Almost every human nation will eventually aim for achieving capitalist prosperity. Prestigious markers like how many cars your citizens can buy matter to all populations in the world. This will likely include policies that improve human health enough to not cause too many workers dying - see chinas efforts for green energy and improved air quality. Protection of wildlife for the sake of moral considerations alone however is a different story.
Collectivist and non-humanitarian countries - nations where real human wellbeing and animal welfare arent a priority over (short term) economic growth and power as a whole will continue to prevent international agreements for the protection of wildlife. See Russia and China for example but also african and arabic nations.
If you culture or religion does not value good deeds and the reduction of suffering for the individual or animals then there is no logical reason why you would protect other living creatures unless they directly impact human health. Collectivist nations like China will always choose prosperity over the reduction of suffering for others - not just because of its authoritarian government but because of the expectation of its citizens.
Considering the falling birthrates in places like europe its likely that the influence of humanitarian values from this region will dwindle with time as well.
| 1,728,909,347
|
Equivalent_Pilot_125
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-14
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Tax Filings Should be every 3-5 years, instead of annual
|
{'id': 'lryesz0', 'text': 'What? No way. \n\nI think you’re projecting the simple situations you’re familiar with onto other businesses. \n\nIn the last five years, my entity changed accounting principles, accounting system, and corporate structure. Laws changed. That was a 60 person org…imagine 6000 or 60000.\n\nPlus for years after the five years you need to be able to respond to an audit confidently. The audit might not start for 2 years and might take years further to complete.\n\nEver tried to get old 8-10 year old bank records? We once had to out someone on a plane halfway around the world to pick them up in person to satisfy a doc request…and that’s under the current system.', 'author': 'abnormal_human', 'score': 4, 'timestamp': 1728947760}
|
{'id': 'lry4h2k', 'text': '>I mean credits and deductions are heavily used by the lower income folks, and represent a\xa0*much*\xa0larger percentage of their income in most cases. They certainly aren’t isolated to the higher income folks.\n\nBut there is the option just to lower the amount of taxes low income people pay since the rich people would then be paying their fair share.\n\n>But still doesn’t change the real complexities I’ve mentioned. A business is always going to be taxed in net profit, not gross revenue, so you have to include expenses in a tax computation.\n\nWhy? Expenses are expenses. They are not profits. They are required to make profit.', 'author': 'draculabakula', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1728943967}
|
1g3q446
|
CMV: Tax Filings Should be every 3-5 years, instead of annual
|
This view primarily applies to the US. It's my view that State and Federal tax returns should only be required every 3 or 5 years, not annually.
While plenty are simple, others can take literally hundreds of hours of preparation every single year. This is especially true when someone has multiple businesses, partnerships, etc. Between end of year planning in December, and the prep time at tax/extension time, it is in an incredible productivity suck.
Preparing a tax return every 5 years wouldn't remotely be 5 times the work. Likely not more than 1.5-2x the work, representing a large savings.
You can still require that people pay their taxes in the year they are due, but only reconcile the tax forms every few years. I understand the accounting lobby would strongly oppose this, but I don't see any other reasons not to do this. It would save taxpayers and governments cost and time.
| 1,728,938,287
|
vettewiz
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-14
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: The effectiveness of public policy within a society is dependent on the collective genetics of the inhabitants. The more diverse the genetics, the harder it is to develop public policy.
|
{'id': 'lru3hng', 'text': 'Uganda is not a genetically diverse country… lmao. \n\n80% of the country is Bantu… thats higher than the US when it comes to ethnic and racial homogeneity 🤷🏻\u200d♂️', 'author': 'Doub13D', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1728883292}
|
{'id': 'lrtqzvk', 'text': '>The effectiveness of public policy within a society is dependent on the collective genetics of the inhabitants.\n\nI wouldnt be giving you attention if this dump im taking wasnt such a strainer.', 'author': 'Minimum_Passing_Slut', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1728876446}
|
1g361dy
|
CMV: The effectiveness of public policy within a society is dependent on the collective genetics of the inhabitants. The more diverse the genetics, the harder it is to develop public policy.
|
In modern times, we are often taught the idea that diversity is a strength. This is true in some regards: Such as collecting a broader range of ideas and perspectives within a workplace for innovation, or for experiencing a wider range of cuisine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's now discuss the importance of genetics and how a large portion of human behavior is hereditary. One of the most reliable ways to determine the impact is to observe of life outcomes of identical twins who were raised apart. The overwhelming majority of them had shockingly similar personalities, behaviors, and educational attainment despite being raised in totally different environments. After countless such studies, It is well established within the scientific community that [virtually every trait, from social attitudes to psychopathology, shows strong genetic influence.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2899491/) How strong you ask? Enough to be the most important factor, outweighing environmental factors.
The evidence is so strong that the exact genes have been identified with certain behavioral traits. [One gene determines if a person is more receptive to optimistic opinions, or is more receptive towards threat-detection and neuroticism](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140717094828.htm). [Another gene determines just how likely a person is to shoot or stab another person](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11126-013-9287-x). And the distribution of these genes are not the same among different populations across the world. If people want to debate the legitimacy of these peer reviewed publications, it will be done in the comments to avoid info dumps.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**On average**, societies that have a diverse genetic pool of inhabitants with ancestry from across the world experience more political/social/cultural strife. Yes there are some outliers, like North Korea, but we are talking about averages here.
[Look at the map of countries with the highest and lowest rates of intentional homicide. ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#/media/File:World_map_of_homicide_rates_per_100,000_people.png)Almost all the countries in the bottom 100 of the list have high amounts of genetic diversity. Latin America has incredible genetic diversity (stemming from colonialism), and has a violent crime rate significantly higher than what their overall economic situation should entail. This occurs when public policy is not a good fit based on the genetics of the population.
On top of that, policies which are effective in one nation may be harmful for another nation. Social liberalism with a strong emphasis on humanitarianism leads to and incredibly prosperous and egalitarian nation in Northern Europe. But those same principles do not seem to work very well in Sub-Saharan Africa.
In fact, the opposite seems true. Severe punishment of crimes (with a focus on mob justice, public humiliation, and torture of offenders) has managed to reduce crime and general social unrest in the nation of Ghana to levels far below what is expected for a country in their economic situation. In El Salvador, mass incarceration of gang members into conditions that would be considered inhumane in the West has reduced the homicide rate from 103 per 100,000 habitants down to 7.8 per 100,000. The residents in those countries are able to enjoy a society more cohesive than the ones found in the large developed cities throughout the Americas.
The indigenous peoples of these nations have historically fared the best when they are allowed to develop without excessive interference or lobbying in social/cultural aspects from other nations.
So what happens when you have the genetics from both regions? You now are unable to find a single solution that works for the entire population.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I want to be clear, **all Nations are capable of developing a thriving and prosperous society.** Each nation will need to find what works for them instead of copying a single universal ideology. **And the nations that have a more homogenous population will have an easier time doing so.**
| 1,728,872,812
|
disillusioned875
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-14
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Preventing Jobs from being eliminated due to technological advancement and automation should not be considered a valid reason to strike
|
{'id': 'lpzz7lu', 'text': "If automation is going to make the company more money I don't see why a portion of that can't go to the employee (in the form of their wages) until they leave or retire.\n\nNegotiating over who gets that benefit seems like exactly what you're saying a union should do.", 'author': 'DeadCupcakes23', 'score': 8, 'timestamp': 1727886904}
|
{'id': 'lpzyiun', 'text': 'Ok, so we agree broadly that strikes/unions are allowed to advocate on the behalf of workers at the expense of the public \n\n\nSo why does the efficiency argument matter in this case? It is more beneficial to the worker to have a job than to be a part of a more efficient company', 'author': 'Nrdman', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1727886684}
|
1fujm1l
|
CMV: Preventing Jobs from being eliminated due to technological advancement and automation should not be considered a valid reason to strike
|
Unions striking over jobs lost to technological advancements and automation does nothing but hinder economic progress and innovation. Technology often leads to increased efficiency, lower costs, and the creation of new jobs in emerging industries. Strikes that seek to preserve outdated roles or resist automation can stifle companies' ability to remain competitive and adapt to a rapidly changing market. Additionally, preventing or delaying technological advancements due to labor disputes could lead to overall economic stagnation, reducing the ability of businesses to grow, invest in new opportunities, and ultimately generate new types of employment. Instead, the focus should be on equipping workers with skills for new roles created by technological change rather than trying to protect jobs that are becoming obsolete.
Now I believe there is an argument to be made that employees have invested themselves into a business and helped it reach a point where it can automate and become more efficient. I don't deny that there might be compensation owed in this respect when jobs are lost due to technology, but that does not equate to preserving obsolete jobs.
I'm open to all arguments but the quickest way to change my mind would be to show me how preserving outdated and obsolete jobs would be of benefit to the company or at least how it could be done without negatively impacting the company's ability to compete against firms that pursue automation.
| 1,727,884,579
|
WakeoftheStorm
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-02
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Cards Against Humanity 's paying people who don't vote is illegal.
|
{'id': 'lrpklks', 'text': "So here's the thing:\n\n1) They're calling out Musk, who is offering to illegally pay voters. This is illegal: [https://www.cga.ct.gov/2001/rpt/2001-R-0132.htm](https://www.cga.ct.gov/2001/rpt/2001-R-0132.htm)\n\n2) It's a PR stunt. Go to the website in the instagram post - [https://apologize.lol/](https://apologize.lol/)\n\nDo you see anyplace to accept payment for voting? I don't. I do not see actual intent from CAH to pay voters. Just an instagram post to grab people's attention and direct them towards a new pack of cards they're selling for $7.99.", 'author': 'AlwaysTheNoob', 'score': 26, 'timestamp': 1728822549}
|
{'id': 'lrpffl9', 'text': "Wasn't this whole thing in response to Elon basically doing the same doing so if one is illegal then both are. Keep in mind I don't know the law well enough to see its it is or not, but if the law allows people to pay people off for a vote then they are so damned cooked in that country.\n\nElon Musk's PAC offers $47 payouts \n[https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/musk-pac-signature-47-pay-refer-swing-state-voters-sign-petition-rcna174310](https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/musk-pac-signature-47-pay-refer-swing-state-voters-sign-petition-rcna174310)\n\nCards Against Humanity offers 100$ payouts responding to Musk's PAC \n[https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/cards-humanity-offers-payouts-new-swing-state-voters-responding-musks-rcna174957](https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/cards-humanity-offers-payouts-new-swing-state-voters-responding-musks-rcna174957)", 'author': 'Sophia_F_Felicity', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1728819885}
|
1g2nf4p
|
CMV: Cards Against Humanity 's paying people who don't vote is illegal.
|
Cards Against Humanity has a project out right now where they bought records from some data brokers regarding who did/didn't vote in 2020 and who leans left/right. They are offering to pay left leaning people who didn't vote to say they will vote in 2024.
I assume that the left/right data is fairly inaccurate but that the voting data is accurate as the government foolishly maintains that data.
It is illegal to pay people to vote or not to vote. They claim that they are not paying anyone to vote just to say they'll vote. But here they are paying people who didn't vote and not people who did. I might reasonably deduce that they will do this again and that I should not vote in 2024 to be eligible to be paid in 2028. So they are paying people not to vote. This seems blatantly illegal to me. CMV
| 1,728,818,332
|
Falernum
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-13
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: For the sake of society, some professionals should be paid to spend time on forums.
|
{'id': 'lqetm6o', 'text': 'It\'s my position that it\'s so full of mis and disinformation mostly *because* such a significant portion of those consuming and interacting not only the skills, but the objectivity, to see much of it for what it is. And with the growth of AI... The ratio of mostly manipulative garbage to genuinely useful is going to grow until there is literally more garbage than the ocean. Controlling the crap... Or outpacing its growth rate just aren\'t going to be a viable solutions.\n\nSolutions are going to have to come more from the *demand* side. We are going to have to do a much better job of vetting the majority of what comes to our world digitally. "Blue checkmarks" are certainly going to have to be much more broadly used to weight and factor a source\'s ethos. But the bigger and more difficult change is going to need to be a mostly internal one. We will have to become much more aware of our own biases for information and sources we would "prefer to be" or "suspect might be" true. Few of us engage in truth seeking the way that we believe we do. We far more often *first* decide what we *want* or *think should be* true and then aggressively seek out support for that view and dissent for competing views. Much more awareness of that fact *and* a broad supporting skill set are going to have to become a part of our information digestion process. The lack of them is already responsible for many of our current problems. And as bad as it is now... It\'s going to quickly get a lot worse.', 'author': 'LT_Audio', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1728102559}
|
{'id': 'lqend68', 'text': "You assume these people will change their mind if provided with the correct information. Some of them will, but I bet a lot won't and will just get defensive. For a large minority of our population facts and logic mean nothing to them, because they choose to believe certian things. A flat earther, or a immigrant hater, or a white supremacist aren't those those things because no one has ever told them their wrong. \n\n\nNo, their those things because they want to be those things. People who say immigrants get given free cars aren't basing their opinion on fact or logic, their basing it on feelings and beliefs. They want to believe immigrants get free cars for some reason, often so they can make excuses for their life. \n\n\nTheir like religious people, everyone knows there's not some giant man in the sky, they just choose to believe their is one. And no amount of fact checking will convince them otherwise.", 'author': 'Former_Indication172', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1728099351}
|
1fwgbik
|
CMV: For the sake of society, some professionals should be paid to spend time on forums.
|
I see it on here all the time:
what is clearly a 14 year old giving dumb relationship advice to a post by a 30yo married man;
people giving bad and dangerous DIY advice;
People getting the law very wrong (e.g. if you live together for a long time, it's common law marriage! Wrong. In some very specific states and provinces, but many people who have had that assumption ended up with zero upon separation/bereavement.
People spreading all sorts of misinformation like 'x percent of children have a different father than declared by the mother 1!. When it means X perfect of people tested for Paternity. That's like saying ten percent of the population have rabies, when it is 'ten percent of people tested for rabies get a positive result (made up numbers).
People in the daily mail comment sections saying 'do you know immigrants are given a car and their kids get priority for school places'
Someone could be in there with facts, like 90% of refugees worldwide are taken in by neighbouring third world countries, so they are not 'all coming to England'. And the UK make x amount from selling weapons which have been used by Sudan, Putin, IDF, Hamas etc, so what is thir responsibility when people flee those conflicts.
So many people get a lot of their information about the world from social media and having some element of balance, by having people who actually know what they are talking about would make a world of difference, literally.
So what I mean is that someone could be paid to spend one day a week online, just trawling forums like Reddit, YouTube comments, the daily mail comment section. Or a sort po pro bono thing where showing 50 replies of at least 50 words to online comments gets them permission to add (community educator) to their job title for that month.
| 1,728,095,300
|
ActualGvmtName
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-05
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: EVs are the new status symbol
|
{'id': 'lrr8sb0', 'text': "[Link 1](https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric-emissions)\n\n[Link 2](https://www.visualcapitalist.com/life-cycle-emissions-evs-vs-combustion-engine-vehicles/)\n\nNot here to post paragraphs about whatever, since you asked for reading, and I'm just a random redditor. Hope this provides the information you're looking for", 'author': 'Lord_Metagross', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1728843724}
|
{'id': 'lrr0kcs', 'text': "Just because there's a higher level of status symbol doesn't mean that a lower tiered thing isn't also a status symbol.\n\nA penthouse is a status symbol even if private islands exist.\n\nFirst class exists as do private jets.", 'author': 'OlympiasTheMolossian', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1728841166}
|
1g2ux7f
|
CMV: EVs are the new status symbol
|
Charging an EV is a major hassle. Spotty charging coverage, frequently broken chargers, and if can’t find a fast charging station it could take hours to get to an 80% charge. This is a massive difference from filling up a gas car in minutes at commonly available gas stations.
One of the most common refrains I hear from people who don’t agree with my anti-EV (for now) stance is “Just charge your car at home at night”. Well, many Americans don’t have the luxury of owning their own house to even consider installing a fast charging system.
So as it looks to me, owning an EV is a status symbol since you have the resources available to own your house and install a charging system.
To me, this means owning an EV is only for upper class urban or suburbanites. Those who rent, or are in rural areas are screwed.
Factor in new studies that show EVs are worse for the environment when factoring in the supply chain and the fact the vast majority of batteries aren’t recycled than gas cars, EVs tend to be nothing more than virtue signaling and a status symbol.
| 1,728,840,519
|
4oh4_error
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-13
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Porn is often sexist
|
{'id': 'ls1z7ve', 'text': 'I think you misread where op said never. \n\nThe only times op said never was about what happens in these videos op thinks are sexist. They are saying in these videos the women never xyz. \n\nThey did not say porn never shows women doijng xyz.', 'author': 'Long_Cress_9142', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1729007326}
|
{'id': 'ls1o6c6', 'text': '> I am talking about mainstream porn\n\nLike... studio porn? Most of that is stepcest and cuckolding scenarios these days, and both have issues that are different that those listed above. They deal more with social expectations surrounding established relationships than mere objectification of women. The issues go beyond sexism.', 'author': 'destro23', 'score': -1, 'timestamp': 1729003752}
|
1g4933k
|
CMV: Porn is often sexist
|
I was recently in a thread that found issue with highly-degrading porn titles at an IVF clinic. nigh nobody could spot the problem, excluding lesbians like me.
I found it funny, but had a disturbing realization that there may be a pervasive narrative going around that degrading women is normal, and that porn is commonly sexist. If people are so used to women being degraded, there is an issue
my additional concerns with porn is as follows:
1. porn treats women as prizes to be won
2. porn depicts women as there, merely to fulfill a desire
3. women are acted upon and never acting, in that they are never mutually involved in the act of sex. this removes personal autonomy and implies sex is something done “to” someone and not “with” someone
4. in doing this, the man’s orgasm is priroitized. Sex is done for the man’s pleasure. This makes me fear that heterosexual couples may have an orgasm gap. This would explain why women less commonly engage in hookups, because if often doesn’t result in pleasure for the woman.
5. porn usually, again, denies autonomy. It dehumanizes women, treats them as interchangeable. there is little regard to what the woman wants prior. actions are switched between without asking, as if the woman is not significant enough to be asked prior
6. Porn portrays women as naturally submissive, and men as naturally dominant.. this is not the case, I firmly believe that this is a made-up dynamic. I am a lesbian and in a relationship with women and have even had girlfriends who have asked if I was a sub or dom. I want sex to be a mutual act.
7. in making men seem dominant, there is an implication of male superiority, which is sexist. This is done through denial of agency, implying that women exist to be dominated and controlled for male gratification.
8. There is often violence depicted in porn, from being choked, to slapped, to handled roughly. Women are treated like dog shit with little regard. I find major issue in this.
Because of this, I have reason to believe that mainstream heterosexual porn is often sexist, and that many might be uncomfortable with the implications of my statement. Keep in mind, I am talking about mainstream porn, not the amateur stuff. I understand some might be highly defensive of an opinion like this.
Also, I am not shaming natural male sexuality by saying this because I am firmly of the belief that this is in no way natural. this is something instilled in men from a young age.
| 1,729,002,645
|
PachinkoMars
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-15
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Colleges should offer refunds if a majority of the class agrees the professor is incompetent.
|
{'id': 'ls4gl7v', 'text': "Right, it shouldn't be up to the students alone, which honestly came off as a major part of your view. It shouldn't be tied to the accountability of the school other than triggering investigations. \n\nTheir accountability might not be able to look like a refund, though. instead, it might be another class next semester or some other solution. And where the students are in the semester could really impact what the right solution be. So why have it mandated to be triggered by a majority of students, and be mandated to be a refund, when that could lead to both abuse and the wrong solutions for that particular accountability process? Just because it's appropriate in your case, as well as agreed upon by the majority of the class, doesn't mean it's what ever bad teaching situation looks likes or needs. What is the point of such a regimented rule or process?", 'author': 'broccolicat', 'score': 3, 'timestamp': 1729036812}
|
{'id': 'ls4dv4p', 'text': "This just isn't how at-will transactions work. An employer cannot ask for salary back if the employee gets bad reviews or is fired. \n\nSome kind of legal contract would be needed to effect what you propose, and as you can imagine, what professors or schools would be incentivized to wrangle with that level of liability?", 'author': 'Bmaj13', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1729035792}
|
1g4lj54
|
CMV: Colleges should offer refunds if a majority of the class agrees the professor is incompetent.
|
I am a college student and my argument stems mainly from the fact that I currently have a professor who has admitted to not having taught math in 20 years and having no idea about modern teaching methodologies. The professor says to "just follow what I am doing in class and you'll be fine" and has provided absolutely no study guide for his first exam. The lectures are rushed and go into little to no explanation of how he arrived to his conclusions. Not only that, but the professor has copy/pasted another professors syllabus onto his own, which I wouldn't have a big issue with if there wasn't contradictory information everywhere. For example, The syllabus states that we are allowed a note card for our test to write down formulas on, two days before the exam he tells us that we aren't allowed to use that.
Now myself and many other people in the class are going through the process of having the professor audited by the department chair. I don't know what the solution is at this point beyond asking for my money back. Even if they switch professors for most of us, we'll still be half a semseter into the class with very little foundational knowledge for the rest of the semester.
By the time the audit is finished, we may just be close to the end of the semseter and there is no guarantee that the college is going to offer our money back just because they hired someone incompetent.
**Colleges should be held financially responsible when hiring a professor who is not fit to teach a class and offer easier avenues to get refunded for your class if a majority of the students agree that the professor is not teaching the class correctly.**
| 1,729,034,856
|
AdSpirited9373
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-15
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: the left and democrats are not capable of the same cult behavior as maga
|
{'id': 'lsgu7l0', 'text': 'If I may, back in 2016 I had a group of hard left friends who were heavy into #feelthebern, like daily posts on it to spread awareness of Bernie Sanders.\n\nThen the day Hillary took the nomination a friend then posted a point by point listing of Hillary’s platform explaining why he supported each point. And he did it wholeheartedly, and ended it with #imwirhher.\n\nHow is that not cultish to the letter D? Bernie and Hillary are not similar. Not at all.\n\nThese are people now who defended Biden while obviously degraded in cognitive ability, saying quite loudly that it didn’t matter at all, that it was the other people who really ran things anyway.\n\nRight until the debate disaster when it could not be denied, then when Harris took a nomination she wasn’t elected to, well now they care about cognitive ability. That is some very selective use of critical thinking.\n\nNow for me I said all along neither Trump nor Biden was fit, and my family disagrees.\n\nNow I am a white guy in Texas married into a black family, many of whom voted Obama, but they hated Hillary so much they went Trump and they didn’t come back.\n\nThey don’t deny his faults, they are “holding their nose” for a candidate that stands for more of what they believe in. I don’t agree, I vote third party, but I would never dare tell them who to vote for or why. They are not in a cult, and neither are my hard left friends, they just have different things they are willing to overlook in support of their chosen politics.', 'author': 'TheMikeyMac13', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1729218799}
|
{'id': 'lsgtc1z', 'text': 'I tend to agree with you, with Republicans they get a cult of personality. The Left is super dedicated to party-- you only need to see how Kamala suddenly went from the most disliked VP in history to a leading Presidential candidate after her only primary experience was getting absolutely destroyed before they even started (against some honestly good candidates.) Do I think people actually like Kamala? No, but they have such faith in the party it changed their mind pretty fast.', 'author': 'hiricinee', 'score': -1, 'timestamp': 1729218452}
|
1g67mxc
|
CMV: the left and democrats are not capable of the same cult behavior as maga
|
case in point, look at how they went from defending biden and hating kamala to immediately reversing course.
it was "lets weekend at bernies biden" to "kamala is awesome" when they were like "biden needs to dump kamala for his re-election"
youd NEVER see that kind of tactical thinking on the maga republican side
all they care about is their cult leader and nothing else. you just dont see that on the democrat side because they are not falling into a trap of being loyal to politicians and falling for populism.
it's almost charming how people think Democrat voters are swayed by the same knee-jerk partisanship that grips others. Democrats tend to think critically and deeply about issues rather than just fall in line with whatever a political leader or talking head says.
It's not about loyalty to a party but rather about aligning with principles—like social justice, climate action, and inclusivity. Unlike maga who are easily led by soundbites and slogans, Democrats engage in thoughtful debate, consistently valuing facts over rhetoric.
There's a reason why nuanced policies appeal to this crowd: they actually think them through.
| 1,729,217,647
|
shadow_nipple
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-18
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: The concept of making beauty modeling diverse is inherently flawed.
|
{'id': 'lsg0ytj', 'text': 'Your argument is a strawman. You never even established credible reason for why you think modeling tries to establish an objective beauty.', 'author': 'translove228', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1729207858}
|
{'id': 'lsfzvl0', 'text': "you know that's not a counterpoint right?", 'author': 'Formal_Yesterday8114', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1729207451}
|
1g63vn5
|
CMV: The concept of making beauty modeling diverse is inherently flawed.
|
I am focusing on runway models and super models, not things like retail fashion models for brands or fashion.
**1: Modeling attempts to establish objective beauty**
A model is meant to display which people are the **models** of current beauty standards and stereotypes. It attempts to establish objectives beauty by adhering to majority group standards. This is obviously flawed, because attraction and beauty is not objective. Everyone has different attractions, and what is considered desirable varies across places and times. This is part of my point though: modeling *cannot* be an objective measure of beauty because such a thing does not exist.
**2: Attempting to diversify modeling assumes that modeling is a legitimate method to establish objective beauty standards for society**.
People often advocate for people of minority groups to be included in model runways, because it will represent those who do not get much attention in beauty. The idea is that by including these people in these events, we will be able to make certain groups make gains in the beauty world. This way of thinking tacitly accepts that modeling is an appropriate way to set beauty standards for society.
If you are concerned with ensuring that society promotes diversity in beauty, I feel as though it is a better idea to reject the idea of modeling societal standards of beauty. Modeling is an outdated idea, and we should stop promoting it in the modern age. No matter who or what appears in a modeling show, someone will feel left out and hurt, and more youth will continue to be adversely affected by it.
**Conclusion:** We should focus more on tearing down the traditional idea of modeling and pageants than on trying to fix the system we have set in place. I think it can be beneficial to promote diversity in modeling contexts that don't particularly focus on the beauty of the person itself (fashion runways), but in contexts that focus on the beauty of the model itself, there will always be a damaging outcome.
| 1,729,205,971
|
Legitimate-Bath-9651
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-17
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Adding a Physical Security Key to protect my personal data is overkill
|
{'id': 'ls9g736', 'text': 'Yes - but not in addition to app based 2FA, rather instead of app based 2FA. 2FA apps often don’t have good backup features, so if someone’s phone gets broken or stolen, they can be royally screwed. Keeping a backup security key is way cheaper and more practical than keeping a backup phone, and pulling out your phone, opening an app, and typing a code is slower than just plugging in a usb stick. It’s more convenient, more resilient to catastrophe, and also somewhat safer.', 'author': 'SeaTurtle1122', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1729112156}
|
{'id': 'ls6636n', 'text': ">Unlike phone number-based 2FA, Authentication App or device-based 2FA requires the user to have physical possession of the token and help remove the risk of mobile carriers falling for phishers whose social engineering skills are on point.\n\nDirectly from your source. Unless you just get someone who's dumb enough to just hand over the 2fa codes, it's not something that can just be taken without access to the device itself. Having a sim is only relevant for something tied to a phone number.", 'author': 'UnovaCBP', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1729066806}
|
1g4tm8t
|
CMV: Adding a Physical Security Key to protect my personal data is overkill
|
Change my view:
I do not need a physical security key to ensure my data is protected in my alley Apple garden. I have my iPhone 15 pro max, my iPad 12.9”, and my series 4 Apple Watch.
I want to protect my pictures (photography is one of my main and key hobby/ies), messages, notes (especially notes these are important to me), and backups of apps I have.
As I have already activated two factor authentication (2FA), adding a physical security key on top would just be overkill. I have an external password manager (Bitwarden) and Apple’s internal one for which Apple released as a separate app for iOS 18.
To conclude, that I have 2FA set up and because I am regularly checking my digital security (weekly), obtaining physical keys for security would be overkill.
Change my view.
| 1,729,063,012
|
IXMCMXCII
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-16
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Porn and OF should both be totally banned and prosecution efforts should be focused against the mostly male customer base.
|
{'id': 'lsflf6h', 'text': 'You can award deltas for whatever alters your view, even slightly. You can also award as many as you\'d like.\n\nThe point I\'m trying to make and asking you to consider is that it\'s very difficult to define what is and isn\'t pornography. I know we all basically know what it is and when we see it, but there\'s a lot of works that ride a very close line. And a lot more that have true artistic merit that could be, and have been, erroneously labeled pornography. \n\nIf you can\'t come up with a legal definition for what constitutes pornography then I think it\'s a moot point to consider legal censorship. If you all you have is "intended to be used [for masturbation]", then that doesn\'t seem like enough to go around legally banning certain films. We\'re all better off with the 1st amendment protecting our freedom of speech.', 'author': 'premiumPLUM', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1729202130}
|
{'id': 'lsfii9d', 'text': 'Wow. That\'s one of the best so far.\xa0 "Not only do I have nothing to add to the debate, but your question makes me so uncomfortable that I hope you get arrested"\nFucking hell. This sub is great. I\'ve never seen so many incels get so upset so easily', 'author': 'Buggery_bollox', 'score': -1, 'timestamp': 1729201123}
|
1g61mg0
|
CMV: Porn and OF should both be totally banned and prosecution efforts should be focused against the mostly male customer base.
|
The reason why I want to ban these things is because they are forms of moral degeneracy and actively destroy society from the ground up.
Think about it. There are so many ways to have fun. You can go out with friends or go on a solo trip to the city. Of course, these are not mutually exclusive with being a porn watcher or seeking prostitution, but they contrast the many things you could be doing inside of watching porn or subscribing to OF. Even if you need to get off, you have this thing called imagination. Use it instead of watching filth online.
Porn and prostitution are even more disgusting when you think about is going on. Take for example traditional porn suited towards a male audience. You have a women and/or men just totally objectifying themselves and using their body's appearance to sexually please strangers. Now, you have a large group of people, mostly men, who are seeking sexual pleasure off of looking at a screen. When such a large portion of the society is doing this, it leads to a complete and total degeneration of the moral fabric. Intimacy is something supposed to be private, not sold for cash or broadcast for the entire world to see.
Additionally, we have data on the harms of these things. For example, we know that men with porn addictions are likelier to be lonelier and have unrealistic expectations in the bedroom. So we know men are likely being severely harmed by porn and OF. So, you have a combination of many men who have actively been pushed into social isolation and many women who are selling pictures and videos of their bodies for clicks and money, oftentimes with extreme pressure due to financial situation.
To the next point of the post, why should we prosecute the audience specifically when they are harmed maybe more than those who make the porn. The simple answer here is because of agency. People who make porn are under extreme pressure financially a lot of the time, so it would be cruel to go after them. People who watch porn have literally no excuses. They are perepetuating an evil industry literally out of choice.
| 1,729,199,646
|
Early-Possibility367
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-17
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: It's not ok to sacrifice our nation's sobriety to win elections
|
{'id': 'lss6k0r', 'text': 'Just to expand on things for people in this thread, propaganda doesnt mean misinformation or even lies.\nThough its a common misconception\n\nSmokey the bear is propaganda, Give a hoot dont pollute? Likewise, also propaganda.\n\nPropaganda is disseminated messages, more or less', 'author': 'zxxQQz', 'score': 2, 'timestamp': 1729390954}
|
{'id': 'lsrpxe3', 'text': 'The ‘ends justify the means’ angle is not valid here. For it to be propaganda in the first place implies the means itself is faulty. You wouldn’t say a charity organization advertising is propaganda for an example.', 'author': 'YouJustNeurotic', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1729384371}
|
1g7lpnz
|
CMV: It's not ok to sacrifice our nation's sobriety to win elections
|
I'm going to take a few lines to explain what my post is not about:
First, my post isn't about arguing that the 2016 election was swayed by foreign propaganda; that is not something I'm willing to change my view on.
Second, I'm not seeking to discuss whether the use of propaganda for political gain has been good or bad for other countries like Russia or China. I can't speak to the impact in those nations and it's not directly relevant to my view.
Third, I'm not here to argue about the plausible interpretations of the United States Constitution, outdated 200-year-old laws, or any crazed conspiracy theories.
Now, what I would like to discuss (and I'll try to keep it as short as I can) is:
After taking office around the 2000s, Vladimir Putin used propaganda and other tactics to greatly expand his political power in Russia, allowing him to remain in power almost indefinitely through a [Cult of Personality](https://www.jstor.org/stable/41061898), [Historical revisionism](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10308-017-0482-5), [Media Control](https://shorensteincenter.org/independent-media-in-putins-russia/), and [Consolidation of Presidential Authority](https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2024-03-21/putins-first-election-march-2000).
Similarly, Xi Jinping did roughly the same thing in the 2010s, using propaganda to gain greatly expand his political power in China, enabling him to stay in power almost indefinitely through [Centralization of Power](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-43361276), [Ideological Campaign](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11366-018-9566-3), and [Media Control](https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-15-2275-8_6).
This is where Trump's GOP and constituents have been aiming to go from day one, attempting to enable Trump to maintain power through [Cult of Personality](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/08/19/trump-cult-of-personality-democracy-erosion-united-states/), [Historical revisionism](https://www.politifact.com/article/2023/aug/02/fact-check-donald-trumps-false-and-misleading-resp/), [Media control](https://apnews.com/article/lifestyle-entertainment-jim-acosta-0988fd076764910bc2d379df5cf659a6), and [Legislative Measures](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/603/23-939/) leading to Project 2025 and beyond.
Of course, former President Trump's faction within the GOP could not achieve for him what President Putin's and President Xi Jinping's supporters have accomplished for them, due to America's strong (though some argue weakening) system of checks and balances. However, this was not due to a lack of effort on the part of Trump's devoted GOP allies.
So, that was the backstory, and now to my CMV argument:
It's not acceptable to sacrifice our nation's rationality to win elections. The American people have been subjected to cycles of misinformation and propaganda from Trump's GOP for the sake of electoral victory. Their intention is not necessarily to convince anyone of these implausible conspiracy theories, but to divide the populace by instilling distrust toward everyone not part of or supported by Trump's GOP.
Using misinformation and divisive rhetoric is not a new tactic; although it may seem like Trump's signature strategy, it has been employed by cults and religions for thousands of years. This historical misuse is one reason why we, the people, advocated for the separation of church and state. Our forefathers understood in their wisdom that a populace blindly following a leader claiming divine authority was inherently wrong for our nation and precisely what they sought to escape by coming to America.
**My explanation to a five-year-old:**
Imagine a neighborhood where many families live. One summer, eight years ago, a neighbor who is bothered by your family's children (because they influence his kids to misbehave) decides to give your child mind suppressant to stop your child from influencing his own kids, whom he regularly gives mind suppressant to keep them quiet and easy to control. Unfortunately, by giving your child the mind suppressant, the neighbor helps you gain control over your child like never before. So you start giving your child the same mind suppressant to keep them quiet and easy to control, even though you promised your family long ago that you would respect their freedom and never manipulate them with tricks or harmful things.
**CMV:** Make me believe that using propaganda and conspiracy theories is a good way to win elections.
| 1,729,380,903
|
Davngr
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-19
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: In the case of #21 of Tennessee hitting an Arkansas fan yesterday, the fan deserves the vast majority of the blame.
|
{'id': 'lqoi2cx', 'text': '>Rape is much more premeditated and is done regardless of where the victim is or what they\'re wearing.\n\nSo if the rape isn\'t premeditated that would make it fine for the girl to be raped since it was a foreseeable outcome? \n\nNot sure what your argument is by bringing this up \n\n>I don\'t think most rape victims were trespassing on a football field nor did they violate a law before.\n\nSo if a rape victim trespassed before being raped, that would make it fine to rape them? \n\nI\'m not sure how this whole "they broke a law" somehow makes it OK for someone else to also break a law. If someone trespasses then they don\'t deserve to be raped. If someone trespasses they also don\'t deserve to be assaulted. \n\nWe don\'t respond to misdemeanors with vigilante justice.', 'author': 'SuckMyBike', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1728249769}
|
{'id': 'lqof1om', 'text': 'Huh, why? Presumably this fan was an adult, what about them justifies the kid gloves? If anything, the dude who just played the game should get deference over the guy who sat on his ass and watched a game.\xa0', 'author': 'RobotsFromTheFuture', 'score': -13, 'timestamp': 1728248784}
|
1fxqffz
|
CMV: In the case of #21 of Tennessee hitting an Arkansas fan yesterday, the fan deserves the vast majority of the blame.
|
Video surfaced today of #21 of Tennessee's football team shoving an Arkansas fan to the ground as Arkansas fans stormed the field post game. There is a lot of outrage against the player for what he did, but I'd say that outrage is misplaced. I think it's the fan's fault for putting himself in the situation.
One thing to look at is the setting. Tennessee has just lost a game they'd be expected to win in their sleep. So of course, it is likelier that Tennessee players are a bit angrier than average. Take on top of that that as Arkansas fans storm the field, which they're not supposed to do to begin with, they were doing so in a way such that they were impeding Tennessee players' (who unlike the fans are actually supposed to be there) ability to leave the field. Also, the fan who was shoved was bumping into some people near #21 and was running exceptionally close to the players. So essentially this kid was already running recklessly in a place he wasn't supposed to be near players who are possibly 2-3x his size and angry. It's reasonable to say that him getting shoved to the ground by an angry player was a foreseeable result of putting himself in the situation to begin with and as such we should blame the fan much more than we blame the player.
| 1,728,247,524
|
Early-Possibility367
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-06
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: Booby traps should be completely and globally legal if they're able to be turned on and off.
|
{'id': 'lshfn1g', 'text': 'Can you think of a scenario where booby traps perform better than an alarm, and instructions to your kids to run to aforementioned gun/peephole combo in the event of an alarm? Maybe if you live in a palace and have your kids sleep on the opposite side of that palace for some reason?\n\nBecause I can think of lots of scenarios where keeping easily armed, highly lethal traps littered around a house full of children could be less than ideal.', 'author': 'math2ndperiod', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1729228975}
|
{'id': 'lshex31', 'text': "> You don't sneakily enter someone else's home without their permission unless you've bad intentions. Do you consider firing a weapon in their direction an appropriate response?\n\nA warning shot, maybe, but I don't think it's appropriate to immediately kill someone with a gun when, for all I know, they just wanted to steal from me. \n\n> Just from what I'm reading online from a quick Google search, the number of accidental shootings in the US is far lower than the number of cases where a person has used a weapon to protect their home.\n\nEven if you go by the sources with highest estimates of self-defense with guns (which are likely orders of magnitude higher than the real number), the overwhelming majority of incidents reported don't involve a single shot being fired. The gun itself is the threat, and is completely visible, and is not comparable to a surprise booby trap.\n\nIf you compare the number of cases where a gun had to be fired to defend oneself from an attacker in the home, the best estimates for that are significantly lower than the number of accidental firearm shootings in the home.", 'author': 'monkeysky', 'score': 0, 'timestamp': 1729228568}
|
1g6a4pg
|
CMV: Booby traps should be completely and globally legal if they're able to be turned on and off.
|
The only argument I've seen against booby traps is that there could arise a scenario where, for the owner's safety, medical staff, police or firefighters may need to enter the home without the consent of the owner.
This could occur if you had, say, a pitfall trap somehow set up in your house that was always actively a trap; a paramedic enters your home to attempt to save your life, and suddenly they fall through and get hurt.
If, however, I had a button by the side of my bed that I could activate that caused traps to activate or deactivate, that should be totally fine if used appropriately.
If I hear a noise downstairs and the source of that noise has not announced itself, it's a threat. I can use a gun in plenty of states to eliminate that threat. A gun which has a "button" in the form of a trigger which then harms/kills the threat.
That's no different from pressing a button near my bed that suddenly releases my 16 hungry pet alligators into the room alongside an oil slick. The threat is hurt and/or eliminated because I pressed a trigger.
Pressing the trigger while the aforementioned medical staff, police etc. are entering should be considered the same as shooting at them with a gun as you're actively trying to harm them. Cameras and apps could also be involved, similar to a Ring doorbell. In order to set off the traps, you have to access the trigger through an app which shows you cameras so that people who do activate it are fully aware, legally, of who they're activating the traps on, and the app could also include identification procedures.
So medical staff, police etc. could have a shoulder pad or something which electronically transmits the data to the app, which then shows on the display of the camera feed that they are even more positively identified.
| 1,729,226,339
|
MHSevven
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-18
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: "Accurate" representation in media isn't all it's cracked up to be
|
{'id': 'lsuld4x', 'text': 'If the implication is that a personality disorder causes certain behavior then the book should at least be accurate enough to reality in that the disorder actually does cause said behavior. \n\nPeople with disorders have to live with the media\'s portrayal of them. If you have a disorder you know what it is, how it affects your life, the problems and challenges you face, there is a lot that goes into it. If you tell someone you have a disorder, or they find out some other way, it\'s impossible to efficiently give them all of that information in a way that they understand, so they fill in the gaps and assume things about you from the media they\'ve consumed which means they probably have incorrect ideas. \n\nThat\'s why media depictions of disorders are so important. I\'m not saying they have to be 100% correct, because like you said different people with the same named disorder are different so it\'s impossible to have a 100% accurate depiction, but the problem is that disorders are typically portrayed not just inaccurately, but inaccurately in a negative way. That\'s the problem.\n\nIt also gets a bit annoying when the disorder becomes a trope and so lazy writers latch onto it as an easy way to make a character. They always focus on the same narrow few characteristics of a disorder which leaves the public only knowing that. If the writers were more interested in exploring different varied aspects of a disorder instead of just the lazy fallback into "character had ASPD therefore soulless killing machine" there would be more interesting stories. Tropes get boring in addition to being damaging to all of the real life people with ASPD who aren\'t killers.', 'author': 'iosefster', 'score': 5, 'timestamp': 1729436229}
|
{'id': 'lsrv4j0', 'text': '>So, when we demand that media representation be "accurate," what does that even mean?\n\nThe expectation is can be a variety of things. Some people may want more positive stories. Some may want stories that reflect experiences that they can relate to. Some people may want more stories in general. Some may not want certain characteristics to rely on tropes or assumptions that already make things more difficult for them. \n\nPeople from all walks of life desire this. They may not talk about it the same way. But people care when adaptations of books or video games are accurate to the source material. People care when they see men who may not fit into the mold of conventional beauty standards be the punch line. People may be upset to see the only black or Hispanic character act nothing like them or anyone they know. \n\n>But maybe, just maybe, we should focus more on creating complex, nuanced characters that feel like real people, rather than trying to hit some kind of "accuracy" benchmark. Because there is none in many cases. It\'s often pure social labeling.\n\nIsn\'t creating more accurate characters creating nuanced characters though? This topic can also be expanded to who is getting their work pushed to the masses. Is a story being told by a person who has lived that experience or someone who has done the research to talk to people who have lived that experience? \n\nI don\'t want to relate it to like an identity. So I will say, what if someone adapted the story from a popular video game and got key facts wrong. Couldn\'t the fans be upset about that? Sure it could still be a good movie, but it\'s not entirely accurate. I think when we talk about groups of people who have been underrepresented in media there is a concern that these stories do come off as stereotyping or generalizing behavior/ways of thinking that these people don\'t necessarily do. \n\n>But I think we\'re getting bogged down in the details and losing sight of the bigger picture. Fiction is supposed to be a reflection of reality, not a mirror image.\n\nThere are tons of books, movies, shows, games, etc. out there. I think it\'s fair to critique those stories and desire something different. I also think it\'s important to mention that even if you get to the point where can create something as a person who may be a part of an underrepresented group, you end up being labeled as making stuff as that thing. \n\nYou\'re an autistic author, gay author, black author, instead of just an author. And this isn\'t necessarily done by people consuming media, but by the way things are green lit, funded, and marketed. So it is important to factor in stories that feel true to a lived experience. Those stories can be complex and nuanced.', 'author': 'pessipesto', 'score': 1, 'timestamp': 1729386383}
|
1g7mfr3
|
CMV: "Accurate" representation in media isn't all it's cracked up to be
|
I'm about to say something that might get me roasted, but hear me out. I think the emphasis on "accurate" representation of social groups and experiences in media is overblown. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's not important at all, but I think we're putting too much stock in the idea that fiction can (or should) perfectly capture the intricacies of, say, the autistic experience or the immigrant experience.
Newsflash: humans are ridiculously diverse. We're all weirdos in our own ways, and there's no one "right" way to be autistic or an immigrant or any other label you can think of. So, when we demand that media representation be "accurate," what does that even mean? Are we expecting a character to tick every box on the checklist of traits associated with their group? A checklist created by whom? Because that's just not how people work.
I mean, think about it. If a show or movie tries to portray autism "accurately," they're inevitably going to get it "wrong" for some people on the spectrum. Same with any other group. It's like trying to draw a circle around a cloud – it's just not gonna happen.
I read the YA novel *I am not a serial killer* by Dan Wells. As far as I am concerned (I tried to browse out of curiosity), John, the protagonist, isn't like the average person who actually has Antisocial Personality Disorder. The series kind of assumes that ASD = violence and cruelty and possibly serial murder, when in fact that's an over-simplification and sensationalisation. Does that mean John's character isn't well-rounded? Not at all, he has an amazing character arc and heś relatable and seems realistic. In fact, if the protrayal of ASD was "accurate", the moral the author waned to convey wouldn't make any sense.
What's the alternative? Tokenism? Stereotypes? Those are definitely not the answers. But maybe, just maybe, we should focus more on creating complex, nuanced characters that feel like real people, rather than trying to hit some kind of "accuracy" benchmark. Because there is none in many cases. It's often pure social labeling.
I'm not saying that representation doesn't matter. Of course, it does. But I think we're getting bogged down in the details and losing sight of the bigger picture. Fiction is supposed to be a reflection of reality, not a mirror image.
| 1,729,383,111
|
Confident-Fan-57
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-20
|
2024_fall
|
CMV: If someone does something because of something you said, it is not your fault.
|
{'id': 'lsmydhq', 'text': '> However, holistically, I would blame Hitler since he created and set up the institution that allowed for those killings.\n\nHe build those institutions with words. Do you think he made Germany what it was by crafting with his hands like clay? No, it was words. He told people to do things.', 'author': 'deep_sea2', 'score': 9, 'timestamp': 1729310405}
|
{'id': 'lslypja', 'text': ">Words are just noises.\n\nThat is just factually incorrect. Words may be comprised of mouth and throat noises, but their purpose is to convey *meaning*. It is not the *words* *themselves* that hurt people. It is the meaning those words carry. It is the meaning those words convey. That's what hurts people. Words ain't just wind, buddy", 'author': 'prollywannacracker', 'score': 7, 'timestamp': 1729295416}
|
1g6uctu
|
CMV: If someone does something because of something you said, it is not your fault.
|
If I were to go and say something horrible to someone else that led them to cry, that would not be my fault. I made the choice to say something to them, and they made the choice to cry. Words are just noises. They are something that we use to communicate. It is different than punching someone because that is physically causing your nerves to send pain signals to your brain. Saying something mean might have you feel a certain way, but the effect isn't as direct as a punch. If you get punched, you feel pain; we know that. If you call someone fat, a different person might feel something different, but that doesn't make it the fault of the person who called someone else fat. Words are just like songs; they are noises that have meaning and inflict emotion. If I played a song that caused someone to off themselves, that would not be my fault, regardless of what song it was. They made the choice. A noise is not a good enough reason for anyone to do anything. If I told someone to off themselves and they did, that is also not my fault. A noise is not a good enough reason for anyone to do anything. Words are a way of communication and any action that someone takes from their words are of their own volition. People who say something "offensive" are just saying what they want. You choose to take it as offensive. This includes the worst forms of derogatory slurs against people. If you use one and someone does something because of the slur you said, their action is not your fault. You may be morally wrong, or you may be racist or sexist, but you are not liable for the action that the other person did.
Sorry for all the hypotheticals, but that is the best way I can explain it. Simply, my claim is that a word does not create an action. A choice creates and action, and therefore, the person who said the word cannot be liable for the action.
| 1,729,290,165
|
TTVBy_The_Way
|
nan
|
nan
|
2024-10-18
|
2024_fall
|
End of preview. Expand
in Data Studio
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 16